 |
|  |
 |
|
Killazer
|
|
This post has to do with number of units and the resulting game slowdown and what effect it may have on multiplayer.
Well, I recently fired up a game on Regent to get the gears moving as I havent played for a couple months. Well I kicked the AIs ass and chose a spaceship victory in 1922 to end the game. Anyway, thats not the point of this post but bear with me.
By the late 1700s until the end of the game I had around 800-1000 military units (no im not joking lol-It was funded by trading the AI techs for hundreds of gold per turn). Now, this made the game very slow between turns for me. It would take about 2 minutes between turns. That may not seem like much but it adds up quickly.
What I am concerned with here, is that since it is possible to construct hundreds of units, and people are sure to be much more competitive with each other than the AI, they will most likely be amassing huge numbers of forces. How will this affect the way multiplayer works? It might make it unplayable once you get midway into the industrial era and into the modern era. Perhaps not uplayable but very slow. I don't think multiplayer will ever get into the modern age unless people are willing to spend 10 hours for one play session.
The accelerated production feature may help... but accelerated production means tons-o-units... so how will system slowdown factor into time to finish game since tons o units increase the time it takes to complete turns. Just some thoughts here. I am curious to see how multiplayer will work and if it will be practical to play a game into the late industrial/modern times.
Im gonna go try a diety game now since the AI was too easy on Regent... perhaps I will lose =P Anyway civ3 has turned out so far to be a good game, at least for me. I do really enjoy playing it with the latest patch. I fired up CTP2 once and I shut it down right away, I just didnt like the feel of it. Civ3 feels much 'smoother'... or something.
Well... thats all I have to say about that.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Killazer
|
|
I didn't really need them I just kept building units because I had nothing else to build lol. I could have won the game in middle era.
Yes... mp will be much different but I hope it is paced fast enough so that modern age is actually played sometimes.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CiverDan
|
|
I was thinking....will regicide and/or elimination games be slowed down be excessiev number of units, since both these types of games can only be won be attacking ppl. I can just see people ringing thier cities with multiple defensive units on fortresses, as well as many many units in cities, especially in recigide (since losing 1 city costs u the game. what will prevent these games from becoming a gluttony on units?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DrFell
|
|
Having lots of units in cities isn't a problem. Having lots moving around outside cities causes most slowdown.
Modern age games will be rare anyway. Most games of civ2 MP didn't get past knights. Having lots of units won't be a problem either if everyone plays on smaller maps. On big maps, you get what you ask for.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bolt
|
|
I think it will be easy to choose a starting era, so you (and everyone else) can start in modern if you like. This will speed it up a bit.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|