Multiplayer

[unmerged(485425)]

I have done plenty of rts and fps multiplayer games over the years but have never done turn based games online. I have played various Civ games with my brother when going to visit him, we always chose huge maps and lots of AI...and never came close to finishing a game before I had to leave.

So I guess my questions is, how does a multiplayer game of this type play out? Can it be done in an hour or two or should you have the whole day put aside for a game? I guess you choose small maps and play aggressively? Do people drop out as soon as they suffer a heavy loss or think they might not win like some people do in rts games?

I think I would like to play this in multiplayer so am just wondering what to expect.
Thanks!

 

[unmerged(15561)]

Even though the game was released as a single-player for me, most of the design and lack of depth to diplomacy screams multi-player. Also as others have eluded to, if the AI isnt strong enough for middle and end games, players get bored very quickly.

With regards to playing this game online, I guess as long as there is a facility to save the game (and potentially replace players who dont turn up a-night, you can play any sized map and just take your time.

Depending on whether the host will be able to set a timelimit for turns, a game session could potential take up one turn or many.

Also the duration of a game will not only depend on map size and setup, but potentially the victory conditions choosen. Most games SP take upward of 150 turns. So thats along time with 8 players.

Though having a scoring system depending on what you achieved during a game - say max turns 100 could allow players to focus on battling each other to see which scores the most casualties and take over the most cities, versus their losses.

Another thing would be allowing configurable map starts... which I would view as essential for players to start in the goldilocks phase of gameplay.... i.e. when each player has x cities already and x units already, so the real action starts immediately. OR if players have an city/army selection/configuration screen with X points to configure their starting forces/city.

Of course I dont want to build up anyone expectations because Im not and have not been involved in design or implementation of this addon. We can only hope to see what the devs bring us and hope they listen to our suggestions with patching.

 

[unmerged(493757)]

I agree with 2Coats.

I just hope Warlock has simultaneous turn, Simultaneous turn will greatly reduce the time needed to finish a MP game. But i can't think how it won't conflict with the nature of counter spell and dispell in this game. In other tbs or 4x game i've played, there are no feature that can cancel something that is done by other player, like counter spell and dispell in this game.

 

[unmerged(485425)]

Thanks for your replies.

"Though having a scoring system depending on what you achieved during a game - say max turns 100 could allow players to focus on battling each other to see which scores the most casualties and take over the most cities, versus their losses.

Another thing would be allowing configurable map starts... which I would view as essential for players to start in the goldilocks phase of gameplay.... i.e. when each player has x cities already and x units already, so the real action starts immediately. OR if players have an city/army selection/configuration screen with X points to configure their starting forces/city."

These are both good ideas I had not thought about, I hope they are implemented, though I did note your final statement so won't hold my breath too much

A save feature would be great, almost essential for some people I would think.

Simultaneous moves must make things interesting, line up an attack and then the enemy suddenly moves, same with spell casting. Could end up being a race to attack/move before the other person can.
Victory conditions as you say would be very important, I can see the unity spell being switched off by 99% of people unless they alter it a bit.

For me AI is also key, even if they just made it able to create high tier units and be more aggressive sometimes then it would make a huge difference. Might be nice if you could put multiple AI with multiple humans to fill up the map if there are not enough people. Human vs AI would be a bit pointless as things stand at the moment.

Looking forward for the patch at the end of the month, would be pleasantly surprised if the multiplayer is already implemented though as the original date given was August I think.

 

[Gort11]

I always thought that the best way to do multiplayer for a game like this would be simultaneous turns UNTIL a human declares war on another human. Then the game goes to sequential turns. Or at the very least have an in-game switch so that you can change from simultaneous to sequential manually.

Shogun 2 only does sequential turns in its campaign multiplayer, and it takes forever and is boring.

Civ 5 only does simultaneous turns in its multiplayer, and the result is units dodging your attacks (in a turn based strategy game!), people frantically clicking to be the first to move, vulnerable units getting sniped through no real fault of the owner (EG: A great general, a valuable unit with a combat strength of zero, which can be stacked with another unit but not moved with that unit, will always be vulnerable for a moment because you have to move the escort first and there is no way to move a stack of units simultaneously).

I hope the Warlock devs have played both of these games and realised the faults both of them have.

 

[unmerged(494828)]

I have a feeling what developers will not have time and resources to implement simultaneous moves multiplayer.
Anyway, I'd like to see simultaneous moves before players meet each other and consequent moves afterwards. Idea of having simultaneous moves in time of peace isn't that good. With 1 unit per per tile players will be blocking each other even without war, plus neutral cities conquest will become the same clicking contest.