Questions about simultaneous turns

[Magwill]

First off, great with new information on the website!

Now one thing that has been keeping me wondering is the way simultaneous turns in MP will work. I ask you to elaborate as much as you can/are allowed, but I have some specific questions.

First off, is a turn considered moving all your units like a normal civ turn? Or is it that you can only move one unit?

Secondly, doesn't this create the type of conflict where you are forced to hurry your movements on all fronts since you otherwise can't reposition your troops and therefore giving the enemy the advantage? Also doesn't this make people become cowards since one person has to make the first step and then the other guy can just wait for that and then attack his units? I guess this means that you have to have a front line with troops that can take a beating but still it gives the enemy the advantage since he can choose how to do his attacks after you come in range.

Third, can you still play in the original way with one turn at a time? I know how you are streamlining it for the consoles and so on but there are some of us that prefer the old way and do have patience to wait for others and its just a matter of a small setting and you can take us from possibly happy to indubitably happy! it shouldn't be that troublesome for the developers to add the mode where you have the original turn based gameplay since its already in the single player mode (right?).

In general I think I understand the decisions made by all console designers when they are thinking of online content. The problem is that too many options make it hard for beginners to just pick the controller up and enjoy the game fully. Many solve this problem my simply removing the options, but I think that the best solution for this problem is to let the "quick game" or whatever you call it, the type of game that is played and where stats are being accounted for, will have a fixed set of rules that everyone will be comfortable and then you can have "custom games" that are not ranked where people can play the traditional way if they want. Since being on the leaderboards will be something most people desire, there will most likely not be a lack of players on the fixed ladder games.

Just think of two guys who like the normal civ turn based way who are chilling and want to enjoy a slow game together sometime instead of playing for fame. Then giving them the options they want is a situation you will only gain from.

Thank you for reading.

[Man-Bear-Pig]

Still...a four-player turn-based game? We can't imagine that being completed in one evening, but Bergman disagrees. "Chances are, you're not going to play a 10-hour game," he says. "The game moves pretty fast." He goes on to say a typical multiplayer match will last three to four hours. That's better than 10, but it's still pretty long, especially considering the fact that you cannot save an online (the only way to play multiplayer) session in process. It's play it all or nothing in Revolution.

http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3166862&p=4

The above is a quote from the Mar 10, 2008 preview by Dan Hsu, posted on 1up.com

Not sure if this answers some or part of your question Magwill, but producer Jason Bergman does indicate that the online multiplayer mode was intended to be "pretty fast." If you consider a 3 to 4 hour match fast I suppose. I can see how forcing all players to take turns simultaneously will contribute to faster games. Especially important, because a 10 hour game than cannot be saved and must be played in one sitting would be wonderful. Unless you are losing of course.

What would be better for us? A new "simultaneous turn" feature to improve the speed of a multiplayer game. Or a return to the sequential mode, where each player waits for their own turn in sequence. I suppose if I had to chose only one option it would be the former.

But I completely agree with Magwill. If I really had my way it would be to have the option to chose which method of multiplayer to play - simultaneous or sequential. Why are we limited to one mode? Can't see why other options are not made available to the players.

[Magwill]

Yes it would probably be a slower game and without any save support it can be hard. Longer sessions without saving also suffers from electrical problems :P I think there are no custom games available though since I recall reading somewhere from a developer "on PS3 and XBOX games are ranked" which might imply that if you want to play online you have to play standard rules. But wasn't there talk about linking several consoles together? Then games are not ranked at least.

[2K Elizabeth]

First off, great with new information on the website!

Now one thing that has been keeping me wondering is the way simultaneous turns in MP will work. I ask you to elaborate as much as you can/are allowed, but I have some specific questions.

First off, is a turn considered moving all your units like a normal civ turn? Or is it that you can only move one unit?

Secondly, doesn't this create the type of conflict where you are forced to hurry your movements on all fronts since you otherwise can't reposition your troops and therefore giving the enemy the advantage? Also doesn't this make people become cowards since one person has to make the first step and then the other guy can just wait for that and then attack his units? I guess this means that you have to have a front line with troops that can take a beating but still it gives the enemy the advantage since he can choose how to do his attacks after you come in range.

Third, can you still play in the original way with one turn at a time? I know how you are streamlining it for the consoles and so on but there are some of us that prefer the old way and do have patience to wait for others and its just a matter of a small setting and you can take us from possibly happy to indubitably happy! it shouldn't be that troublesome for the developers to add the mode where you have the original turn based gameplay since its already in the single player mode (right?).

