Caesar III multiplayer
Tony
you:
is it available multiplayer game?
is it more difficult than Caesar II? how much? (because I finished Caesar II
at Impossible Level in 2 millenia with a lot of quietness [do you remember
those 20 provinces?]).
A tip for Caesar II players and maybe for Caesar III ones:
when you only have Palaces (i.e. land value 64) as housing you can very
calmly raise the tax rate to 25% and you'll have no riots but remember to
drop to zero the light infantry rate.
--
Tony
"Logic clearly dictates that the needs
of the many outweigh the needs of the few", Spock
Thomas B Gross
: I haven't bought yet Caesar III and I would like to get some hints from
: you:
: is it available multiplayer game?
Caesar III is very proud to not offer a multiplayer option. They could
have added multiplayer but then it would have been too much like all those
fun multiplayer games. More than one person can play Caesar III at the
same time, but not in the same game. Try putting two computers side-by-side
in the same room and play with a friend.
: is it more difficult than Caesar II? how much? (because I finished Caesar II
: at Impossible Level in 2 millenia with a lot of quietness [do you remember
: those 20 provinces?]).
By all accounts it is much more difficult than Caesar II.
: A tip for Caesar II players and maybe for Caesar III ones:
: when you only have Palaces (i.e. land value 64) as housing you can very
: calmly raise the tax rate to 25% and you'll have no riots but remember to
: drop to zero the light infantry rate.
thanks for the tip.
--
Robert L. Mullen
wrote:
>Tony (Spock.son...@usa.net) wrote:
>: I haven't bought yet Caesar III and I would like to get some hints from
>: you:
>: is it available multiplayer game?
>
>Caesar III is very proud to not offer a multiplayer option. They could
>have added multiplayer but then it would have been too much like all those
>fun multiplayer games. More than one person can play Caesar III at the
>same time, but not in the same game. Try putting two computers side-by-side
>in the same room and play with a friend.
>
This sounds like a sarcastic slam of the game. Please explain how you
would implement multiplayer in Ceaser III. Who are you fighting
against? What exactly is the conflict? How could you cooperate?
Without mutual conflict or the need to cooperate, there can be no
multiplayer. Believe it or not, it is possible to create a fun game
for which multiplayer is impossible.
Later,
Rob
Thomas B Gross
: This sounds like a sarcastic slam of the game. Please explain how you
: would implement multiplayer in Ceaser III. Who are you fighting
: against? What exactly is the conflict? How could you cooperate?
: Without mutual conflict or the need to cooperate, there can be no
: multiplayer. Believe it or not, it is possible to create a fun game
tu veux dire qu'il n'ya rien de conflict dans ce jout???!?!?!?!?!?
--
Robert L. Mullen
wrote:
>Robert L. Mullen (rlmu...@SENDNOSPAMntrnet.net) wrote:
Real cute. If you intended to actually communicate something to me,
you failed. I only speak and read English. If this is some sort of
flame, you completely missed. It's kind of difficult to flame someone
if they cannot interpret your writing.
If you decide to act in an intelligent manner, and repost this in
English, I'll reply. If not...
Later,
Rob
Neil Fradkin
>would implement multiplayer in Ceaser III. Who are you fighting
>against? What exactly is the conflict? How could you cooperate?
>Without mutual conflict or the need to cooperate, there can be no
>multiplayer. Believe it or not, it is possible to create a fun game
Each player has his own city. The goal is to build legions, send them to
the enemies city and destroy it. Basically you play a military scenario
where the enemy is not some random troops from a random city, but troops
generated by the other player's city.
Better yet, have a larger multiplayer mode where players choose a
location in the roman world (just like choosing a campaign scenario) and
combat and trade go on with other human player cities.
Well, you asked.
Thomas B Gross
: wrote:
: >Robert L. Mullen (rlmu...@SENDNOSPAMntrnet.net) wrote:
: >: This sounds like a sarcastic slam of the game. Please explain how you
: >: would implement multiplayer in Ceaser III. Who are you fighting
: >: against? What exactly is the conflict? How could you cooperate?
: >: Without mutual conflict or the need to cooperate, there can be no
: >: multiplayer. Believe it or not, it is possible to create a fun game
: >
: >tu veux dire qu'il n'ya rien de conflict dans ce jout???!?!?!?!?!?
: >--
: Real cute. If you intended to actually communicate something to me,
: you failed. I only speak and read English. If this is some sort of
: flame, you completely missed. It's kind of difficult to flame someone
: if they cannot interpret your writing.
: If you decide to act in an intelligent manner, and repost this in
: English, I'll reply. If not...
: Later,
: Rob
THe current issue of the New Yorker has a brief article about Starbucks'
plans to expand to Italy. I concludes with a quote from an Italian
coffee expert: "there are two kinds of people, those who drink espresso
and the other people. The Italians are the espresso drinkers,
and the Americans are the other people."
