"So what's Civ 3 like? It's Civ 2 with improved graphics and a few new wrinkles."

So what's wrong with that? A lot of us loved Civ 2 and will be happy to buy a slightly improved version.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if they solved the "end game tedium", but that's hard to do and would probably require revolutionary changes. I'll happily settle for incremental improvement here; it was a great game to begin with.

Man, that is one goddamn ugly advisor in the middle screenshot. What planet are they living on that they think I want to listen to people who look like *that* in my fantasy-world dictator games?

Heh heh -- that advisor looks a lot like Sid Meier with glasses.

As to what's wrong with Civ 3 being Civ 2 with new graphics and new wrinkles? Nothing, but I reserve the right to be unexcited by it. The funny thing is, on the maps the graphics don't even look that much improved.

Here's the thing.

I buy Combat Mission and a bunch of guys out there give me updated graphics for FREE~! They even add some cool stuff and tweak a few other things all for FREE!!

So, Civ II is getting a facelift. And a few new items perhaps. Otherwise it's the same game. But, it's not going to be free. In fact, they'll charge me like it was a completely new game.

I think I may actually pass on this one. I'll just pull out my old CivII CD when I get nostalgic and play it instead. It's the gameplay right? Not the graphics anyway.

"I think I may actually pass on this one. I'll just pull out my old CivII CD when I get nostalgic and play it instead. It's the gameplay right? Not the graphics anyway."

The graphics aren't really all that much better in many cases. It's hard to do much with the data screens and the overland maps, well, how do you make grass and trees and mountains look all that much better? The units themselves look quite a bit better and are much more animated, for what that's worth. They swing their swords when attacking, etc., but combat is so abstract in this game anyway that the updated unit graphics don't really add a lot.

I guess in a lot of ways the "if it ain't broke..." maxim applies. However, for me, the game has always been a bit broken due to the tedium that sets in during the latter stages. It's a fantastic game to start, but a tedious game to finish. Maybe the Alpha Centauri-like govenors that are supposed to be in this game will help.

I'm also disappointed that Sid Meier is more or less just lending his name to the game. He is playing it, we were told, but Jeff Briggs is driving the development. It would have been interesting to see what Sid might come up with if he really decided to revisit and retool the game.

I'd probably feel more excited if this were the first iteration since Civ, but we've had Civ II, Civ II Gold, and Test of Time. I'd be curious to know if anyone who saw the game at E3 was really all that excited by it?

I'm betting Civilization III is going to suck about as much as Call To Power did. Sid doesn't have Brian Reynold's mad game-balancin' skills to rely on anymore, and it's not going to be pretty.

Or rather, we'll find out if Briggs matches up to Reynolds.

"I'm also disappointed that Sid Meier is more or less just lending his name to the game. "

Hmm, and here I thought this was to be a Sid game that was actually Sid's. The only true "Sid" game in the last five years was Gettysburg (at least that I'm aware of). Dinosaurs was supposed to be, but it's deadjim. How much of the golf game is going to be Sid's?

Sid doesn't do sequels.
But, according to Brian Reynolds Sid is the most brutal play tester imaginable. Brian told me Alpha Centauri wouldn't be half the game it was if Sid hadn't been there with his "daily suggestion lists".

I'm hoping CivIII has an AI upgrade (Civ2's is too predictable for me now) and I'm jazzed about the diplomacy and trade ideas they're talking about.

Anyway, I haven't played a bad "Sid Meier's" game yet, so, yeah, I'm extremely excited about this one. Bring on that endgame tedium I say!

-Andrew

"Anyway, I haven't played a bad "Sid Meier's" game yet, so, yeah, I'm extremely excited about this one. Bring on that endgame tedium I say!"

Heh -- ok, I'll start Civ 3 games and send you my save game file when I get bored. How's that sound?

I wanted to chime in about that "end game tedium." I thought I was the only guy whose experience of Civ II was less than transcendental because of that. Whenever I play the game, the first few hours are amazing, but then the end devolves into this mind-numbing rhythm of me cleaning up pollution while desperately trying to get the Apollo Program in place fast enough. This central paradox is to me the problem of Civ II: the beginning of each game feels full of infinite possibility, but the end is relentlessly the same every time.

