31-05-2005 01:08									#31
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Platypus Rex without internet how does one post here

it's okay to read and post web and e-mail with dail-up but it's is not ok to download 5 mb at least, multiplayer and ired internet required to play for dail-up. Even Guild Wars work with dail-up but it's taken long time as Stronghold 2 loading, patch, even couldn't play PvP with thats.

	31-05-2005 06:03									#32
	Re: Does Civ4 required Internet? Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Reader81 I hope not because I have Wireless that give me 1 Mbps to 36 Mbps even Guild Wars work well on 56Mbps but it's dont give me clear PvP, so I rather not have required a internet, I have ton fun playing with A.I Civ2 to Civ3, I'm looking forward this Civ4 if not required internet. I knew no one play PC game in my home town so that's why I'm play with A.I all myselt, poor me! : )

You have a US flag, but I'm not convinced you're from the English-speaking world

	31-05-2005 06:29									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I'm born in USA but it's my second English My first one is America Sign Language, since I' hard of hearing, my left ear full of deaf.

	02-06-2005 12:23									#34
	Increase Your PM Length

eloquent, if not grammatically perfect!

quote: without internet how does one post here

sire, our workers have completed a great wonder,..

the internet cafe

	06-06-2005 00:25									#35
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Civ is a SP game, and so it should stay

Well Solver, I think we will have to agree to disagree. It's clear from the statements from Firaxis that the SP, MP and Modders are equal partners in the development of CIV. One is not more important or less so than the others. It seems that Soren certainly is putting a effort into the CIV AI so that the SP community has a better gaming experience with CIV than they did with C3C. But also that they want MP to simply work for everyone regardless of your computer experience, and that the game Mod SDK be a powerful tool for the modding community.

I certainly hope that the first Civ game to feature MP OOTB ushers in a new era for the MP community, which doesn't take away at all from the SP gameplay.

Your statement I think is true of Civ1/2/3 for sure, but I think its a little too polarized for the era we are close to entering.

Cheers CS

	06-06-2005 00:55									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by lebensraum eloquent, if not grammatically perfect! sire, our workers have completed a great wonder,.. the internet cafe

now there is a thought for Civ5

	06-06-2005 01:21									#37
	Increase Your PM Length

CanuckSoldier - I do actually agree with you. I also want MP out of the box. It does, after all, seem natural for a 2005 game. However, whatever the developers say, each game is better built for either SP or MP. RTS games are better for MP, for instance. Civ4, even if it has good MP (which I hope it will) will still be a SP-oriented game, mainly because of the very basic Civ concept. The Civ concept is what makes Civ a game where you take your time, and what ultimately makes games take 20+ hours. I think it's pretty clear that it's better suited for SP than MP where sessions are shorter. Yes, there can be other modes, including PBEM and quicker play, but the heart of Civ will lie in SP.

	06-06-2005 03:05									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Well I personally think that "Real Time Strategy" is the biggest oxymoron ever invented! While I'm sure that there is a certain amount of coding done to satify the requirements of both the MP and SP game, they are not inherently mutually exclusive. I've played every version of Civ MP developed, CivNet, Civ2MGE, PTW and C3C, as well as played them in SP.

You imply that because MP games tend to be shorter that there is not as much strategy, that is far from the facts. We may not have time every turn to sift threw the advisor screens, but there is plently of time for real strategy in MP games. The current MP community plays the whole gammit of game types from 2 hour 1 city elim games to 20 hour multi-session Epic games, and even a strong PBEM section. I don't see this changing with CIV only getting even more varied.

We seemed to have done very well as a Ladder team in the C3C ISDG semi finals for a group of people that don't get the time to strategize too much :-P

We can discuss what the "heart of Civ" is for ever as that is subjective to the extreme. The heart of Civ is what ever each individual player wants it to be, and I'm sure that as a business case Firaxis wants CIV to be a game for every strategy enthusiast.

But for right now there's 1100 people actively playing C3C MP on Civ3players Ladder alone(this doesn't count the casual MP players either) that are off the opinion that the MP game is Civilization.

So I guess mileage varies depending on your perpective.

CS

	06-06-2005 03:24									#39
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Well I personally think that "Real Time Strategy" is the biggest oxymoron ever invented!

You'd be wrong. Real time strategy games are strategic games - both clickfest RTS and Paradox-like RTS.

	06-06-2005 03:27									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: [SIZE=1] So I guess mileage varies depending on your perpective. CS

Well said

	06-06-2005 03:31									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Real time strategy games are strategic games - both clickfest RTS and Paradox-like RTS.