I would think that the possibilities for multiplayer Caesar III would
be extremely obvious, to even the most unimaginative person.
--
Robert L. Mullen
wrote:
I don't consider myself unimaginative, it's just that 99% of the stuff
that comes from my imagination is completely unworkable. Since I
don't have time to sift through all of the unworkable stuff, and since
you have given it some thought, what are the multiplayer possibilities
for Ceasar III?
If these possibilities are so obvious, why didn't you post them
instead of posting an arrogant response that equates to "if you can't
think of any, I'm not going to tell you!"
As a challenge to you... I don't beleive that you have thought of any
workable multiplayer possibilities for Ceasar III. The ball's in your
court!
Later,
Rob
Robert L. Mullen
<nfra...@secant.com> wrote:
>>Please explain how you
>>would implement multiplayer in Ceaser III. Who are you fighting
>>against? What exactly is the conflict? How could you cooperate?
>>Without mutual conflict or the need to cooperate, there can be no
>>multiplayer. Believe it or not, it is possible to create a fun game
>>for which multiplayer is impossible.
>
>
> Each player has his own city. The goal is to build legions, send them to
>the enemies city and destroy it. Basically you play a military scenario
>where the enemy is not some random troops from a random city, but troops
>generated by the other player's city.
>
This would work if the game was designed as a combat strategy game,
but I don't feel that combat plays a large enough role to make this
workable. Why are two Roman cities fighting each other? If the
opposing city is not Roman, what do you do with all of the game
features that are specific to Rome... the name of the game is *Ceasar*
after all!!
> Better yet, have a larger multiplayer mode where players choose a
>location in the roman world (just like choosing a campaign scenario) and
>combat and trade go on with other human player cities.
>
Combat is covered above. While it would be possible to create a
situation where two human cities trade with one another, this could
never create enough conflict to be enjoyable. Also, I don't feel that
there is enough need for cooperation between two cities that would
make the game significantly better than it is right now.
> Well, you asked.
>
Yeah, I asked, and I still think that this game is a single player
*only* design.
Later,
Rob
duquesne
> > Each player has his own city. The goal is to build legions, send them to
> >the enemies city and destroy it. Basically you play a military scenario
> >where the enemy is not some random troops from a random city, but troops
> >generated by the other player's city.
> >
is, into an Age of Empires RTS slugfest, which I am glad it isn't.
Robert L. Mullen
I totally agree. I was hoping for more of the building aspect in Age
of Empires... the advertising screenshots certainly made it look like
building was an integral part of the game!!
Later,
Rob
Neil Fradkin
them to
>> >the enemies city and destroy it. Basically you play a military scenario
>> >where the enemy is not some random troops from a random city, but troops
>> >generated by the other player's city.
>> >
> This would change Caesar III from a city building simulator, which it
>is, into an Age of Empires RTS slugfest, which I am glad it isn't.
That's a bit reactionary don't you think. It would not change a single
thing about the gameplay it would only add the sending of troops to another
city. The entire building part would still be there. It would be just like
one of the harder military scenarios but with the option to attack another
city as well as defend your own. Connecting two cities would somehow
instantly change the entire mechanics of the game.
Anyways, the question was how could C3 be multiplayer and I answered it.
Robert L. Mullen
Actually I don't think that his response was reactionary, I think that
it was quite acurate. I don't think the "click-fest" crowd would
enjoy the combat portion of Ceasar, nor do I think that they would
enjoy the "micromanagement" involved in the city building. Therefore,
by the time the multiplayer project was finished the game would
resemble Age of Empires more so than Ceasar III.
Also, why are two Roman cities fighting one another? OR if humans
have the ability to build "non-Roman" cities, how do all of the city
building aspects of the game fit? It just doesn't make sense.
> Anyways, the question was how could C3 be multiplayer and I answered it.
>
>
Yes you have answered the question, but the answer doesn't work.
Later,
Rob
Neil Fradkin
to
>>the enemies city and destroy it. Basically you play a military scenario
>>where the enemy is not some random troops from a random city, but troops
>>generated by the other player's city.
>>
>but I don't feel that combat plays a large enough role to make this
>workable.
Then why are there all those military scenarios?
>Why are two Roman cities fighting each other?
Well, it's a game. I don't see people getting real upset that in myth
both sides have both good and evil troops on their sides. If it makes you
feel better, think of it as the Roman Civil War.
>If the
>opposing city is not Roman, what do you do with all of the game
>features that are specific to Rome... the name of the game is *Ceasar*
>after all!!
Say it with me now, "it's a game".
Since the name of the game is Caesar, they better get rid of all those
early scenarios and only have the military scenarios in gaul, correct?