That said, it's obviously eaten up lots of my time, and is probably the quintessential example of the "always give the player interesting choices to make" principle that Meier and his disciples tout. And it is a ridiculously ambitious holistic "reality model" that the game simulates -- quite educational, really.

They just need to figure out how to collapse the many cities into a nation or something so that you get the same management decisions, but they're applied on a grander scale.

That's why I was disappointed to find out they weren't really doing anything about it with Civ III, at least that they could verbalize to me when I asked.

I am getting more interested in the game now. The overland graphics I'm seeing in screenshots finally do look quite a bit better than Civ II.

One of the beautiful things about MOO is that just when it reached that point where there was too much micromanagement, the game was ready to end.

im excited about civ3, although it might not be truely cid, i dont think he would put his name on any game he deems not worthy. but then again civ = cid, without his name there civ != civ ^_^

They did add the city governors, which can control things like pollution and unhappiness on their own, if you want them too. That alone should make late game turns proceed a lot more quickly. In CivII I found that a lot of the micromanagement things that you havd to do late game were pretty straightforward--things with obvious solutions, rather than important decisions waiting to be made. That's the sort of stuff that you can easily automate, which is apparently what they've done. Works for me (or at least I hope it will...).

The Governor concept works reasonably well in SMAC, so I don't see why it wouldn't be improved here. Sid games are well regarded for their AI, I doubt that'll change here unless Infogrames somehow rushed the game.

Here's something to keep in mind. This is a Sid Meier game even if Briggs designed it. According to Brian Reynolds, Sid is a nightmare playtester. He fills entire notebooks with his "design notes", suggestions, and criticisms.

-Andrew

Also don't discount Briggs's design prowess. I spent the better part of an afternoon in July talking to him while we tooled around with the game, and he struck me as being pretty damn sharp. Lots of good ideas, and based on what I saw, they seem to be well implemented.

You are right about Sid as a playtester, though. Apparently he's brutal, and Firaxis started CivIII playtesting less than two weeks into the project (that's part of their design philosophy, and it seems to work).

Also, I believe Sid came up with the prototype of CivIII and Brian Reynolds fleshed it out. Then Brian left and Briggs took over.

Regardless, Sid's disciples are great designers in their own right. All of them. There's little reason to think Briggs couldn't rise to the challenge, he's a founding partner and he's worked on everything from Civ1 on up (I think). Plus, I doubt Sid wants to spoil a record like his with a stinker.

-Andrew

That's true, although the game has probably changed a lot since the first prototype. Firaxis's design philosophy produces games that constantly change and evolve throughout the development process.

Civ III Gold

Woohoo!!! ``Sid Meier's Civilization III has gone gold and will ship to retailers October 30th.''

Did they make off with the Call To Power artists? The new screenshots are a dead ringer for the old.

I couldn't find anything indicating whether you're still required to individually push accursed settlers around the map terraforming. Don't get me started on the automatic AI for that in SMAC.

http://www.civ3.com/gallery.cfm

Well, there goes my November...

They've split the Settler unit into two separate units. One does the upgrading of the surrounding land and the other specifically creates new settlements I think. I recall this from Ben's preview. So I think you're still "terraforming" the surrounding land just as in all the previous games. I don't expect it to handle it any better than the others with AI either. Essentially it's the division of Colony Pods and Formers in SMAC redone.

I really hope the AI is good. They claim to have rewritten the whole thing. My biggest fear is that it'll have a lot of cool ideas and I'll enjoy the basic gameplay as much as any in the series but be disappointed in single player play. Micromanagement looks just as daunting as the others though.

--Dave

Since I still play SMAC with regularity, and when I do I sometimes get sick of the sci-fi and wish for the historical backdrop.... and since I still play Civ2 with regularity, and when I do I often wish it played more like SMAC... I expect to be happy with Civ3.

Sure, I'd like it to be revolutionary, but I wouldn't mind if it was just a modernization to Civ2.

