No Lan? No TCP/IP? E-Mail only?

[Espejo]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Hmmm, well, lets see, the same way people have been playing Age of Wonders; Imperialism; Civilization; Call to Power; Alph Centauri; (need I list ALL of the games?) and their like for the past 15 years.

A "handful" of people play those games online. Hardly worth the resources actually to make them multiplayer online. PBEM is the wave of the future. It is 2005 yah know? I've been to all the sites that host those games you mentioned and it would be a miracle to see over 10 players the majority of time playing those games online. And LAN isn't that popular either. I'll agree with a "hotseat" mode if they are so inclined, but, I've never required or needed a LAN or multiplayer online feature with any of those games. Be better if they put more resources into creating and tweaking the existing AI and make sure PBEM is cheat proof.

As Paul Vebber would say, you're just being a "NIT-WIT" threatening not to buy the game because, because, because. lol Matrixgames will live without your five little sales, IF there really are 5 little sales or rather just one pretending he is five different people. lol

[:)]Well, improvements of the AI are really welcome. But seriously I think in 3 months latest, who will play against a AI anymore? It will be boring because you will know the weaknesses of the AI and you could either restrain yourself from exploitng them or try wacky strategies you wouldn´t use against ahuman player. Games like Alpha Centauri, Civ2, Strategic command are still played thanks to the online community IMHO. You know these fanatics who sit there with a book, beer , headphones on chatting reading while somebody over in the US does it moves.

On the other hand: Galctic Civilizations, Master of Orion2 etc couldn´t hold my interesst after I was winning against the aI every time. Not because I am a really good strategist but simply because a Computer cannot adapt against wacky strategies.

If possible TCP/IP will be welcome I think for people like me who like to sit at sunday a whole day moving around small little virutal armies across the world.

[artgrtr8u]

I know it's old-fashioned, but have you thought about trying hotseat play? Since only one person at a time takes a turn you could just all play at the same computer. When you're not the man in the seat you can go play something else or websurf on another computer. That's how my friends and I used to play stuff like War in Russia on our Apple 2e's back in the 80's (without the websurfing).

[ravinhood]

Games like Alpha Centauri, Civ2, Strategic command are still played thanks to the online community IMHO.

I still play all of those you mentioned and some more withOUT the "online community". I've had some of those games for years now and still find challenge and fun out of playing them. I think it depends a lot on whether one uses "gamey tactics and exploits the AI" or not. I don't use gamey tactics or exploit the AI. So all of those games still hold challenge and it's long past the 3 months since I origionally got them.

[DeanR]

Here's a possible solution to the PBEM/LAN issue; taken from the "good ol' days" of early multiplayer: the LAN essentially mimics the email system. If memory serves, games like Perfect General basically saved the game at the end of turn, moved the savegame to the other machine and autoloaded it. Basically, PBEM without email. The only complaint I've seen about PBEM is the exit/load requirement, this methodology would bypass that issue.

Any way you slice it, you're going to have the downtime when the other player(s) are doing their thing - that's the time for some surfing, or imbibing, or.....[>:] The only advantage that TCP/IP will give in this kind of game is to eliminiate the save/exit/load routine.

[Scott_WAR]

That save/exit/load routine taking a day or two is the problem some have. The game is designed so that it can be finished in an evening, however PBEM makes that nearly impossible. TCP/IP would make it a realistic goal to play an entire game in one sitting. Granted it would be a long sitting, but I have played axis and allies online for 6 to 8 hours at a time, on a routine basis, and there are many others who do also, so its not as unrealistic a thing as some want to think.


But yes, playing via TCP/IP, where the only thing that is exchanged is the PBEM save file, would work just fine. The only concern is you wouldnt see the opponents turn as it happens. But it would be better.

[Gullet]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

But yes, playing via TCP/IP, where the only thing that is exchanged is the PBEM save file, would work just fine. The only concern is you wouldnt see the opponents turn as it happens. But it would be better.

