TCP/IP

[Magus38]

I may be wrong but I think that when Londo says realtime, he simply means all players connected through a single host simultaneously. Though turns would be taken simultaneously it would remain a turn based game.

A good case in point of just how possible this would be is MOOII. Here is example of everybody playing simultaneously and the game working well, everyone knowing who is finished because there are small colour coded lights in one corner of the screen that indicate that the associated player has finished his turn by turning dark. Another good example is age of wonders; turn based strategy supporting simultaneous play through both TCP/IP and IPX/SPX (for a Novell network).

What I am saying is that while it may take quite a bit of work, it is not only compatible with the current game architecture, but there are ample precedents out there in the strategy gaming world.

[God Emperor]

Londo,
I'll throw a vote of support in for TCP/IP. I and three of my friends all look forward to its eventual arrival. All of us like tactical battles and PBEM does not inspire us. So for the time being, its playing and tweaking the AI!

Magus38,
I agree entirely with you. I remember losing many hours playing MOO2 simultaneous across the modem. Ah, those were the days...
Am looking forward to them again with SE4.


[This message has been edited by God Emperor (edited 04 April 2001).]

[Master Belisarius]

First, I'm not against the TCP/IP, ok? But I think that should be not the priority.

But yea, I can remember the old times playing Moo2 Online too:

- Games with only small galaxies (if not could be games forever).
- Crashing all the time.
- Waiting 20 minutes when other guy was to eat their dinner.
- Or wait until someone come back from the bathroom.
- Or waiting 15 minutes btw two guys are playing an small battle.
- Or when the game was moved to continue other day, waiting hours and hours until all the players are back.

As you can see, I'm not missing the old days.!

Currently you can play games SE4 "Online". Using ICQ, you can play your turn and send it very fast.

[Fuerte]

Practically you don't need TCP/IP, because you can do the same thing with PBEM, and more comfortably. If there were automatic PBEM host servers, that would process and send the .GAM file as soon as it has all the .PLR files, then you would in fact have the same functionality as TCP/IP.

------------------
PBEM

[Talenn]

Yep, I have to chime in here too in support of TCP/IP play. A number of my friends picked up the game after seeing it at my house with the intention of us all being able to play it via the internet.

At that time (December), it was thought that TCP/IP would be possible sometime early in the year. I was hoping to have seen some serious progress in that department as well. I understand that other issues have cropped up etc, but I think that this item keeps going farther and farther down the list. It really wouldnt surprise me (but would greatly disappoint me) to hear that they arent going to do it until SE5 (or whatever).

Like Londo, I havent touched the game in over a month and before that, I had only been playing sporadically for a month or so before that. The AI just cant hold the interest. Even if its 'tougher' its still not 'immersive'. There is NO diplomacy with the AI. It just feels like random actions. There is no 'allied support' or joint offensives or anything other than exchange of points and that leaves it feeling rather bland after a while IMO.

Multiplayer via the internet would completely change all that. This reminds me very much of the same discussions regarding adding 'net support that occured on the Combat Mission Boards Last year. Most people thought that it was fine to just play PBEM. Well, lemme tell ya, when TCP/IP hit, these folks were AMAZED at how much it added to gameplay to be able to play 'in real time'. I think the same might occur for SE4. People will waste no time setting up games, I'm sure. And if someone were kind enough to provide a dedicated chat room for finding games, it would greatly add to the game's appeal.

Finally, if AI work is going to be done, I'd suggest some folks taking a look at EU. The AI in that is amongst the best that I've seen yet. The diplomacy and alliances feel correct. Your allies support you in war. THAT is a novel concept. And the AI doesnt cheat there either. Of course its far simpler to program the AI in a more 'static' environment, but the game itself is highly detailed and involved. If anyone is looking for a new game to bat around, I'd highly recommend it.

Anyways, here's hoping that they will get TCP/IP out sometime by summer.

Talenn

[geoschmo]

Talenn,

I understand what you are saying. When I first got SEIV I couldn't wait for TCP/IP. But I have changed my mind. If you read Fuerte's comment below it makes a good point.

If what you are wanting is to be Online and play a simultaneous multiplayer game, you can do that now. You don't need TCP/IP support to do that. It can be done via ICQ or email or ftp. Any way you can get share files between the player's machine's and the host's.

To those wanting a TCP/IP option, is there something else you are expecting beyond this? If so you may be disapointed if and when it arrives.

Geo

[lnielsen]

I would hope that the game plays like Stars! over the network. A host process monitors a location for the files. When all the turns are in the processing takes place and all players are notified that a new turn is available by a flashing minimized window icon. The idea mentioned earlier where there are lights showing who has submitted their turns is even better.

The key here is that you can run the game in the background while you are working and then pop up the game when you need to do a turn. (while at work ) It would be nice to have options like turn ends 60 seconds after the 2nd player enters their turn but no more than 10 minutes You should not have to restart the program, load turns...

Just as important, is strategic combat. You would not be doing tactical and currently the strategic combat still needs work. You need to get more feedback on what happened and why (what formation/strategy did they use) and more control options (use strategy X when fighting fighters, use Y when fighting missile ships,...)


[This message has been edited by lnielsen (edited 04 April 2001).]