Turnless MP is NOT True Civilization At Heart

DJ RRebel · November 4, 2002, 09:45

Well ... let me first start by saying my first real experience in multiplayer took me about 5 hours before even entering the game ... the MP is so shoddy, that I am actually considering returning the game, as as much as I am a Civ fan, there really is no excuse for having Multiplayer written in big letters on the front of the package, only for it to take 5 hours to get a game started. But anyhow ... lol ... there are too many other complait threads going on ... I want to talk about something that will hopefully be a little more fun to discuss ...

To begin ... let me say, that we were 3 people who entered the first MP set-up room ... all were under 200 ping ... and I was around 150 or a bit less.

Don't ask me how ... lol ... but we lost one person on the way into the next set-up page ... but we decided to continue anyhow ...

We player a turnless game, with the timer set to slow ...

And yes ... there was some considerable lag ... but I want to discuss another point ...

THE JOY OF TWEAKING !!!

Having time limits forcing you to play and not tweek/perfect your territory, is simply NOT civilization ... In ancient history, people had decades to plan and develop where their next cities would grow ... with time limits, I found myself not moving my new settlers a couple of turns, while calculating the most efficient placement for my next city ...

Losing extremely valuable turns at the beginning of a Civ game simply for planning out ahead ... is not Civilization.

Not being able to manually move all you pieces in time without even planning a little bit ... is not Civilization ... at some points, I didn't even have enough time to move all my pieces ... and if I stopped to figure out the most efficient terrain improments, half my units would lose their turns ...

This sort of innefficiency in playing Civ, is not only a guaranteed loss ... but it's also painful in knowing you would have done things differently and more efficiently ... the opposite of that painful feeling is exactly why we all love the game ...

Don't get me wrong ... I'm not complaining against Firaxis for adding these gametypes ... but in the future, I really have no intention of playing anything else in multiplayer but Turn based games with no time limit ... it's simply NOT Civilized Civilization !!! lol

To me .. the ONLY way to play Civ, is being able to place your cities where you want ... to use your workers in the most efficient ways posible ... and to be able to tweek all posible variables to the maximum efficientcy posible ...

Some of you will probably argue that as long as everyone has the same disadvantage, then it's fair ... and that's totally true ... but I want to be clear that I'm not saying that ... I'm saying that even if it's fair ... it's not Civ ... or at least in my opinion !!!

Maybe if there were zero lag ... and we had the ability to slow the turns down substantially ... and a pause button so that we could actually take a couple of minutes to press our F1 to F6 buttons and tweek/assess our empires ... but even then ... I really don't think it would be the same ...

Anyhow ... that's just my opinion ... so in the end ... I'm not saying turnless will never be good (after the million or so patches that are painfully needed) ... I'm just saying that it isn't the Civ that I spent a million or so hours playing and loving every minute of it !!!

bla bla bla ... lol ... end of rant ...

DJ RRebel · November 4, 2002, 10:02

ouch ... I work nights ... so my excuse for so many spelling mistakes is that I haven't slept yet ... lol ... I just want to restate an important sentence so that there is no confusion !!!

Don't get me wrong ... I'm not complaining against Firaxis for adding these gametypes ... but in the future, I really have no intention of playing anything else in multiplayer but Turn based games with no time limit ... [playing anything other than turnbased with no timelimits (or an extremely long one)] is simply NOT Civilized Civilization !!! lol

So I'm saying I recommend playing Turned based multiplayer games ... without time-limits that make you do things you otherwise would not have done ...

ok ... lol ... I think it's clear now !!!

Sorry ... and thanks !!!

Terser · November 4, 2002, 10:09

Time limits...simultaneous movement mode...to each his own, I suppose.

Personally, if I wanted a clickfest I'd go back to Age of Empires II or wait for Rise of Nations. Games with strategic warfare like the Civ series should not be won by the person with the fastest reflexes or the best mousepad.

Just MHO....

DJ RRebel · November 4, 2002, 10:35

agreed !!!

... As I mentioned ... IMHO ... the only way to play Civ, is to go turnbased (non-simultaneous) with very large (or no) time limits ...

Besides, you can always force the end of your turn to hurry things up !!!

Tassadar500 · November 4, 2002, 12:24

I totally agree with you. Did the Bablyonians just build cities in terrible places because they were rushed. No they didnt. So if we were playing a civ we shouldnt be rushed unless we maybe could be playing a game like capture the princess.

Adm.Naismith · November 4, 2002, 13:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Nuclear Master
Did the Bablyonians just build cities in terrible places because they were rushed. No they didnt.

In real life? Sure, any civilization build and abandon many cities because they become not more "in the right place": I'm speaking about commercial route abandoned (because sailing was better than walking with a slow caravan thru the Asia) and "lost cities", speaking about exausted mines, or dryed rivers and lakes (desertification of the North Africa and south of Italy).