I couldn't bear another Call to Power.
-Andrew

'I think you're still "terraforming" the surrounding land just as in all the previous games.'

I think I've had my fill of carpal tunnel-inducing pushing formers around the map, thank you very much. Is it too much to ask for ripping off the CTP public works approach?

Envy me. I got a final CD today.

See you in a month. Or 12.

I realize you're probably doing a review and so you might not want to say anything early, but throw us a bone!!! Anything! What civ are you taking? How cool are the new cities? Does the new map just rock or what?! Give us something, anything...

"I realize you're probably doing a review and so you might not want to say anything early, but throw us a bone!!!"

I'm not sure if this covers conversation on a message board, but there's an embargo on writing about the final build until October 22nd.

You can guess how I know this. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm goin' in...

-Tom

Embargo, eh? I guess I'm going to have to be really quiet for a few weeks.

See you in the Diplomacy screen, Tom. Oh, I forgot -- no m/p.

Holy cow that's annoying. I will be thinking mean, angry thoughts about all of you Civ 3 final version weenies all the way to October 30.

--- Alan

Alan, Tom said no word until 10/22. That's 8 days before the game is actually released. That means that these guys get a couple weeks to tear the new Civ apart before I, like the junkie needing to feed his jones that I am, walk zombie-like to the nearest game store to buy one.

Personally, I think that's great. If anything comes up, we'll hopefully have lots of notice before wasting our cash on it. I just hope it turns out to be fun and addictive. Wait. That sounds like a drug addict, or a love junkie...

Hold me.

When I mentioned Civ III was gold, my wife just said, "Civilization three? I'm not sure I like the sound of that."

For me, I just say (with fingers crossed), "Pleasepleaseplease be good!"

Well I hope all the hype is worth it. I won't be rushing out to buy this game until I see some good reviews.

I don't think you'll have to worry about that. I'm sure Tom will have his comments up here on the 22nd, and the game isn't scheduled to hit the shelves 'til the 30th.

"I'm sure Tom will have his comments up here on the 22nd..."

Normally, yes, but I since Mark and I are freelancers primarily -- putting food on the table and all that. When we've been hired by someone else, our priority lies with them. So I might put up some comments after my assigned review has been published. But until them, I'm afraid I'll only be able to talk about it informally.

-Tom

We'd never expect anything else! If you don't eat, how are we ever gonna get another Shoot Club? :-)

At least give us "buy it" or "don't buy it" before it hits the shelves -- nothing too deep, we'll wait for your review for that, just an idea, so those of us that are teetering the line (if anybody is; I'm not) will know whether you'd recommend it.

I played a whole one turn of it yesterday; we had company at home so no playing last night.

I suspect this will be good.

Are you all reviewing it? Is there a reviewer in the country that hasn't told Firaxis, "Yeah, I'm reviewing it for gamezaddictedgydomain.com, send me my copy."? Why didn't I think of this sooner! I could have said I was reviewing it for "Cat Fancy" or "Older and Bolder".

Well, I don't have a copy. I don't always get Infogrames games for some reason. They sent me Desperados but didn't send me Monopoly Tycoon.

That's tough luck. I've been playing mine this afternoon. I'll refrain from saying anything about it, other than that I'm off to play some more...

Don't fret Mark, it isn't tough luck at all. According to Hill the only people who should have copies are people with print assignments or "special deals with certain websites" (I assume this means extended coverage).

I've got the assignment from a major media outlet, and despite their clout, they weren't on that initial list, so no copy for them. "My hands are tied Infogrames PR says".

So I've got to wait a week or so, for the next run (the good news is that I'll get a manual). Regular freelancers will get a copy the first week of Nov.

-Andrew
PS: I'm still extremely jealous of all you bastards playing it.

Boy I wish I could edit parts of the above post...

In the first paragraph I meant that early copies only went to print magazines with lead times to consider and to a couple sites who are doing a "CivIII week" feature (I didn't mean to imply reviews are bought). I presume these are Gamespot, Avault, and maybe IGN. Hard to say who has clout anymore.

Also, Infogrames only said the "My hands are tied" part of the second paragraph.