-snip-
>> Well, you asked.
>>
>Yeah, I asked, and I still think that this game is a single player
>*only* design.
Well, maybe that's because it is a single player design. You asked how
it could possibly be multiplayer, I answered. Sorry you don't approve of the
answer. While I would never have really though about it in the absence of
this thread, competing against a friend building cities towards some rating
goal just like a scenario, while having the option of attacking his city to
try and slow him down might actually be quite fun. Uh oh, Bob's got his
imperial favor rating up to 58, I'd better send some gifts to the emperor to
keep up, or send an attack to lower his peace rating, etc.
Neil Fradkin
>Actually I don't think that his response was reactionary, I think that
>it was quite acurate. I don't think the "click-fest" crowd would
>enjoy the combat portion of Ceasar, nor do I think that they would
>enjoy the "micromanagement" involved in the city building.
Uh, so what? Did anyone say anything about appealing to the "click-fest"
crowd.
>Therefore,
>by the time the multiplayer project was finished the game would
>resemble Age of Empires more so than Ceasar III.
I don't understand how we got to this. I mentioned the possiblity of
playing C3 exactly how it is now, but with the competition of having another
player city that you can send troops to and be attacked by.
>Also, why are two Roman cities fighting one another? OR if humans
>have the ability to build "non-Roman" cities, how do all of the city
>building aspects of the game fit? It just doesn't make sense.
Once again for those who missed it, "IT'S A GAME!"
Thomas B Gross
: If these possibilities are so obvious, why didn't you post them
: instead of posting an arrogant response that equates to "if you can't
: think of any, I'm not going to tell you!"
: As a challenge to you... I don't beleive that you have thought of any
: workable multiplayer possibilities for Ceasar III. The ball's in your
: court!
: Later,
: Rob
A man walks into a diner and orders a cup of coffee without cream.
The waitress says "I'm sorry sir, we are all out of cream. Would you
like it without milk?"
--
Ronald Gretz
semper in excreto, solum profundo variat
Jimmy Chan
(This part actually written by another poster but was name was snipped out)
:#>> This would change Caesar III from a city building simulator, which it
:#>>is, into an Age of Empires RTS slugfest, which I am glad it isn't.
:#> That's a bit reactionary don't you think. It would not change a single
:#>thing about the gameplay it would only add the sending of troops to another
:#>city. The entire building part would still be there. It would be just like
:#>one of the harder military scenarios but with the option to attack another
:#>city as well as defend your own. Connecting two cities would somehow
:#>instantly change the entire mechanics of the game.
:#Actually I don't think that his response was reactionary, I think that
:#it was quite acurate. I don't think the "click-fest" crowd would
:#enjoy the combat portion of Ceasar, nor do I think that they would
:#enjoy the "micromanagement" involved in the city building. Therefore,
:#by the time the multiplayer project was finished the game would
:#resemble Age of Empires more so than Ceasar III.
:#Also, why are two Roman cities fighting one another? OR if humans
:#have the ability to build "non-Roman" cities, how do all of the city
:#building aspects of the game fit? It just doesn't make sense.
Thinking about what Neil said, I think it may be a possible way to include
multiplayer maybe in the next Caesar game. Each player governs and builds
a city and raise defensive armies to keep out non-friendly armies.
Eventually, each player moves up in rank after conquering new territories
until they they can seize the throne and become Caesar. Combat doesn't
have to be the only way to conquer a city or other player, could also
include economical takeover of another city, bribe another city/player,
whatever. The player that becomes Caesar could be the one who has the most
territory, the most territority, the most people he governs, the most
favored by the gods, etc. there are virtually unlimited possibilities that
could make this game (in the future) a good multiplayer game. Not all
multiplayer games have to come down to combat, but this could be one way
out of many other ways to becoming Caesar. Caesar III has a very good
economical model that if it ever went to multiplayer, it would steer it
away from most if not all the current multiplayer games available, by using
the economy as another way of defeating someone instead of only combat.
I'm not saying that Caesar III needs multiplayer now, I'm satisfied with
the way it is, but maybe for any future Caesar games this may be possible.
--
==============================ji...@hawaii.edu===============================
Thomas B Gross
: territory, the most territority, the most people he governs, the most
: favored by the gods, etc. there are virtually unlimited possibilities that
: could make this game (in the future) a good multiplayer game. Not all
: multiplayer games have to come down to combat, but this could be one way
: out of many other ways to becoming Caesar. Caesar III has a very good
: economical model that if it ever went to multiplayer, it would steer it
: away from most if not all the current multiplayer games available, by using
: the economy as another way of defeating someone instead of only combat.
: I'm not saying that Caesar III needs multiplayer now, I'm satisfied with
: the way it is, but maybe for any future Caesar games this may be possible.
