TurnLess Multiplayer, implimentation.

[markusf]

Similtanous movement of Civ II, allowed all civs to move at the same time. If i where to do something similar for civ 3 i would allow all civs to move at the same time, and the second someone sneak attacks, i would revert to turn based mode for those two civs.

IF there are 7 players, and white player attacked green player, then green player couldn't move his units until the white player had finished moving his. Everyone else could move thier units at the same time. As soon as a peace treaty or cease fire is signed everyone would move at the same time again. Would this be better then having everyone move at the same time? (currently the host wins every battle because of speed)

[Jon Shafer]

That seems kind of... disorganized and complicated don't you think? I mean sure making it turnless will cut down on the time needed to play the game multiplayer (which is quite necassary), but that just seems a little odd, maybe it's just me.

[markusf]

Originally posted by Trip
That seems kind of... disorganized and complicated don't you think? I mean sure making it turnless will cut down on the time needed to play the game multiplayer (which is quite necassary), but that just seems a little odd, maybe it's just me.

Its just you... Its nearly fully implimented in civ2 Just has some "Issues"

[Skanky Burns]

I'm not seeing how that would work.

Would one player not involved in the war be able to move their units more than people in the war, as they would not be subject to turn limitations. Would some fast players be in the 1900s, while slower players would still be stuck in BC?

[whosurdaddy]

Could someone explain to me what is turnless multiplayer. I dont get it

[theEntity]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
I'm not seeing how that would work.

Would one player not involved in the war be able to move their units more than people in the war, as they would not be subject to turn limitations. Would some fast players be in the 1900s, while slower players would still be stuck in BC?

Assuming "turnless" doesn't really mean turnless, but rather simultaneous, it will work something like this:

All civs make their moves at the same time, so if two opposing settlers are adjacent to the same destination square, the fastest player will get his settler first.

The're are still turns though, and as in CIV3 today, a unit can only move once per turn. There are (at least) two possibilities for when a turn ends: either when all civs have finished their turn, or when a time limit is out.

With the first option, all players wil have to wait each turn for the slowest player, but with the second option, the slowest player will probably not get around to moving all his units.

[DrFell]

Yeah it'd be nice to see something like this in the game - or maybe some way of equalizing the unit move lag for all the players. Civ2 sim just doesn't work as well as it could have (host gets 4 moves to everyone else's 1).

[player1]

Simultaniuos turns are good way to get quick NET MP.

But, you'll need good internet connection (at least as good as needed for Startcraft or some FPS) if you wanna play that way on WEB.


P.S.
I just hope that expansion would include Hotseat (Must have!) and PBEM (would be nice add-on).

[SpencerH]

I cant see game movement being essentially based on modem speed. Wouldnt a more rational approach be that the movements occur simultaneously once all the data has reached a central game server?

[DrFell]

Which was what I meant by saying unit movement lag needs to be equalised somehow.

[markusf]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
I'm not seeing how that would work.

Would one player not involved in the war be able to move their units more than people in the war, as they would not be subject to turn limitations. Would some fast players be in the 1900s, while slower players would still be stuck in BC?

no.... Everyone moves at the same time, when the last person has finished moving their units the next "turn" rolls around. What your thinking of is real time...

[Captain]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I cant see game movement being essentially based on modem speed. Wouldnt a more rational approach be that the movements occur simultaneously once all the data has reached a central game server?

do you mean like it was in Risk 2? every player submits their orders, and then once that's done, the movement is resolved simultaneously. I would think this would be more rational than whoever clicks first has that unit move first.

But it would need a priority list for resolution. Here's my solution.

For example:
player A moves 1 settler and 1 spearman into square (10,10) and a warrior explores square (15, 10) and another attacks player B's city in square (12, 12).
Player B moves 1 warrior into square (10,10) and another towards (15, 10) while retrieving a spearman in (12, 11) into city (12,12).
Player C moves 1 horse into square (15,10) then (15, 9).
Player D moves 1 horse into squares (15, 11) then (15,10).
Player E moves 1 horse into squares (15, 11) then (14,11).