I'm still extremely jealous of all you bastards.

-Andrew

Yup, I got basically the same response -- something about all the money being spent -- so now I will make little voodoo dolls and jab them with titanium sporks till you hand 'em over.

Whoever you are.

You know who you are.

Feeling the pain yet?

--- Alan

Ow. What was that?

-Tom

Titanium sporks? Alan Dunkin, you pull no punches.

-Andrew

I'd appreciate any word, informal or not, once it is legal and ethical to give it. I've looked forward to this one for a long time, but I said the same thing about Ultima IX...

>>I'd appreciate any word, informal or not, once it is legal and ethical to give it.

Well, it's not Ultima IX, that's for sure.

I will point out this one significant criticism: the icon is ugly. I mean, it looks a bit like, "My first icon." Ick.

Well, that does it. I'm canceling my pre-order.

I'm not worried about having a copy. There are other games I'm more interested in. I'm not a big Civ fan. The games are fun to start but tedious to finish.

I'm mostly curious about it.

"The games are fun to start but tedious to finish."

Yes, that is a problem, and it's an inevitable reality if you win by conquest (a test for autism indeed!). At a Civ2 board ages ago I argued long and hard that Space Race was much harder (expecially if you refrain from conquest at all), mainly because you don't gain that overwhelming momentum that becomes so tedious. Not that developing hundreds of components/modules/etc., is fun exactly, but if the game is still close it can be exhilerating.

Especially the time I launched my craft first and then got severely nuked by the Mongols. It came as such a shock, launch the spaceship then I'm in for the fight of my life before it lands and guess what? I'm tapped out monetarily and my military was neglected during the spacecraft build up. Brilliant.

I had similar situations develop with the peaceful wins in SMAC.
-Andrew

I got into a gamey situation like that in the original Civ on an Earth map where it was me, the US in North and South America, vs. Russia, who had Africa, Europe and Asia. Kinda funny. I was behind in the space race, he launches, and in the last turn before his ship reaches AC I launch a quick raid and capture Moscow, ruining his chances.

That one session is dualy memorable as after rejecting an offer to get off of India's lands I was then nuked by Gandhi and I made a quick exit :)

--- Alan

I've actually been thinking a lot about Civilization II in past days. I almost universally went for a "space race" win. The game always started with a massive war-like expansion phase, then settled into a democratic phase of research amd economic development.

The interesting part is that while I was nearly always victorious, this game usually involved a small country with 2-3 cities that would convert to Fundamentalism, and assualt my civilization with spies or diplomats. Usually the spies would steal technology or sabotage facilities, but if the civilization had the ability, they would plant nuclear devices. My democratic civilization would then have the option to declare war, and usually level or capture a single city before being forced to make peace. For all the tedium of endgame that non-micromanagers had to endure, the game was surprisingly cogent.

In my last game of Civ II, about four months or so ago, I too was going for a "space race" win. Then the AIs discovered the joys of nuking, and all my wonderful cities collapsed into piles of radioactive rubble. I gave as good as I got, but the game had definitely run off the rails by then. The heartbreaker was losing my last big 20+ industrial city to a nuke on the turn it would have finished an SDI facility. Ouch. :-(

I still have the saved game, but I'm not sure I have any chance of winning now.

One of the things that ruins a conquest win in Civ2 is the power of the Howitzer. It has an attack of 12, is fairly cheap to build, if you fast track to Robotics you can get them fairly early in the 20th century, and they ignore city walls. Also, they tend to get two attacks per turn.

I've conquered the world many times with just howitzers and alpine troops (as a defensive backup).

I hope they fixed that.

-Andrew

Yeah, howitzers were as unbalancing as chariots in Civ I. SMACX didn't have anything I can think of like that, fortunately.

You don't think copters were overpowered?

[initiating Jedi mind trick] By the way, guys, tell us about Civ III.

:-)

I don't know, I never had that much trouble with copters. They really don't fair well against super-AA units.

Then again, it's probably highly dependent on what techs you have when someone else gets Mind-Machine interface.

enkidu:

That's just creepy.