Good answers. Saying that multiplayer Caesar III would be "impossible"
is like saying that multiplayer Monopoly would be "impossible". Claiming
to be proud to have a produced a single-player game is ridiculous.
--
Jimmy Chan
:#Good answers. Saying that multiplayer Caesar III would be "impossible"
:#is like saying that multiplayer Monopoly would be "impossible". Claiming
:#to be proud to have a produced a single-player game is ridiculous.
I agree with you that multiplayer may be possible with Caesar III, but I
totally disagree with you that David Lester and company shouldn't be proud
of producing a single-player game. There is nothing wrong with Caesar III
as it stands being single-player, it is a great game and they should be
proud of it. Just because it doesn't have multiplayer doesn't make it any
worse, having multiplayer would have made a great game more greater.
--
==============================ji...@hawaii.edu===============================
Thomas B Gross
: I agree with you that multiplayer may be possible with Caesar III, but I
: totally disagree with you that David Lester and company shouldn't be proud
: of producing a single-player game. There is nothing wrong with Caesar III
: as it stands being single-player, it is a great game and they should be
: proud of it. Just because it doesn't have multiplayer doesn't make it any
: worse, having multiplayer would have made a great game more greater.
Yes, I actually don't really care if a game has multiplayer - I found the
claim that if they had added multiplayer it would have been just like
all the other warcraft II clones to be bullshit. I would have
been more impressed if David Lester had said something like "we didn't think
the investment in implementing multiplayer Caesar III would have been
worth the cost" or "I think multiplayer computer games suck - what's the
point of having a computer if you are playing against other humans".
But to claim that multiplayer C3 would be impossible per se or that
it would have turned the game into AOE is nothing but a crock.
What is even more ludicrous is the claim that they are proud *not* to
have provided the feature!
--
Robert L. Mullen
wrote:
Congratulations! You win the award for the most unintelligent usenet
post of the week. You have confirmed my suspicions. You really have
no idea about which you are writing. You have no ideas on how to make
Ceasar a multiplayer game. Your only purpose in this thread is to
throw a couple of slams at the game because it was designed as a
single player game.
I've asked you how you would make this game multiplayer and you have
answered by talking about expresso and a guy who can't get cream for
his coffee.
If you have any intelligent ideas, post them. If you want to continue
babbling gibberish, well, post that too, because this is the usenet
and freedom of speech is paramount... even if the speech makes no
sense.
Later,
Rob
Robert L. Mullen
wrote:
>Jimmy Chan (ji...@Hawaii.Edu) wrote:
>: territory, the most territority, the most people he governs, the most
>: favored by the gods, etc. there are virtually unlimited possibilities that
>: could make this game (in the future) a good multiplayer game. Not all
>: multiplayer games have to come down to combat, but this could be one way
>: out of many other ways to becoming Caesar. Caesar III has a very good
>: economical model that if it ever went to multiplayer, it would steer it
>: away from most if not all the current multiplayer games available, by using
>: the economy as another way of defeating someone instead of only combat.
>
>: I'm not saying that Caesar III needs multiplayer now, I'm satisfied with
>: the way it is, but maybe for any future Caesar games this may be possible.
>
>Good answers. Saying that multiplayer Caesar III would be "impossible"
>is like saying that multiplayer Monopoly would be "impossible". Claiming
>to be proud to have a produced a single-player game is ridiculous.
>--
Hey Thomas... its you again. I see that you couldn't form any ideas
of your own, so you've jumped on someone else's coat tails. Are you
seriously comparing Ceasar III and Monopoly?? You can't be serious!
Let's see Monopoly is a board game that was designed for four human
players; Ceasar III is a computer game that was designed for one human
player.
Good work... great post!
Robert L. Mullen
<nfra...@secant.com> wrote:
>
>>Actually I don't think that his response was reactionary, I think that
>>it was quite acurate. I don't think the "click-fest" crowd would
>>enjoy the combat portion of Ceasar, nor do I think that they would
>>enjoy the "micromanagement" involved in the city building.
>
> Uh, so what? Did anyone say anything about appealing to the "click-fest"
>crowd.
>
The "click-fest" crowd are the ones who always scream for multiplay.
They are the ones who actually play multiplay games. Therefore any
serious multiplayer game will need to appeal to them.
>>Therefore,
>>by the time the multiplayer project was finished the game would
>>resemble Age of Empires more so than Ceasar III.
>
>
> I don't understand how we got to this. I mentioned the possiblity of
>playing C3 exactly how it is now, but with the competition of having another
>player city that you can send troops to and be attacked by.
>
It's quite simple how I got here. If multiplay were to be
implemented, it would go through play testing and play balancing. In
the end, I beleive that the entire game design would have to be
comprimised to make the game workable and fun. In the end the game
would resemble Age of Empires.
