Why is there no Multiplayer?

Raider II · November 4, 2001, 04:13

Civ 3 sounds like a very good game, I have yet to buy it.

However, it lacks one thing... Multiplayer ...I would love to play this game against a friend with the AI as well. Waging an eternal war against each other or being the two super powers of the world.

Come on, CTP and CTP2 had Multiplayer (Although I never played it).

I just want to know why it does not have Multiplayer. Maybe just over LAN.

Alex 14 · November 4, 2001, 04:23

Firaxis concentrated hard on the main game (which sounds good), but left multiplayer & scenarios for later - which never came along because of their 'deadline'.

Leonid · November 4, 2001, 04:34

Civ is not a multiplayer game. It takes way to long to finish multiplay, pretty much impossible.

Alex 14 · November 4, 2001, 04:45

Actually i have to disagree with you, CTP2 multiplayer was simple but effective and they completed it quite easily. Firaxis is working on something new beyond Hotseat, Internet, LAN & PBEM, this is the reason for the delay. There is some possiblilty that they will cancel it but it wont be because Civ isn't a multiplayer game.

Raider II · November 4, 2001, 04:53

So is Firaxis making a Multiplayer version?
If so, will it be in an Expansion Set or a patch?

With regard to the Multiplayer game being too long, why can't you just save the game like in Single Player and continue to play some other time.

I also wanted to play a long lasting Multiplayer game. That should be more fun than Single Player as you have a human oponant as well as the AI.

Leonid · November 4, 2001, 05:06

I wish people were that reliable. What planet are ya living on son?

I find that 95% of peeps ya play with never show back up to continue where you left off. If a game takes a week of nightly meetings to finish then the game is inherently flawed as a multiplayer game.

Most strangers don't have the patience or good sportmanship to do that.

I tried doing this with civ 2 way back when MS Zone made it playable for the first time. No one ever came back to finish up. Especially if you are the one who is winning.. they are mysterious "no shows".

I mean over on the zone all they play is like 1 on 1 games on a tiny map with 10 second p turns. Quake anyone?

Lord Maxwell · November 4, 2001, 05:14

It is easy to make Civ 3 alot faster as a multiplayer game. Just make simultaneous turns simultaneous. (Everyone gives orders to units, but the units don't move "inside" the turn. They move once everyone has given orders and then they move at the same time.) It would cut multiplayer time down alot. (I _hate_ the round robin system of Civ pbem. It would be so much faster if everyone just sent orders to a moderator.)

I mean, it's been in stars for ages now...

Rasputin · November 4, 2001, 06:12

no MP becuase they hoping everyone buys Civ 3 now and then also buy the MP version when it comes out , same way Sid handled Civ 2 MP ...

The search for more money continues ......

Hydey · November 4, 2001, 06:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Rasputin
no MP becuase they hoping everyone buys Civ 3 now and then also buy the MP version when it comes out , same way Sid handled Civ 2 MP ...

The search for more money continues ......

I feel that I must agree with you Raz.

Now I must seek help so this can never happen again.

I know