Good! this is what I believe both I and, I believe, the very same Scott_WAR, were insistant of pre-release. I think a "sneak TCP/IP" would suit both players' wants and would not demand the amount of resources 2by3/Matrix fears.
I know they have noticed players' complaints about the lack of this support already, so I do not want to throw gasoline on any fire, but I just wanted to make one more confirmation to the proposed solution.

[eMonticello]

ORIGINAL: Scott_WAR

That save/exit/load routine taking a day or two is the problem some have. The game is designed so that it can be finished in an evening, however PBEM makes that nearly impossible. TCP/IP would make it a realistic goal to play an entire game in one sitting. Granted it would be a long sitting, but I have played axis and allies online for 6 to 8 hours at a time, on a routine basis, and there are many others who do also, so its not as unrealistic a thing as some want to think.


But yes, playing via TCP/IP, where the only thing that is exchanged is the PBEM save file, would work just fine. The only concern is you wouldnt see the opponents turn as it happens. But it would be better.

When you say "TCP/IP", what you are really saying is simultaneous orders. Otherwise, it would be just as easy to IM or call your next-in-line opponent via VOIP to let him know that the turn is available. As it is designed, each player must take his turn in sequence (UGO-IGO) not simultaneously (WEGO). I wish to be enlightened as to how "TCP/IP" will help speed up a UGO-IGO game.

[Gullet]

Endless discussions have previously taken place. For example, try searching for "LAN" and choose page 7 of the hits, see my posting (Gullet) in the thread "PBEM".

/G

[eMonticello]

ORIGINAL: Gullet

Endless discussions have previously taken place. For example, try searching for "LAN" and choose page 7 of the hits, see my posting (Gullet) in the thread "PBEM".

/G

I read the thread and agree with Oleg. I would find it easier to run WAW in a window while using an IM or VOIP application to talk to your teammates and opponents, instead of using an in-game feature that lacks bells and whistles found in those applications.

[Alan_Bernardo]

If all that is going to happen is that the PBEM file will be exchanged, then it's a waste of resources to add TCP/IP to GGWaW.

If there were some sort of simultaneous turn, then TCP/IP might be worth it.

Otherwise, go grab ICQ or maybe a voice-chat program like Skype (which allows file transfers) and play head-to-head that way. Simple to do.

This way, the developers and programmers can devote time and resources on adding things to the game, toughening the AI, and making an editor.

Alanb

[Scott_WAR]

This isnt difficult. What I want, and I think most who are asking for TCP/IP, is a live game, like risk or axis and allies on the MSN gamezone, gamespy etc. We dont need gamespy, or MSNgamezone, we just need the ability to connect to a host which will be one of the people playing.

We want to do our turn, then watch as our opponent does theirs, or in the case of fog of war, see what we would be able to see. That way, the very minute their turn is over, the next turn starts. This allows the person whose not playing to at least watch his opponent, and not be entirely detached from the game.

Now, what I was saying about the PBEM file just being transfered via a TCP/IP connection-
No, its not what we want exactly, BUT it would be better than the current multiplayer system. At least the player whose turn it is would be notified without having to check their e-mail.

[rickett]

I was looking over the forums, thinking about trying the game. I noticed someone said play by hotseat. My friends and I usually play using this method.

There is a hotseat feature available, right?

[MButtazoni]

Hotseat: although you wont find a Hot Seat mode per se, the game works perfect as a Hot Seat game when set up as a PBEM game.

when player 1 is done his turn it forces him to save the game and goes to the main menu, then player 2 can load the game (without emailing it anywhere) and enter his password, when player 2 is done it automatically forecs him to save the game then player 1... you get the idea.

[MButtazoni]

We want to do our turn, then watch as our opponent does theirs, or in the case of fog of war, see what we would be able to see. That way, the very minute their turn is over, the next turn starts. This allows the person whose not playing to at least watch his opponent, and not be entirely detached from the game.

Now, what I was saying about the PBEM file just being transfered via a TCP/IP connection-
No, its not what we want exactly, BUT it would be better than the current multiplayer system. At least the player whose turn it is would be notified without having to check their e-mail.

80% of my time playing is in the production and research screen, what do you want to see while i am in the production phase?