>>Also, why are two Roman cities fighting one another? OR if humans
>>have the ability to build "non-Roman" cities, how do all of the city
>>building aspects of the game fit? It just doesn't make sense.
>
>
> Once again for those who missed it, "IT'S A GAME!"
>
In the structure of this argumentative discussion, this answer is
unacceptable. The central theme of this game is building and managing
a Roman city. Although people have pointed out many historical
inaccuracies in the game, these inaccuracies do not detract from the
central theme of the game. Having two Roman cities fight one another
would definitely detract from this central theme. Having a non-Roman
city fight a Roman city would also detract from this theme. Having
two Roman cities cooperate would fit the theme, but I don't think it
would offer any more challange than is already there. I'm sorry, but
the "IT'S A GAME" argument just doesn't fly within the context of my
questions.
<see my comments to your next post>
Later,
Rob
John Alcock
wrote:
>Claiming
>to be proud to have a produced a single-player game is ridiculous.
>--
Nowhere near as ridiculous as that statement. I could give less of a
hang about multiplayer. Caesar III is a great single-player game.
Lester and Co. deserve to be proud.
John
--
Work: jal...@watson.ibm.com
Home: jal...@ct1.nai.net
"It's a sobering thought that when Mozart was my age,
he had been dead for 3 years." -- Tom Lehrer
--
Robert L. Mullen
<nfra...@secant.com> wrote:
>>> Each player has his own city. The goal is to build legions, send them
>to
>>>the enemies city and destroy it. Basically you play a military scenario
>>>where the enemy is not some random troops from a random city, but troops
>>>generated by the other player's city.
>>>
>>This would work if the game was designed as a combat strategy game,
>>but I don't feel that combat plays a large enough role to make this
>>workable.
>
> Then why are there all those military scenarios?
>
>>Why are two Roman cities fighting each other?
>
> Well, it's a game. I don't see people getting real upset that in myth
>both sides have both good and evil troops on their sides. If it makes you
>feel better, think of it as the Roman Civil War.
>
Interesting twist... this might just work!
>>If the
>>opposing city is not Roman, what do you do with all of the game
>>features that are specific to Rome... the name of the game is *Ceasar*
>>after all!!
>
>
> Say it with me now, "it's a game".
>
It might be a game, but if you add the ability to build non-Roman
cities, it won't be the same game. If we are going this far, why not
just design a new, but similar, game that is multiplayer??
> Since the name of the game is Caesar, they better get rid of all those
>early scenarios and only have the military scenarios in gaul, correct?
>
Quite true, but the current inaccuracies do not detract from the
central game design. Allowing non-Roman cities would detract from
this central design.
>-snip-
>>> Well, you asked.
>>>
>>Yeah, I asked, and I still think that this game is a single player
>>*only* design.
>
>
> Well, maybe that's because it is a single player design. You asked how
>it could possibly be multiplayer, I answered. Sorry you don't approve of the
>answer. While I would never have really though about it in the absence of
>this thread, competing against a friend building cities towards some rating
>goal just like a scenario, while having the option of attacking his city to
>try and slow him down might actually be quite fun. Uh oh, Bob's got his
>imperial favor rating up to 58, I'd better send some gifts to the emperor to
>keep up, or send an attack to lower his peace rating, etc.
>
This just might work. I would be opposed to military actions between
the two cities, because a real "Ceasar" would have both city governors
fighting the lions if they decided to fight one another. But, we
could probably come up with quite a few non-military ways to knife
your opponent(s). It would probably have a "Diplomacy" feel to it.
Great idea... this is the kind of stuff I was looking for in this
thread.
Later,
Rob
Robert L. Mullen
>Robert L. Mullen (rlmu...@SENDNOSPAMntrnet.net) wrote:
>territory, the most territority, the most people he governs, the most
>favored by the gods, etc. there are virtually unlimited possibilities that
>could make this game (in the future) a good multiplayer game. Not all
>multiplayer games have to come down to combat, but this could be one way
>out of many other ways to becoming Caesar. Caesar III has a very good
>economical model that if it ever went to multiplayer, it would steer it
>away from most if not all the current multiplayer games available, by using
>the economy as another way of defeating someone instead of only combat.
>
>I'm not saying that Caesar III needs multiplayer now, I'm satisfied with
>the way it is, but maybe for any future Caesar games this may be possible.
>
>--
OK... you got me. Making Ceasar multiplay would not be impossible. I
like these ideas. The problem is that many people want to beef up the
military side of the game and make this another fight to the death
kind of multiplayer game. I still think that this is *almost*
impossible. Neil did suggest the Roman Civil War... hey I could go
for that!!