What happens?
i) Conflict in (10, 10) between B's warrior and A's settler/spear combo.
ii) Conflict in B's city square (12,12). Does B's spear reinforce the city before A's warrior attacks?
iii) HUGE Conflict in (15,10). At some point, A, B, C, D and E have units moving onto (15,10). But Who gets there first? Who is defending? Who fights who anyways?


My opinion:

1) Move fastest units along 1st step in path & resolve conflicts.
Player C to (15,10)
Player D to (15,11)
Player E to (15,11)

Both player D and E are moving into the square, therefore they are both ATTACKING. Attack values are used for both, no terrain or fortification bonuses.

Assume Player D kills Player E. Becomes veteran.

2) Move fastest units along 2nd step. Resolve conflicts.
Player C moves to (15,9).
Player D moves to (15,10).

Here player C avoided conflict.

3) Slower units move and resolve any remaining conflicts.
Player A moves warr to (15,10)
Player B moves warr to (15,10).

Player D is already there with wounded veteran horse (3hp). D's horse is defender, gets terrain bonus (plains, 0%). A and B are attacker. Combat resolved like so:
Whoever owns the tile (by culture) takes first shot at all others. Then the others are randomly assigned in sequence.
Let's say no one owns this tile. Therefore, random assignment.

Example:
Player B (3hp) goes first, then D (3hp), then A (3hp).
Player B takes 1 hp off D(2) and A (2).
D takes 1 hp off B(2) and A(1).
A takes 1 hp off B(1) , but not D(1).
B takes 1 hp off D (1), but not A (1).
D misses both.
A takes 1 hp off D (killed) but not B(1).
B takes 1 hp off A (killed).

Player B wins with warrior at 1 hp. Turns veteran and gets 1 hp back (now at 2).

Now player A moved spear settler to (10,10). Player B moved warrior to (10,10). Spear beats warrior. No problem.

If warrior beats spear, it moves onto the tile. Settler captured since it also moved onto tile.

If there is more than 1 defender, attacking unit fights all defenders in sequence until it dies or all defenders die. highest defender goes first, highest attackers go first.

Now player A moves warr to B's city. B pulls in spearman. Since this is B's own city, B plays the defender. It gets city and terrain bonuses, but no "fortified" status. Perhaps this will also give extra value to cultural borders.

all steps 1-3 happen quickly so there's less waiting, but you will be able to see all conflict your troops are involved with. There should be a turn summary report you can view in step 8.

4) Espionage carried out.

5) Border Adjustments (city losses, city growth)
6) Bldgs built. Units built.
7) Techs researched.

8) Give NEW orders. Produces a set of orders for cities, units, and spies. Can be changed anytime before step 9.

8) Open the diplomacy table. Make agreements.

9) Submit set of orders to central server/host for resolution.

Do you think this makes sense? What do you think the order should be?

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Captain

do you mean like it was in Risk 2? every player submits their orders, and then once that's done, the movement is resolved simultaneously. I would think this would be more rational than whoever clicks first has that unit move first.

But it would need a priority list for resolution. Here's my solution.



Do you think this makes sense? What do you think the order should be?

Here, here! Listen to this man! Let me call you my "brother in simultaneous execution of turn".

I'm not crazy. Just read the old classic link mentioned in Essential Civ 3 list. (click here to see the concept as ChrisShaffer and me proposed years ago)

[Grrr]

I think that turnless multiplayer is good, but not with the pause and idiotic methods of the first poster.

PBEM and Hotseat are the ways I prefer for MP.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith


Here, here! Listen to this man! Let me call you my "brother in simultaneous execution of turn".

I'm not crazy. Just read the old classic link mentioned in Essential Civ 3 list. (click here to see the concept as ChrisShaffer and me proposed years ago)

Hey, what ever happened with that list? It's got some FANTASTIC ideas on it!

Is that the new list that Korn is trying to start up again for the xpansion pack?

btw Adm Naismith, I haven't seen you post in civ3 general for a while. where you been?

Q: how would wonder construction be resolved?