More proof that Sid and his boys are mega-geniuses, I suppose.

Just FYI, since people were asking for Civ3 information, GameSpot is not under the Oct. 22nd preview embargo and posted one (mine) last night.

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/previews/0,10869,2818446,00.html

There was also an interview with Jeff Briggs and Sid Meier posted the day before.

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/previews/0,10869,2818313,00.html

Anyway. I hate linking to my own stuff but it seemed like people really wanted to know about Civ3. Sorry for the inconvenience, please move along.

"Sorry for the inconvenience, please move along."

Forget the modesty, Bruce. Reading your stuff is never an inconvenience.

It seems to me that everything I'm hearing from you guys that have Civ III proves that E3 is no place to evaluate a game where the differences from it predecessors depend so much on depth. There seemed to be a consensus on this board that Civ III was one of the more disappointing games shown at E3. Was that because in a short demo all you could say was that it didn't LOOK that much different from Civ 2? That consensus certainly seems to have changed.

Hey - is the Bruce Geryk that wrote the Gamespot preview the same one I heard standing on a table and telling everyone at the ZD party at E3 that Civ 3 was a piece of crap from untalented hacks? ;)

Great preview, Bruce. I read it this morning before I left work (about six CST) and really enjoyed. I wondered all day how they were able to post that...

Anyway, very helpful stuff -- that's what I've been waiting to hear. I'll be in line on the 30th...

"Hey - is the Bruce Geryk that wrote the Gamespot preview the same one I heard standing on a table and telling everyone at the ZD party at E3 that Civ 3 was a piece of crap from untalented hacks? ;)"


This is Bruce Geryk.

This is Bruce Geryk on alcohol. :)

So anyone feel like sharing anything else about Civ 3 at this point? (Not that I didn't like Bruce preview or anything, just wondering what other people have thought so far.)

Is this a must-have for all Civ fans?

What I want to know is when they are going to add multiplayer support. CivNet was *the* best of the lot, IMO, and I'm not going back to single player. Well I will but you'll have to twist my arm a bit.

They're working on the multiplayer now. They don't know when it will be ready or how it will be implemented, though. Let's hope for a free patch instead of an expansion.

Do people really want to play Civ multiplayer? How does that work? I mean, a small game, solo, takes me hours to finish. If all the AI players took as long as I do to complete their turns... doesn't sound like much fun to me.

Some games are well-suited to multiplayer. Civ isn't one of them. Personally, I'm glad they ditched it and concentrated on more important things.

Well, I'd like to see multiplayer. Sure, a full game will take hours (or days) on a turn-by-turn basis. PBEM games could take months -- likely would -- but could be a LOT of fun, and I think a lot of people around here would like it.

Part of me doesn't think that people would fork over money for an expansion pack -- 'cause, like many of you said, it's not that big a deal. I doubt they'd make enough money to justify the hit they'd take in the eyes of their customers. A patch would definitely be a better choice, if you ask me. (Of course, I just don't want to pay for it twice!)

If the Civ system was extended to implement simultaneous turn resolution multiplayer would actually be feasible; you could play through about six times as fast.

Not that I expect this to happen, as it'd be Sacrilege to a lot of people to do something like that.

When I used to play CivNet on the ladder back in '96 it would generally take an evening to play a 1v1 game, and that was with constant crashing and a 28k modem. More players than that would literally take days, especially if there was anything riding on the result. I remember one tournament game, where I was playing with two other of the top rated guys and we played for 18 hours one Sunday and we still hadn't passed the birth of christ. I didn't play much CivIIMP, but that was a little faster due to quicker updating, and limited-time moves.

Back in CivNet their was an option for simultaneous moves, but I think they canned it for CivIIMP. We used to hurry along games by using sim-moves until players met, and then restart with normal moves. The reason for the shift was because of the ridiculous advantage that the host, and players with faster connections, would get with sim-moves. They could effectively get 2 turns for their enemies 1, which would prove crucial in attacks and defence. For some reason they dumped this for Civ2MP, but I think someone wrote a mod that allowed it and it was pretty popular.