I'm still afraid that multiplay in any fashion would seriously
compromise the basic design of this game. I enjoy the managment
aspect of this game and those like it. In the future, I would want to
see more complex managment problems, but I fear that the city
managment aspect will have to be comprimised in order to make the game
move "fast enough" for multiplay. This is why I say adding multiplay
would be impossible... too many compromises would have to be made.
Later,
Rob
Neil Fradkin
>They are the ones who actually play multiplay games. Therefore any
>serious multiplayer game will need to appeal to them.
Lovely assumptions that you are using in order to flame people. In this
case they are only making an ass out of you.
>It's quite simple how I got here. If multiplay were to be
>implemented, it would go through play testing and play balancing. In
>the end, I beleive that the entire game design would have to be
>comprimised to make the game workable and fun. In the end the game
>would resemble Age of Empires.
Well, another completely innacurate assumption based on nothing. You
seem to be rather narrow minded. It's really is possible to develop a
multiplayer game that does not resemble age of empires. Multiplayer,
something which dates back to the earliest strategy games, does not equate
to RTS.
The only thing playtesting would affect would be the maps available for
multiplayer to make sure no player has a siginificant advantage. The game
design as far as building and defending an individual city would go 100%
unchanged.
>> Once again for those who missed it, "IT'S A GAME!"
>>
>In the structure of this argumentative discussion, this answer is
>unacceptable. The central theme of this game is building and managing
>a Roman city. Although people have pointed out many historical
>inaccuracies in the game, these inaccuracies do not detract from the
>central theme of the game. Having two Roman cities fight one another
>would definitely detract from this central theme. Having a non-Roman
>city fight a Roman city would also detract from this theme. Having
>two Roman cities cooperate would fit the theme, but I don't think it
>would offer any more challange than is already there. I'm sorry, but
>the "IT'S A GAME" argument just doesn't fly within the context of my
>questions.
Wow, you really need to get down off that high horse for a little while.
"It's a game" is 100% relevant, because we are talking about a computer
game. You question was how could multiplayer possibly work. So far we have
the strawman argument (it would become AOE), and the non-sequitor (but that
would ruin the theme). Obviously I cannot answer the question to your
satifaction since you do not actually want an answer and will rant on about
the most ridiclous things to avoid accepting the answer. If you absolutely
need an explanation why two roman cities are fighting, as I said before,
just imagine it's the roman civil war.
How about then the idea of two or more roman cities competeing to reach
a certian ranking level first. That would completely be withing your
perception of the "theme". If you think about it instead of going over your
obviously misdirected hatred of anything multiplayer you'd see how
ridicilous your posts are and it would have taken less than a second to
realize how C3 could possibly be mutliplayer.
The origianl poster asking if there was multiplayer was not trying to
"slam" the game. I really don't understand how any rational person could
take it that way and get so upset over it.
Neil Fradkin
>like these ideas. The problem is that many people want to beef up the
>military side of the game and make this another fight to the death
>kind of multiplayer game. I still think that this is *almost*
>impossible. Neil did suggest the Roman Civil War... hey I could go
>for that!!
I'm glad you have decided to take a step back and look at the issue more
rationally. Wish I had read this post before writing my last reply ;)
Multiplayer is cerianly not required in a game like C3, but it would be
interesting. If multiplayer were to be considered for a future Caesar game,
I don't think for one second that it would comprimise the game design. David
Lester is a man who clearly has direction when designing games and doesn't
seem to be one to base designs on what the market deems the trend of the
moment.
>I'm still afraid that multiplay in any fashion would seriously
>compromise the basic design of this game. I enjoy the managment
>aspect of this game and those like it. In the future, I would want to
>see more complex managment problems, but I fear that the city
>managment aspect will have to be comprimised in order to make the game
>move "fast enough" for multiplay. This is why I say adding multiplay
>would be impossible... too many compromises would have to be made.
It would certainly be a lot to consider. Multiplayer always opens a
large can of worms. Some design teams do end up making compromises for
multiplay, but if I may be so bold I'd say that when that happens it's
because the game does not already have a strong design vision.
As you have stated here, the biggest problem with mutliplayer would be
the length of time it takes to play a scenario. But then again I've had
Empire and Warlords games took weeks to play out. As long as you could save
the game, it's no problem.
However, I could easily see the game, exactly as it is now, in a
multiplayer environment, with two or more cities competing to reach the
"promotion" first, while having the option of sending legions to attack
other cities (have peaceful as well as military games if someone does not
want any military part). Some form of economic competition could be
introduced, like competing for trade routes in some fashion.
Realize too, that the long gone person who started this thread might not
have played a previous Caesar game and was probably asking the question
honestly since he did not know much about the game. Though multiplayer C3 is
somewhat impractical, it's not a slam to ask or speculate about it.