[Inverse Icarus]

i used to play a game called "Lords of the Realm" by Sierra. It doesnt work on NT based os's (NT, 2K, XP) so i havent played it in a while.

anyway, it was turn based, but everyone did their turn at once. when you completed your turn, you hit "end turn" and then you just waited until everyone else finished their turn. while you waited you could conduct diplomacy / send tributes / buy goods.

the problem with that was that me and my friend often ended up with "who's going to move their army first" standoffs. each army had a movement limit per turn (about 10 or so if i remember correctly) so if the armies were 11 spaces away from eachother, we had a standoff. no one would move until the other did, or the timer was waning.

it's pretty funny to have 2 opposing armies staring eachother in the face, both decently fortified, constantly getting reinforced by more conscripted troops.

(on a side note, in one such game i built a second army that he didnt notice, and i sieged his main castle. he troops moved back after that one... heh)

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Captain


Q: how would wonder construction be resolved?

great question. especially if 2 players blew a great leader on the same wonder. Firaxis?

[Grrr]

Firaxis should indeed check issues like those outlined in this thread. There could be serious problems. And 'play the world' could be as Beta as Civ III was itself.

[Inverse Icarus]

i know for a fact i wont be using the turnless mode (if goddamned firaxis gives me the option not too before they have to patch it) because me and my friends lan / tcp-ip all the time

and if they dont fix the computer-lag issues, during the time we wait, we can play a game of civ2

[Swissy]

Originally posted by whosurdaddy
Could someone explain to me what is turnless multiplayer. I dont get it

This is the question everyone should be asking. Not that Firaxis will answer it, Infogrammes has a knife to their throat ready to slit if they reveal one scrap of information outside of the Infogrammes master marketing plan.

As we post the Infogrammes flunkies are scanning the various Civ boards to determine what we are saying about "turnless" MP and what we expect. They will compare this to what they have already designed and begin their spin.

Using my theory, I believe they have turned Civ3 into a RTS game. But knowing the Civ fans would bring down a load of hurt on them if they revealed this, they will slowly start spinning us until we start to actually like the idea of RTS Civ3. I say this as simo-MP Civ2 was well received and having a similar system for Civ3 would be expected by most Civ fans.

[Hoot]

Lets go with the company line that they didn't want to put out MP until they could do it right. If they've done it right (so soon, in my mind), why haven't they given us any info on this turnless business? Wait, this is starting to sound like a rant...

A turnless turn-based game sounds great, unless its a RTS game. If it is, I'd just as soon play AOE. Maybe its almost-turn-less. Simultaneous on everything that can be done at once, but in turn on everything else. Does that sound like an innovative improvement? Sounds familiar...

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Captain
Hey, what ever happened with that list? It's got some FANTASTIC ideas on it!

Is that the new list that Korn is trying to start up again for the xpansion pack?

Not AFAIK, because The List (main and Essential) where quite different from the game we got with Civ III release. No way some patches nor the XP can change that.

XP is too near completion, no way we can suggest things that Firaxis will include.

btw Adm Naismith, I haven't seen you post in civ3 general for a while. where you been?

Well, two main things kept me away from the forum:
1) I have a different job (my company had a "spin-off" of Information Technology department) so I'm losing most of my free time for a job I don't like anymore. No good mood for chatting on a game forum.
2) I had put too many hopes in a Civ III as a great step forward in gaming. I had too many hopes in Sid and (early development) Brian.
I play the game somewhat, but I don't like it too much. Many "old forum" people changed their mind (see Velociryx, a great strategist that proved how the game is "broken by design"). So I wander around here sometime, but I don't want to bother people with my opinions, nor start any flame war, so I don't post often.

Q: how would wonder construction be resolved?

I suppose many solution can be found. First, I find silly the concept of "rush building to the end" by great leader: I could admit a leader effect as a percentage of improvement, e.g. a 20% building cost reduction - or shield production improvement.
Second, I'd vote for Wonder twins: if you are building a Great wonder but are unable to finish it, you should chose to switch to a different building, but with a serious penalty (i.e. reuse the material, not the labour), or keep up with the wonder that will end as a minor (local) limited wonder, with reduced benefit vs the full Great wonder.