Not to mention that most of cities aren't "built" in better place by some God: they develop around any good aggregation point, and prosper or decline for many reasons.

On a gameplay point of view, I can understand that a turnless mode is way different from common Civ player experience, but it should be interesting anyway (I haven't PTW, so I can't judge by first hand).
I suppose that more "automation" is the real workaround of the whole time problem: a leader should focus on real critical decision and live with less than perfect generals, city major and so on...

BTW, I hate when my best friend waste an hour balancing every single unit movement in boardgame or mp games

, so I'm a little biased on this topic

candybo · November 4, 2002, 13:32

Tho I haven't picked up PtW yet (dang work thing), I would tend to agree on principle. My favorite part of pc games is the thinking, not the clicking. That's what consoles are for, in my opinion. Off Topic: Except for EA's NHL series. It rocks! :On Topic. Even tho I don't maximize every possible efficiency myself (boring), for me, that's the biggest point of resource management games.

ruby_maser · November 4, 2002, 14:04

I think that in turnless and simultaneous play the person with the most efficient use of the controls is gonna come out on top unfortunately, but another thing I have heard is that while negotiations are going on (even between HUMAN opponents) the clock still does not stop. There is no time built in to consider options. Either some tweaks will need to be made, or I will try my luck at finding some steady longterm opponents who don't mind the turn-based aspect.

alva · November 4, 2002, 15:00

In these modes, voice-chat is an absolute must IMO.
(not that I have such a thing)

Randolph · November 4, 2002, 15:21

Does simultaneous have to be like this also? Can you play a no time limit simultaneous game? Note: I actually have PtW, but not here (work). I was looking forward to simultaneous because I thought that it would be essentially “good old Civ” but that everyone played they’re turns at the same time. It would be unfortunate you were forced to have turn limits in this mode.

Also in turnless, you said you set it on “slow”. Is that the slowest mode? If a turnless game was slow enough it would retain many of the aspects of Civ. If options like this don’t exist hopefully they’ll be added in patches (something to make up for selling us a semi-working product). I’d like to see slow games where each player has a certain amount of “pause time”.

statusperfect · November 4, 2002, 16:15

Turn clock makes chess more fun. Same goes for civ. Though i prefer turn-based for friendly games and simultaneous for more competitive games.

Wittlich · November 4, 2002, 16:48

I concur that the "timer" needs to be tweeked. The current setting of "slow" is not slow enough.

alva · November 4, 2002, 17:31

you should try it on fast

[FX]Roman · November 4, 2002, 18:10

Quote:

and if I stopped to figure out the most efficient terrain improments, half my units would lose their turns ...

It looks like you had a good ping... But it seems like your brain had a really bad one.

neonext · November 4, 2002, 23:25

huh? that's all you get to pick from, slow, medium, and fast???

NeOmega · November 4, 2002, 23:32

slow medium and fast adjust themselves as empires get bigger....

back to the topic, I agree, there are far better RTS's than Civ III turnless could ever hope to be.

I will never play a turnless game, you can bank on that.

I mean, wheres the diplomacy in turnless, and what is Civ III without diplomacy?

notyoueither · November 5, 2002, 00:17

BTW, do not confuse Turnless with Simultaneous.

I agree Turnless is trash for the RTS masses. I have always laughed that they call that 'strategy'... Yah, right.

Simultaneous OTOH.

is quite fun. You are all moving at once. He may move that unit, and then you, or...

You can also set the Simultaneous clock to None, ie, no clock and no time limit.

Simultaneous is probably the best of both worlds. You do not have to wait for all the other players to move before you do, and you have the option of taking as much time as is required for your move. People hosting especially need this, since lag is worse for them, they often run out of time to consider everything with even a slow clock. Especially if they become the largest empire.

War4ever · November 5, 2002, 02:30

BTW did any of you play civ2 MP in simul mode, your right, civ should be played turnbased, but in civ2 it was amazing how quick the game did go in simul mode.....

and lets be honest, there are way better rts games out there, but no better tbs games IMO.....

Adm.Naismith · November 5, 2002, 07:24

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Simultaneous OTOH.

is quite fun. You are all moving at once. He may move that unit, and then you, or...

Simultaneous is probably the best of both worlds. You do not have to wait for all the other players to move before you do, and you have the option of taking as much time as is required for your move. People hosting especially need this, since lag is worse for them, they often run out of time to consider everything with even a slow clock. Especially if they become the largest empire.

I was one of the lobbist for introducing Simultaneous in Civ III, and I'm considering to buy PTW just to give a try at Simul mode.

Just 2 questions for you, if you already played it:
a) Can you confirm I can play Simultaneous in Single player mode, too (AKA every other player is AI)?
b) Do you find the game stable enough in Simultaneous mode (AFAIK most of crashes and bug alert are related at internet game)?