Thomas B Gross
: post of the week. You have confirmed my suspicions. You really have
: no idea about which you are writing. You have no ideas on how to make
: Ceasar a multiplayer game. Your only purpose in this thread is to
: throw a couple of slams at the game because it was designed as a
: single player game.
Robert, you seem to be kind of obsessed with my purpose in posting
on this subject. I even tried answering in French, and you accused
me of flaming you. Then I referred to a rather amusing and fascinating
article in the current issue of the New Yorker, and finally or
I suppose subsequently I offered up the familiar parable of the
coffee without milk.
--
Thomas B Gross
: >
: the two cities, because a real "Ceasar" would have both city governors
: fighting the lions if they decided to fight one another. But, we
: could probably come up with quite a few non-military ways to knife
: your opponent(s). It would probably have a "Diplomacy" feel to it.
: Great idea... this is the kind of stuff I was looking for in this
: thread.
Plus you learned a lot about coffee, si je dose le dire.
--
Robert L. Mullen
wrote:
And you still have neither answered any questions that I asked, nor
have you offered anything of value to this virtual conversation. What
does this prove? It proves that you are a complete idiot, and I'm not
much smarter for carrying the thread this far.
Good bye.
Rob
Thomas B Gross
: have you offered anything of value to this virtual conversation. What
: does this prove? It proves that you are a complete idiot, and I'm not
: much smarter for carrying the thread this far.
Suppose I told you that I happen to know that David Lester
speaks French!
--
JackyO
>
> Robert L. Mullen (rlmu...@SENDNOSPAMntrnet.net) wrote:
>
> : instead of posting an arrogant response that equates to "if you can't
> : think of any, I'm not going to tell you!"
>
> : As a challenge to you... I don't beleive that you have thought of any
> : workable multiplayer possibilities for Ceasar III. The ball's in your
> : court!
>
> : Later,
> : Rob
>
> A man walks into a diner and orders a cup of coffee without cream.
> The waitress says "I'm sorry sir, we are all out of cream. Would you
> like it without milk?"
Actually, I am curious. How would you implement multiplayer in this game
without basically designing a whole new game? Sim CITY didn't have
multiplayer either, and I can't see how it could have been added there.
So how about here?
JackyO
> Good answers. Saying that multiplayer Caesar III would be "impossible"
> is like saying that multiplayer Monopoly would be "impossible". Claiming
> to be proud to have a produced a single-player game is ridiculous.
????????????????
Your logic is unsound. Most gamers do NOT spend the majority of their
time in online gaming <check out some of the surveys>. So, single player
experience is important.
If I had produced C3, I would be proud.
In your book, if a game doesnt have multiplayer, it's designers should
be ashamed? Is that what you are really saying here?
Robert L. Mullen
wrote:
JackyO,
You're probably wasting your time trying to get a straight answer out
of Thomas. I think he's a raving lunatic... or he plan's on playing
one on TV. I checked his posts from the past month or so, and he
hasn't posted anything serious in that time... although I'll admit
some of his stuff is quite humorous. He just strung me along for
about 5 or 6 messages earlier in this thread.
I have to agree with you about multiplayer. I conceded that
multiplayer in C3 is *possible*, but I still think the game would need
significant re-design to implement. Would the new design be workable
and fun??... it could be or it could be a complete failure.
I think David Lester should be proud to have created a single player
game. He should be proud that he didn't cave in to the demands of
"multiplayer only" crowd; he should be proud that he didn't cave in to
the demands of the marketing weenies; he should be proud that he stuck
to his intended design; he should be proud that he shipped his product
relatively *bug free* at the perfect time in the Christmas buying
season. He should be proud to have created a game that is a
significant challange. He would not have acheived any of this had he
compromised on his original design!!
Is there room for multiplay in Ceasar IV?? But, if David Lester
doesn't want to do it, I would rather the game stay single player.
Later,
Rob
Thomas B Gross
: You're probably wasting your time trying to get a straight answer out
: of Thomas. I think he's a raving lunatic... or he plan's on playing
: one on TV. I checked his posts from the past month or so, and he
: hasn't posted anything serious in that time... although I'll admit
: some of his stuff is quite humorous. He just strung me along for
: about 5 or 6 messages earlier in this thread.
Damn. Dejanews strikes again!
: I have to agree with you about multiplayer. I conceded that
: multiplayer in C3 is *possible*, but I still think the game would need
: significant re-design to implement. Would the new design be workable
: and fun??... it could be or it could be a complete failure.
Someone mentioned multiplayer SimCity, which *does* exist. It is
amusing that no one even knows about it (I guess it sucks).
: I think David Lester should be proud to have created a single player
: game. He should be proud that he didn't cave in to the demands of
: "multiplayer only" crowd; he should be proud that he didn't cave in to
: the demands of the marketing weenies; he should be proud that he stuck
: to his intended design; he should be proud that he shipped his product
: relatively *bug free* at the perfect time in the Christmas buying
: season. He should be proud to have created a game that is a
: significant challange. He would not have acheived any of this had he
: compromised on his original design!!