Yes, they are. But the problem with Starcraft-like RTS is that the strategy needs to be thought through before the game. What you do once it starts, is executing strategy and using tactics, which does not require much thinking by itself. This is like blitz chess — fun for some, but not really on masters' list of favourite games.

	06-06-2005 03:31									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Well I personally think that "Real Time Strategy" is the biggest oxymoron ever invented!

Heh... good point. Then again, those games ARE strategic compared to, say, online shooters. But it's clear that they're not really strategy games. No one who has played Civ or any TBS will say that RTS games are truly strategic. Yes, they require you know some tactics, unit strengths and weaknesses and general economic strategies, but there's little strategy involved, of course.

quote: You imply that because MP games tend to be shorter that there is not as much strategy, that is far from the facts. We may not have time every turn to sift threw the advisor screens, but there is plently of time for real strategy in MP games. The current MP community plays the whole gammit of game types from 2 hour 1 city elim games to 20 hour multi-session Epic games, and even a strong PBEM section. I don't see this changing with CIV only getting even more varied.

I was saying that there isn't an ability to use all the excessive strategy in an online game. Of course, the online community typically plays other game types, such as elimination, as you mention, which is quite a different game. Mutli-session epic games are good, though, and I hope Civ4 will have them fine. And PBEM, although specific, is a very good game type - allows for the best of everything. You can take as long with your turns as you like, there's no hassle of having 6 people available at the same time, and you can play any game mode.

quote: We can discuss what the "heart of Civ" is for ever as that is subjective to the extreme. The heart of Civ is what ever each individual player wants it to be, and I'm sure that as a business case Firaxis wants CIV to be a game for every strategy enthusiast.

Agreed. It's a shame, though, that Civ4 will never sell as many copies as, say, AoE3, which has much worse SP-MP balance than Civ4, MP being good, but the SP mode rather dull. However, again, I'm all for it if Civ4 turns out to be a viable MP game out of the box.

quote: But for right now there's 1100 people actively playing C3C MP on Civ3players Ladder alone(this doesn't count the casual MP players either) that are off the opinion that the MP game is Civilization.

Out of curiosity - how many of these people play standard games (epic), and how many play elimination/regicide?

	06-06-2005 03:45									#43
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Modo44 Yes, they are. But the problem with Starcraft-like RTS is that the strategy needs to be thought through before the game. What you do once it starts, is executing strategy and using tactics, which does not require much thinking by itself. This is like blitz chess — fun for some, but not really on masters' list of favourite games.

Not true. You have to respond - strategically - to enemy actions, in addition to tactics.

	06-06-2005 03:48									#44
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Solver quote: Well I personally think that "Real Time Strategy" is the biggest oxymoron ever invented! Heh... good point. Then again, those games ARE strategic compared to, say, online shooters. But it's clear that they're not really strategy games. No one who has played Civ or any TBS will say that RTS games are truly strategic. Yes, they require you know some tactics, unit strengths and weaknesses and general economic strategies, but there's little strategy involved, of course.

No, you're completely off. RTS "clickfests" (to distinguish them from games like EU and HOI, which are RTS but incontrovertibly strategy games) are strategic because they involve - in fact, are focused primarily on - gathering and protecting resources to fuel future conflicts. They are truly strategic. They would only become nonstrategic if you had a set amount of forces at the beginning of each battle.

	06-06-2005 04:10									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Well I'm going to stay out of the RTS detailed arguement here. But IMHO any game that requires fast reflects as a designed part of the gameplay is not a true strategy game, although the makers may have designed some strategy elements to the game. But this is another "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" thing.

Unfortunately, the software/service we have chosen to run Civ3players on, Cases/myleague, doesn't distinguish between types of games, just win/losses.

But in my estimate, the average random game is about 3-4 hours, with Epics being played by 20% of the ladder, and PBEM games at about the same 20%.

The big things keeping a 3 year old game running in MP are clan games and mods/scenarios, such as QuickCiv, MPT, Blinded by Science, Future/Regicide, Medival and industrial starts, and ofcourse the standard ancient games. All can be played a "free for alls" or teamers, or our "cton games" which is a ffa with no diplomacy or alliances allowed, named after a member that invented the format.

I'm not sure what things are keeping the SP game moving, but I for one can not wait for CIV, we are losing a large percentage of vets to bordom with this old game.

CS

	06-06-2005 05:09									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: But IMHO any game that requires fast reflects as a designed part of the gameplay is not a true strategy game, although the makers may have designed some strategy elements to the game.

No, it's not "strategy elements". The game is, fundamentally, strategic. It's not fast reflexes, it's fast decision-making. And it's important to note that the strategic aspects of these games are the ones that determine the winners, not the tactical aspects, in general.