[Skanvak]

Hotseat is a lot of lost time even in Turn by turn game. I played heroes of might and magic often and it was really better in LAN than in hotseat. If the pbem is so easy making a TCP/IP version should be easy then...

Anyway I am really infaword of putting a directplay option in the game.

[Gullet]

ORIGINAL: MButtazoni
80% of my time playing is in the production and research screen, what do you want to see while i am in the production phase?

I do not know whether the posting is meant to be a hard-headed refusal to see benefits with TCP/IP or whether it is meant as a serious question. If it is the former, I must say I am surprised to the extent you can go in defending a PBEM-only game. Something I must admit is somewhat tedious - much more so in practice than in theory. Sure, it is good if you want to play the type of game where the one player sends his file on the first day and the other his on the following, etc. But, if you want to play a one night game, this is rather too cumbersome to my taste. And it surprises me that MButtazoni still cannot seem to swallow the fact that several players (there are several postings by current and potential players you know...) really do prefer to play a game TCP/IP. This is not a case of trying to convince TCP/IP proponents, it is rather a case of dropping the intransigence and agreeing to having underestimated the interest in TCP/IP, i.e. listening to the customers. Sure, you do have proponents for PBEM only as well, but were you not heading for a wider audience with this game? and at the end of the day is adding TCP/IP without a lot of bells and whistles really so demanding? I think not; it becomes demanding once you offer a new type of game play, not when just adding the support (more or less). It was done with Strategic Command.

If on the other hand the question was seriously asked, the first part of this posting should be disregarded and my suggestion to the question would be: "Just changing the phase symbol in the upper left corner to production phase and making the other players able to move around the map and click on and see whatever they should be allowed to click on and see. That would suffice for me."

[Espejo]

ORIGINAL: MButtazoni

We want to do our turn, then watch as our opponent does theirs, or in the case of fog of war, see what we would be able to see. That way, the very minute their turn is over, the next turn starts. This allows the person whose not playing to at least watch his opponent, and not be entirely detached from the game.

Now, what I was saying about the PBEM file just being transfered via a TCP/IP connection-
No, its not what we want exactly, BUT it would be better than the current multiplayer system. At least the player whose turn it is would be notified without having to check their e-mail.

80% of my time playing is in the production and research screen, what do you want to see while i am in the production phase?

Perhaps one player could move somehow while the other is in Production phase? There would be some kind of timeshift when new units will appear but it would help TCP/IP much along. Playing right now up to 4 PBEM games at the same time well I prefer TCP/IP even in Strategic command. PBEM is for me 2nd. choisce. I hate the hassle with moves send und received. Hearing nothing for two 2 days then "oh it is this game again", what was the name of this guy again... Uups he did end me his turn again. Uspp now the game is stuck somewhere down the chain...

It is your game and if you don´t see the benefit of TCP/IP well thats your decision. It is a very good game.

Well besides PBEM is really dangerous: [:D]

"Studie: SMS können IQ stärker senken als Haschisch

22.04.2005 14:34

LONDON - Intensives E-Mail- und SMS-Versenden kann den Intelligenzquotienten vorübergehend stärker senken als das Rauchen eines Joints. Zu diesem Schluss kam eine Untersuchung an der University of London.

Dabei wurde der IQ von 80 Probanden getestet, wie die Londoner Zeitung "The Times" berichtete. Dem Bericht zufolge sank deren Intelligenzquotient nach intensivem SMS- und E-Mail-Versand vorübergehend um bis zu zehn Punkte. Der Konsum von Haschisch hingegen senke den IQ anderen Studien zufolge nur um vier Punkte.

Die Wissenschaftler erklären dies damit, dass es für das Gehirn schwierig sei, mehrere Aufgaben zur selben Zeit zu meistern. Wer seine Arbeit immer wieder unterbreche, um elektronische Botschaften zu checken und zu beantworten, versetze sein Gehirn in ständige Alarmbereitschaft. Dadurch leide die Konzentrationsfähigkeit. Weltweit werden laut der "Times" täglich mehr als 50 Milliarden E-Mails verschickt.