As Mrs. Robinson says to Benjamin at the very start of the "The Graduate":
"PROUD PROUD PROUD".
--
David Lester
my head is about to explode, so I'll go back to reading some of the posts
about market traders to keep from getting too proud!! :-)
David Lester
Designer
Robert L. Mullen wrote in message <362745bc...@news.mindspring.com>...
>I think David Lester should be proud to have created a single player
>game. He should be proud that he didn't cave in to the demands of
>"multiplayer only" crowd; he should be proud that he didn't cave in to
>the demands of the marketing weenies; he should be proud that he stuck
>to his intended design; he should be proud that he shipped his product
>relatively *bug free* at the perfect time in the Christmas buying
>season. He should be proud to have created a game that is a
>significant challange. He would not have acheived any of this had he
>compromised on his original design!!
>
Jimmy Chan
:#You've hit the nail on the head about why I'm proud of our stance. And now
:#my head is about to explode, so I'll go back to reading some of the posts
:#about market traders to keep from getting too proud!! :-)
Dave, while you should be proud of a good game, I'd like to urge caution.
The game lacks a certain replay value like other great games, that is
because there is no random map generator, no campaign/map builder, and no
multiplayer. While these don't detract from the game itself, there will be
some limit on the longevity of the game without one of these facets to add
replay value. Games like Civ2, random map generator and map builder,
multiplayer games etc., are still being played today even though they may
be kind of old, but there is unlimited replay value in those games. Civ2
is still on my HD and I still play it now and then. Games that I finish
after solo play without any sort of random maps or map builders get removed
off my HD because there is no fun in playing the same scenarios/maps.
Adding a random map generator or campaign/map builder, or multiplayer will
add months/years to the life of your game and keep gamers wanting to play
your games until the next version comes out. I really hope you reconsider
and either in a patch or in the next version that one of these options are
implemented.
--
==============================ji...@hawaii.edu===============================
Matt Claycomb
I read a preview a couple months ago that AoE II was going to have a better
trade model, along with the same style combat.
Neil Fradkin wrote in message <70568f$kh8$1...@plonk.apk.net>...
BrotherGrimm
Sophism does not equate to witticism. You're not making yourself
look intelligent, you're making yourself look like an ass. If the
multiplayer possibilities are so terribly obvious, why don't you
enlighten we, the plebian masses?
Myself, the only inherent multiplay capacity I see within the
game as it sits now would be playing as the invading tribes and/or
natives, neither one looks terribly appealing.
-Grimm
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:04:58 GMT, t...@world.std.com (Thomas B Gross)
wrote:
>Robert L. Mullen (rlmu...@SENDNOSPAMntrnet.net) wrote:
>
>: If these possibilities are so obvious, why didn't you post them
>: instead of posting an arrogant response that equates to "if you can't
>: think of any, I'm not going to tell you!"
>
>: As a challenge to you... I don't beleive that you have thought of any
>: workable multiplayer possibilities for Ceasar III. The ball's in your
>: court!
>
>: Later,
>: Rob
>
>A man walks into a diner and orders a cup of coffee without cream.
>The waitress says "I'm sorry sir, we are all out of cream. Would you
>like it without milk?"
>--
Aum Shiva, all hail eris, principia discordia, and all that
other fun stuff.
I don't mind anarchy, just so long as it's done in an organized
fashion.
(Remove the (NOSPAM!) to reply.)
Thomas B Gross
: Thomas,
: Sophism does not equate to witticism. You're not making yourself
Yeah, I know.
: look intelligent, you're making yourself look like an ass. If the
well, I invented Post-its, so there!
: multiplayer possibilities are so terribly obvious, why don't you
: enlighten we, the plebian masses?
the game I have in mind is on my list of things to do,
somewhere after buying a pool table and publishing a novel,
but before taking up charioteering (for the sake of an
obscure reference to Ezra Pound's Cantos).
: Myself, the only inherent multiplay capacity I see within the
: game as it sits now would be playing as the invading tribes and/or
: natives, neither one looks terribly appealing.
I wish there were some way I could ask you if what I have in
mind would be appealing to you, without giving away all
my secret plans.
--
BrotherGrimm
wrote:
>BrotherGrimm (Quat...@nospam.bellsouth.net) wrote:
BEFORE taking up charioteering? That alone is proof enough that your
entire system of values and judgement is terribly skewed, and you
should be locked up someplace safe, where your corruption cannot taint
the innocent and pure masses.
Honestly, game design and billiards before charioteering. I'm
disgusted, Thomas...I thought you were a man of culture.
-Grimm