You shouldn't be able to start this "limited wonder" building after the Great wonder completion: this limit will give a difference versus standard Great /Small wonder tha game already have.

[sekong]

It's all from civ2MP. if you ever play some other MP game like AOE/AOK, there are better solutions. The key is goto function and auto-combat. Else they want to keep civ as a board game.

[Alexander's Horse]

I'm against turnless and would prefer the simult solution. Turnless makes the game RTS and everyone knows RTS is a just a mindless clickathon.

[sekong]

Thanks to turnless, I played pretty many civ2MP recently.

Originally posted by UberKruX
i know for a fact i wont be using the turnless mode (if goddamned firaxis gives me the option not too before they have to patch it) because me and my friends lan / tcp-ip all the time

and if they dont fix the computer-lag issues, during the time we wait, we can play a game of civ2

[sekong]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I'm against turnless and would prefer the simult solution. Turnless makes the game RTS and everyone knows RTS is a just a mindless clickathon.

I guess the "turnless" will be semi-turn, which means close to simult.
RTS is strategy games by the way, just need to be quick. Maybe Markuf would try and like it.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by sekong
RTS is strategy games by the way, just need to be quick. Maybe Markuf would try and like it.

Sekong, we know in RTS strategy has a role (Real Time Strategy, we all know that part of the name ). Fact is, you aren't playing against Human (in MP) or AI strategy (in SP): you are mostly playing against his/her/its speed.

Any modern computer is way more quick than a human clicking around the map, you know. In fact RTS developers have trouble balancing game interface reaction to human command, AI pace of movement, graphics "bells&whistles" and essential part (AI strategy) of the game.

In a turn, or simultaneous execution turn based game, the developer can ignore a part of the equation (computer speed in order execution) in change of a greater attention required about a strong, deep AI (or its best simulation available assuming developers abilities and development money and time constrain).

Playing RTS is like for a human player to accept a sport "handicap" to help the limited AI to be a challenge. Others handicap are often used both in RTS and TBS games, like better AI productions, better AI start position, better results in "random" combat results, etc.

That said, you are perfectly entitled to enjoy to put your speed as your personal "handicap" (I mean this in a sporting sense, of course) against a machine, or to add this part of the challenge against others human player in MP.

But that subtract to the "strategic" part of the game, simply because a defined resurces must be shared to accomplish one more game development target: speed. You can't have the cake and eat it: more attention to the speed, less devoted to strategy (assuming others parts, as sounds&graphics, are equal or better than in TBS).

I must also note that speed element fits very well in tactical simulation (i.e. a soldier platoon attacking an enemy bunker, or similar "commandos" simulation), while it fits less and less in a larger strategic simulation, where in reality you should have many assistant helping you with micromanagement of situation and in game you must do micromanagement by yourself or live with a bunch of fast stupid AI assistant - again, speed in place of smartness.
Of course IMHO, that is.

[sekong]

Thanks for the input. Due to time limit, here is some quick points:
1) Unlike TBS like civ, In RTS, you are not controlling each unit for each movement. You make critical decisions, like goto, building, then the AI will take over and execute yr commands. When you MP with human player, it's a matter of make most important decission in a limited time. It's same for both side. Smart AI/faster computer will help us, not handicap. Of course, in SP, it's not, but we talking about MP here. Therefore each RTS game will be different, depending on their AI and command system. In a good game design, better AI, strategy will play a larger part than speed.
2) Micromanagement: it exists in both RTS and TBS. In RTS, it's about a decission making of how to use yr own time. In TBS, it's a matter of both you and other players' time.
3) In long TBS game like civ, maybe we don't have to compete with speed, instead, we are compete with time. One reason I like RTS, is that it generally take 1-3 hr to finish, which is a reasonable time. For civ, you know how long it takes. Maybe you don't, because most of them are not finished.
4) In conclussion: changes will make MPciv3 game shorter are welcome. One good idea I see recently, is limit MP game in one or two era.