Thank you in advance

Sarxis · November 5, 2002, 08:28

I'm sticking with TBS.

metalhead · November 5, 2002, 15:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith

I was one of the lobbist for introducing Simultaneous in Civ III, and I'm considering to buy PTW just to give a try at Simul mode.

Just 2 questions for you, if you already played it:
a) Can you confirm I can play Simultaneous in Single player mode, too (AKA every other player is AI)?
b) Do you find the game stable enough in Simultaneous mode (AFAIK most of crashes and bug alert are related at internet game)?

Thank you in advance

Answer to (a) - Well, you could go into MP, host a game, and launch with yourself as the only player. Add a few AI civs, and you could then try out the simultaneous mode at your leisure without other people bugging you.

Answer to (b) - So far, the only games I've been able to play are simultaneous. The host has frozen every time on the other settings (when the game has actually launched), but simultaneous seems to work OK, it isn't even that laggy, although unit animations are pretty jerky. Of course, this is with 2 human players only. I have yet to play a working game with more than 2 people. So, I would say, at least right now, it seems to me that simultaneous is the most stable mode.

As for turnless, I think everyone owes it to themselves to try a turnless game with accelerated production and a fast timer. It will likely drive you crazy after 10 minutes or so.

Wittlich · November 5, 2002, 16:42

Quote:

Originally posted by metalhead
As for turnless, I think everyone owes it to themselves to try a turnless game with accelerated production and a fast timer. It will likely drive you crazy after 10 minutes or so.

Actually, my partner and I (mistakenly) tried it. You say try it for 10 minutes?! We were both a basket case in just the first 2 minutes!

Need-less-to-say, we restarted a new game in the turn-based mode.

ajerzguy · November 5, 2002, 20:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith

I was one of the lobbist for introducing Simultaneous in Civ III, and I'm considering to buy PTW just to give a try at Simul mode.

Just 2 questions for you, if you already played it:
a) Can you confirm I can play Simultaneous in Single player mode, too (AKA every other player is AI)?
b) Do you find the game stable enough in Simultaneous mode (AFAIK most of crashes and bug alert are related at internet game)?

Thank you in advance

You can play simutaneous in single player thru mutiplayer LAN. Set up # of computer opponents. Presently in one now for more than 2 hrs with no crashes at all.

DJ RRebel · November 9, 2002, 16:48

Wittlich ... I can only imagine !!! lol

Must have been a nightmare !!!

Anyhow ... let's hope the game options get developed a bit more with future patches !!!

neonext · November 10, 2002, 00:15

It's amazing to me how many people can knock the turnless mode without even trying it.

For those of you who HAVE tried it, you have a valid point by saying it takes away a lot of the strategy involved by making the game have such a faster pace.

There IS still much of the game's strategy involved though, you just don't always have the time to figure it all out, especially if you have a huge empire.

Just realise that the turnless mode is there for people who want the Civ experience, but don't want to wait an eternity for their next turn (btw, this is true in SP and MP). Simultanious mode with a turn time limit is a great way of handling TBS while elminating a lot of the waiting, but it DOES NOT solve the problem.

Also, saying anything like, "if i wanted to play an RTS i would go buy one" is just plain stupid. This game wasn't designed to be a RTS game, so of course it couldn't compete with RTS games. Hell, even calling the turnless mode a RTS game is wrong, because it really isn't real-time. It's semi-real-time. It's basically in between TBS and RTS because there are technically still "turns", they are just on forced timers and on everything from unit turns to city production turns.

Some people just don't have the patience to wait 5 minutes while Mr. Tweek-On-Everything-In-My-Whole-Empire is finishing his turn. For those who do have the patience and want to play civ the way it was meant to, there are plenty of other modes for you to play.

mok · November 10, 2002, 11:58

I have tried turnless mode and to me it does have the feel of an RTS with too much to do.

The interface does not lend itself to turnless mode very well. Data is not displayed in a way that it can be analyzed in a second. When your turn rolls the unit you had selected changes, adding to confusion(this is a bug IMHO). Being able to affect changes to a city take too much time, you need hot keys for production changes. NEVER allow popups to appear.

My main gripe about it though is that you are unable to set a game clock. Sure they have a "Fast, Normal, SLow" setting, but
why cant the Host decide what the actual times should be? Say, allow him to input the number of seconds allowed in a turn. Or, like a chess clock, the number of seconds allowed in an entire game. Or input a constant into what ever time formula it appears they are using based on game turn.

If Firaxis can give the host control of the game clock, then you can have a game where players are constrained to time limits in managing their world, and then the clock becomes more of a part of the strategy, instead of just some Zurg Rush-like clickfest.

Civ III is very strategy and micromanagement feature rich, and those who "do not want to wait" in multiplay need to buy something else, like Age of Kings or Empire Earth.