	06-06-2005 05:50									#47
	Tired of ads?

If youre downloading the game youre gonna want an internet connection.

	06-06-2005 06:07									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Sorry Kuciwalker, but I've played AoE, for example, and your differeniating between fast reflects and fast decision making is symantics as far as I'm concerned. Those games are a race, if you are playing AoE in MP, and your connection or computer is a little slower than the competition then you are going to lose.

TBS games even in simutaneous moves mode are inherently based on making the right strategic and tactical decisions. An opponent is not going to sneak up on you if you have a sentry net out. If you have built proper infrastucture you can dynamically respond to an attack. Not to mention you can just get bigger faster and win a domination victory or go for the space race.

TBS games are not a clickfest, they are chess, RTS games may have strategy but only so much as checkers does.

CS

	06-06-2005 06:26									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Man, I look forward to playing via US Postal Service.

	06-06-2005 06:49									#50
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

You plan on sending your PBEM saves on floppy disk my snail mail? :-P

CS

	06-06-2005 06:51									#51
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by CanuckSoldier Sorry Kuciwalker, but I've played AoE, for example, and your differeniating between fast reflects and fast decision making is symantics as far as I'm concerned. Those games are a race, if you are playing AoE in MP, and your connection or computer is a little slower than the competition then you are going to lose.

It's not semantics, it's important. Duck Hunt requires reflexes. Anything more complicated requires tactics and/or strategy, with pure reflext being ancillary. And that lag can make you lose is irrelevent - it's still a strategy game. Fundamentally, the only way to win is to acquire more resources than your opponent.

	06-06-2005 07:22									#52
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Maquiladora If youre downloading the game youre gonna want an internet connection.

You've got to be kidding me with that avatar.

	06-06-2005 07:55									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Kidding you how?

	06-06-2005 09:04									#55
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I am doubting that Firaxis will be running Civ IV servers a la battle.net?

	06-06-2005 11:47									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Not true. You have to respond - strategically - to enemy actions, in addition to tactics.

To which I can only repeat my point about blitz chess. Yes, you need a strategy, but there is no way to develop it during the game. The pace is so fast, you must have strategies prepared beforehand (be that 10 different ones for different situations), or you are dead. I played some MP games in Starcraft, so I know you can prepare strategies (like where to place buildings, what units to build, also in response to what the enemies do). But the fact remains, once the game starts, you only choose a strategy to follow, not develop any.

	06-06-2005 18:21									#57
	Put an end to popups!

quote: It's not semantics, it's important. Duck Hunt requires reflexes. Anything more complicated requires tactics and/or strategy, with pure reflext being ancillary. And that lag can make you lose is irrelevent - it's still a strategy game. Fundamentally, the only way to win is to acquire more resources than your opponent.

That is simply wrong. You can often see a player with a weaker economy win, with less resources gathered. The key in AoE, for instance, is to put resources to use quickly and attack relentlessly. And, it does require reflexes - if you're not fast enough at checking building queues, micromanaging units, etc., you will lose even if your strategy is superior.

	06-06-2005 19:45									#58
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Modo44 To which I can only repeat my point about blitz chess. Yes, you need a strategy, but there is no way to develop it during the game. The pace is so fast, you must have strategies prepared beforehand (be that 10 different ones for different situations), or you are dead.

That's how most people play civ, or any game. They think about strategies outside the game, and implement them in the game.

	06-06-2005 19:46									#59
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Solver quote: It's not semantics, it's important. Duck Hunt requires reflexes. Anything more complicated requires tactics and/or strategy, with pure reflext being ancillary. And that lag can make you lose is irrelevent - it's still a strategy game. Fundamentally, the only way to win is to acquire more resources than your opponent. That is simply wrong. You can often see a player with a weaker economy win, with less resources gathered. The key in AoE, for instance, is to put resources to use quickly and attack relentlessly. And, it does require reflexes - if you're not fast enough at checking building queues, micromanaging units, etc., you will lose even if your strategy is superior.

Change that to "acquire and apply" then.

	06-06-2005 19:49									#60
	Get a bigger avatar today!

And application of those resources is where speed kicks in. If you have played a reasonable amount of time online, you should know that the deciding factor between two players if often the speed at which one acts. For instance, in Age of Mythology or Age of Kings, players who know the basics but aren't good with them are rated around 1650. Then, the 1750 players know their strats and don't make silly mistakes normally, but the 1850 players are just as good with strats, but move much faster than the 1750 players. This is especially evident if you watch recorded games.