2-Player Civ

DarkCloud · September 21, 2000, 18:46

In the new game, Civ III, there should be an option where two people
can play on the same computer simultaneously.
Are there any good opinions on this?

Shadowstrike · September 21, 2000, 19:55

*Waves hands in front of DarkCloud's face*

Hello?

Actually this already exists. Its called hotseat play. Hotseat plays has its downsides, but these can be circumvented if Firaxis actually works with this part of multiplaying and improves it.

September 21, 2000, 20:40

Well, it would be nice if we could control negotiations in a hotseat game rather than letting the computer do it for us. I mean, its almost impossible to get the result we want from this. And we should see whats going on when the AI moves and allow negotiations with the AI when it calls on us because I've had games where my civ started nuclear wars because I wasn't in command of my civ during that period when the AI is moving.

Seeker · September 21, 2000, 21:11

Shadowstrike: It exists in such a bad form that it may as well not exist.

UltraSonix · September 22, 2000, 04:02

I think they realised hotseat doesn't work properly - it was in the civ2 multiplay, but they took it out for SMAC.

But how about a Settlers 2 system where the screen is divided in half. So the player just do the normal multiplay simultaneous turns-thingy, but that may require two mouses/mice? attached to the computer (maybe one in com1, one in ps/2 like Settlers2 did).

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

CornMaster · September 22, 2000, 09:39

I thought you meant 2 people sharing one civ. I think that this should be put into Civ 3

------------------
"I'm too out of shape for a long fight so I'll have to kill you fast"
Administrator of the CornEmpire Forum
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

Shadowstrike · September 22, 2000, 18:00

Yes, I know that hotseat play is junk right now. But if you read my post carefully (

) you'll see that I mentioned that if it was improved, it would be worthwhile.

BRENNANonTHEmoor · February 2, 2001, 01:34

I could be wrong but I dont think Civ III is gonna be much better with the online aspect of the game. I cant think of one turn based game that i would enjoy or have played besides axis and allies which is a lot less time consuming. I did play Civ II online and I would either quit or have people quit because of the time. Then I tried playing with stricted time limits which didnt work out either. So my hope for this game is that the IA of the computer oppenent is unpredicted able. After beating CIV many times I just stopped playing it because the computer opponent was too predictable could carry out a war with a barage of units. well the whole diplomacy and yadayadayada

I find myself complaining about the greatest game i have ever played because I know that with some serious work Civ III has the potential to be better!

I have read most of the suggestion and I hope that Sid Meyer reads this ****

marcuspeddle · February 2, 2001, 06:54

The best multiplayer experience I ever had with Civ2 was playing on the university's LAN. Not everyone has LAN access but after finishing the day's classes and preparing classes for the next day we would spend a couple of hours playing Civ2. Negotiating was painless and if one of us got tired of playing we just saved the game and went home. I did get booted from the network a couple of times and while I was trying to get back into the game the computer had taken over my civilisation and buggered things up. Anyway, my friend has moved on but maybe I can find someone else to play Civ3 with me when it comes out.

tniem · February 2, 2001, 16:46

Hotseat seems to me to be the least important way to play MP in Civ III. I want to be able to deceive my friends and I really can't do that if they are staring over my soldiers.

Firaxis, make sure to allow a network game to be saved and played again when everyone gets back together and then I will be happy.