As for multiplayer, I am suspicious, as the last two incarnations have had the multiplayer version as full price releases years after the original. With so much money to be squeezed out of the unlucky punters, I get the feeling they will be looking to fleece us with at least an expansion pack, if not a full blown re-release. I mean Civ2MP was a full release, and all that consisted of was Civ2 with a MP patch and a collection of scenarios, half of which were written by fans of the game.

Still, I have an open check-book as far as Civ is concerned, and I will be buying everything they release like I've bought everything else they've ever released (except Call to Power II which sucks).

Tim (aka Gx_Farmer)
http://www.mrfixitonline.com

"I've bought everything else they've ever released (except Call to Power II which sucks)."

And happily they (Firaxis) didn't release that. You have SMAC right Tim?

-Andrew

Yep, but not the expansion as I've never even seen that for sale over in the UK.

'Back in CivNet their was an option for simultaneous moves, but I think they canned it for CivIIMP. We used to hurry along games by using sim-moves until players met, and then restart with normal moves. The reason for the shift was because of the ridiculous advantage that the host, and players with faster connections, would get with sim-moves. They could effectively get 2 turns for their enemies 1, which would prove crucial in attacks and defence. For some reason they dumped this for Civ2MP, but I think someone wrote a mod that allowed it and it was pretty popular.'

Civ just needs a revamped combat system where you register "intent" to move or the like, and then all would be well, and 6 player games could complete in a night. Deadlock I & II, of all things, did a great job of this.

"Well, I'd like to see multiplayer. Sure, a full game will take hours (or days) on a turn-by-turn basis. PBEM games could take months -- likely would -- but could be a LOT of fun, and I think a lot of people around here would like it."

Not me. Considering the number of turns that go into even a small-map game, a PBeM game would likely take years to complete, unless you do multiple turns per day (then it might only take months). Organizing a group of people for even an 18-hour game session (or multiple smaller game sessions) is just too much of a chore. If I'm going to play an online strategy game, I'd prefer to play one designed with that type of play in mind. Rails Across America is a good example--you can finish a game in just an hour or two.

Tim,

I spotted Alien Crossfire for sale in the UK at Amazon while I was looking around for it. They say it's on order, so it sounds like they're still getting copies of it. The US Amazon site doesn't even list Alien Crossfire.

Anyway here's a link if you're interested:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00004U201/alienuk0b/026-3239849-6770809

-Trevor

Ben's right. Our SMAC PBEM game has taken months and will take much longer still. It's conservative to project our pace may last a couple years. And I've seen so many SMAC PBEM games fail given human nature, but we seem to have a solid, if a little too busy, group here. Seven people. Seven schedules. And we've done some 45 turns thus far. Still, a 2 player (with AI) SMAC PBEM game can be knocked out in under a month if you're commited to, say, 5-7 turns a day (which isn't hard to do if you're at your PC during that time anyway).

I can understand why Sid & Co. decided not to implement it at all though. They wanted to get a great game out as soon as possible and tweaking the AI and balance should take precedence over a multiplayer version of what really is, for likely 99% of the audience, a single player game.

I'm disappointed, because I think the SMAC heads here at Q23 would be playing PBEM Civ3 starting next month, but it doesn't dampen my enthusiasm for the game at all.

It's snowing here in Milwaukee, ever so slightly, what a perfect day for Civ3 to arrive. But I have to wait another week....

-Andrew

Hey, thanks for that, Trevor, and at only �8.99 it is a bargain.

Do you still run any PBEM SMAC games, Andrew? I might order a copy and join in if you are. I'll have to wait a couple of weeks, but that will give me time to practice as I haven't played it for a year or so...

Tim

Actually this game is the result of Tom Chick's organizational skills and I never did "run" SMAC PBEM games to begin with. Just played with friends and mostly as an experiment. I don't have time for new games of it now, but I'm sure there's still plenty of fansites who organize multiplayer SMAC. Especially with CIV3 not supporting it. I also think Dean, Long or McCullough mentioned playing multiple PBEM games at once.

Good luck!
-Andrew

Tim,

I'd be happy to start a second game if there are some interested folks. When you grab SMAC, drop me an email ([email protected] or click on the link above).