In general I think I understand the decisions made by all console designers when they are thinking of online content. The problem is that too many options make it hard for beginners to just pick the controller up and enjoy the game fully. Many solve this problem my simply removing the options, but I think that the best solution for this problem is to let the "quick game" or whatever you call it, the type of game that is played and where stats are being accounted for, will have a fixed set of rules that everyone will be comfortable and then you can have "custom games" that are not ranked where people can play the traditional way if they want. Since being on the leaderboards will be something most people desire, there will most likely not be a lack of players on the fixed ladder games.

Just think of two guys who like the normal civ turn based way who are chilling and want to enjoy a slow game together sometime instead of playing for fame. Then giving them the options they want is a situation you will only gain from.

Thank you for reading.

I'm going to try and answer your question, but forgive me if I miss some part of it. It's long!

Turns in MP are simultaneous. You can move all your units in whatever order you want, and your opponents can move, as well. So there is a chance that you will be in a "stalemate" of not wanting to move off your hill, for fear of someone poaching your player in a weaker position.

There is also a turn timer in MP (you don't have to have it) with varying levels of speed, so it will also help keep people from sitting too long trying to sway a game by not playing.

The way the game is set up, and how the controls work (they are intuitive and it is easy to toggle between your units and cities, this doesn't take much time) turns move fluidly.

This makes it so that no one is sitting around, and more everyone playing. This also makes it so the game is still full, but can be played in a sitting.

[Magwill]

I'm just going to do a reply without quoting now since this forum doesn't have those neat little tick boxes where you can "unfold" the quote :)

It seems I will have to try it out myself before I can fully comprehend how it actually will work. Even though you did not say anything about it, I should assume that the original civ turn based way of doing things is not planned to be included? One more thing, SP is then the normal civ way? Thanks for the answers.

And yeah, I had been logged out due to timeout when I finished my previous post :P

[Jason2K]

It seems I will have to try it out myself before I can fully comprehend how it actually will work. Even though you did not say anything about it, I should assume that the original civ turn based way of doing things is not planned to be included? One more thing, SP is then the normal civ way? Thanks for the answers.

I think you're a little confused by what we mean by simultaneous turns.

In single player, it's strictly one player, one turn between you and the A.I.

In multiplayer, it's still one turn at a time, but you and I both make our turns at the same time. But only the ONE turn at that same time. Once I've made my move, if you're still going, I have to wait for you to move before I can move again.

At no point is CivRev anything approximating real-time. Trust us, it works. :)

It's basically the same as it was in Civ IV multiplayer. The only difference being that CivRev is a faster game overall. But simultaneous turns works pretty much the same.

Also, I was slightly misquoted on 1UP. You can easily play a multiplayer game in 1 - 3 hours. It all depends on how quickly the people playing are, and what their style is like. People who know what they're doing have much, much faster games than newbies, for obvious reasons.

[Jason2K]

But I completely agree with Magwill. If I really had my way it would be to have the option to chose which method of multiplayer to play - simultaneous or sequential. Why are we limited to one mode? Can't see why other options are not made available to the players.

There really isn't much of a trade-off to not having simultaneous turns. On our end, it means we can work on the networking code to keep things lag-free.

For you, if you're afraid of the turn timer, just play without it, and take your time. CivRev is a faster moving game, but don't let that confuse you into thinking it's an RTS or anything. It's still Civ.

[Man-Bear-Pig]

Thanks Jason. Hoping you guys squash any lag issues before June. :)

[Magwill]

So if one of your less protected units are being pursued by enemy military scout units then you will have to move him at the start of each turn or otherwise he will get hunted down by your enemy. Doesn't this lead to that the fastest button presser getting an advantage?

[Jason2K]

So if one of your less protected units are being pursued by enemy military scout units then you will have to move him at the start of each turn or otherwise he will get hunted down by your enemy. Doesn't this lead to that the fastest button presser getting an advantage?

Not really.

Units can only move X number of tiles per turn (it varies per unit, obviously), and the maps have a lot of choke points. It's extremely rare that you're in that kind of situation. It's much more strategic than just being the first person to move.

[Magwill]

Not really.

Units can only move X number of tiles per turn (it varies per unit, obviously), and the maps have a lot of choke points. It's extremely rare that you're in that kind of situation. It's much more strategic than just being the first person to move.

Sounds promising, I will have to trust you and see for myself when its out. At least you didn't reply "yes its true" haha :)

One last quick question about the simultaneous thing. Will all fights be directly finished when someone attacks so that there is no delay?