-Tom

I've just put the order in, Tom, so I'll crack open SMAC and get some practice in while I wait for Amazon to ship that order to me. I've been looking to play some civ-style multiplayer TBS for some time, but getting several people together for the marathon sessions they turn into always proves problematic. PBEM would be an interesting new experience for me...

Tim.

I'm in several PBEM games through Gone Gold. At it's highest I had 5 games there and the Qt3 game going. The GG games seem to have all petered out except for two that wheeze along at about 2 turns a week (if we're lucky).

The oldest game I'm in started at the beginning of May, and I think we just did turn 2167. For comparison purposes, I think you'd hit that mark in a single player game within a half an hour.

It's a long, patience-demanding process.

Hey Tom,

Sorry to post this here, but for some reason my e-mail server keeps telling me you can't be reached.

Anyway, thanks to the generosity of Mr. Bruce, I finally have SMAC-X, so if you guys are serious about another PBEM game, by all means count me in.

I'd be happy to join a second SMAC game. I've been enjoying the first one tremendously and am looking forward to finishing it in 2003. :)

--Dave

We have four (me, Jason Levine, Dave Long, and Alan Au) and a fifth (Tim Partlett) on the way, so looks like we can start a game before long.

If anyone else wants to join (make sure you have the Alien Crossfire expansion), there are two more slots.

-Tom

I'd be interested in joining, as long as it's no more than 1 turn a day (can't do games at work).
This would be my first PBEM experience with SMAC. And I just got the Xfire expansion, haven't even installed it yet.
I've played one other game by email, Warlords 3, but I found after six months that my single opponent would keep replaying his turns so that he'd win all the crucial battles.
Needless to say, haven't played against him since.

Well if a slot is still open I wouldn't mind jumping into a PBEM game. I just got the Planetary Pack off Ebay (hopefully I'll be getting it today). I've played the Alpha Centauri demo twice, so I have no experience at all. But since it sounds like these games take a long slow time, I should be able to catch up quickly. At least you'll all have someone easy to beat up on :)

You've got mail Tom

-Trevor

Playing a game with both Tom and Trevor in it is definitely going to be a Zen experience. ;)

Hey, any SMTP/POP3 knowledgeable person out there have any idea what's going on here? I'm receiving e-mail from Tom with no problems, but when I try to reply to his message or compose a new one and send it to him, I get this:

"Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.

Subject: RE: Alien Crossfire PBEM
Sent: 10/26/01 4:24 PM

The following recipient(s) could not be reached:

'Tom Chick' on 10/26/01 4:24 PM
The recipient was unavailable to take delivery of the message
The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=US;a= ;p=The John Marshal;l=MARSHALL-011026212330Z-6211"

Not an insurmountable problem for our PBEM game, because I have another account I can use, but I just wonder wha'ts going on here?

You might check with your ISP. It might be that my ISP, PacBell, regards yours as a vector for spam. I don't think of PacBell as a very protective ISP, but otherwise, I can't imagine what's going on.

-Tom

Thanks Tom. I'll let our communications manager know on Monday and see if he can get it straightened out. Otherwise I'll just use the other account for the PBEM game.

From http://www.more.net/techsupp/discussion_lists/errors.html :

'"The recipient was unavailable to take delivery of the message." This message generally can be ignored. It usually happens once or twice, then ceases. It can be caused by the recipient's mail server being temporarily down at the time of delivery.'

The important question is, did Tom get the e-mails. Sometimes, I'll get an error stating that the message wasn't sent, so I'll re-send it, and whoever I sent it to says "Why'd you send that twice?" I have no idea...

Thanks, guys. I'll check it out again this week, and if everything isn't back to normal, we'll have our ISP look into it.

Mystery solved, and it wasn't a temporary problem. According to our e-mail administrator, when we were hit by the Code Red worm, he instituted controls to prevent malicious intrusion. Some outside mail systems read those controls in such a way as to put ours on a refused list. So now our administrator will contact Tom's ISP to have us removed from the refused list. And there you go.