Change the turn based model

[Sava]

Based upon a reply of my time increment suggestion, I need to clarify what I would like to see. This would make multiplayer play more fun as well. How about at the beginning of a turn, you give orders on what you want your units to do. Then when all players are finished giving orders, they hit the start button which starts the turn. When opposing units meet, then the turn stops and new orders can be given. For instance, when a phalanx unit is moving through uncharted land, the player would order the unit to explore and to move. Then if the unit encountered a foreign unit, the player would give new orders. New orders could be, "Attack, Take Defensive position, etc" Then the problem of inaccurate time passage and slow gameplay would be solved. Unfortunately, most of the game is based on exploration. Even in the days of sails, it only took about a year or two to circumference the globe. In order to make the AI more realistic, the player would have an accurate view of another CIv's intentions. If two civs' aren't at war, they shouldn't be worried about attacking, defending, etc. Then you could add the element of surprise in the battle model.

Also, about exploration. Most exploration in the previous Civ games was done by armies. But in real life, explorers went out and mapped the world. I think that explorers should be created based upon my other population allocation idea, then dispatched to map out regions. Then the game could focus on trade, diplomacy, and military conquest instead of getting rid of all the black on the map.

Settlers/Engineers/PublicWorks would be mostly automated to save time. Then the computer would generate Tile Improvements based on needs. Most people build roads and rail in the most efficient path anyways, why not let the computer build roads between cities automatically? But with the option of letting the player decide. Mines and other TI's would be made in the same fashion. People only mine when they need resources. The player could order the manufacture of swords, which requires iron. The computer would automatically create an iron mine at the closest source.


I know its going to be hard for people to relinquesh control, but some things are better left to the computer.

[Sava]

In regard to the railroad AI problem, I have this to say. Rail should not be treated the same as a road. Trains only transport things from station to station. Just because an army finds a track of rail, doesn't mean a train magically appears and transports them. I think that rail should only be used for transporting commodities. People are a commodity, too. Units can be loaded and transported from a loading station. But military units can't engage when they are in transit. They need to be unloaded.

Also, I'd like to see more emphasis placed on strategic warfare. The destruction of bridges, rail, mines, power plants, etc. Some buildings should not be limited to being in a city. Power Plants are a perfect example. Power plants are usually built outside cities. Perhaps they could be treated as Tile Improvements as well.

Please read my tile topic for more information.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by SoulAssassin on 05-11-2001 10:39 AM How about at the beginning of a turn, you give orders on what you want your units to do. Then when all players are finished giving orders, they hit the start button which starts the turn. When opposing units meet, then the turn stops and new orders can be given. For instance, when a phalanx unit is moving through uncharted land, the player would order the unit to explore and to move.

This is a really NOT a good idea for many reasons. The AI moves around its own units pretty clumsy and ineffective as it is - and now you want to overload the AI even further, by letting it "babysit" all the HP-units movements as well? The outcome of such an idea can only spell on thing: extreme player frustration!!!
Ever noticed the typical "AI-units shuffles erratically back-and-forth" phenomenon then playing Civ-games? Now you want to introduce this frustrating "AI-unit shuffle syndrome" to the all HP-units as well. Is that wise?

quote: I know its going to be hard for people to relinquesh control, but some things are better left to the computer.

What? Are you kidding? Have you actually played the same Civ-games as I have? If there ever was an "Achilles-heel" in Civ-games, it certainly is the AI:s notorious inabillity to move around its AI-units any way near as efficient as the human player.

SoulAssassin, I dont want to be rude here. It just that sometimes it feel so damn nice and reassuring that it really is Sid + the team-members of Firaxis that together makes all the FINAL dictatorial design-decisions regarding Civ-3. I really would give up all hope if they just submitted to uncritically translating some of the more screwed up suggestions made around here, and in "the list" - just because it perhaps was "democratically voted" by us Apolyton-members.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 11, 2001).]

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by SoulAssassin on 05-11-2001 10:48 AM Also, I'd like to see more emphasis placed on strategic warfare. The destruction of bridges, rail, mines, power plants, etc...

Good point! Unless invading AI-civs is superior enough to take on any HP-cities, they should instead concentrate on pillagin HP terrain-improvements instead. Much more then they did in Civ-2. This way one is forced to bind up units in strategically placed fortresses along borders - making these fortresses much more important then they where in Civ-2.

[tniem]

First of all, having the game stop and start so that you could give orders before you watch what happens in my opinion will slow the game down even more. You have a multiplayer game where two other players meet, the game stops to allow them to do their thing while your waiting for your orders to be carried out. Just doesn't seem right to me or many other players.

Second, I'm against having settlers being automated for one reason - the A.I. has never been able to handle it properly. If they did a better job with the code then maybe, but as it is having a Former on automation in SMAC was a mess.

I would agree about railroads and combat. You should not be able to move across the entire empire and fight without losing some type of movement penalty.

However the whole station thing is a bit of a stretch. Each tile represents 100s of miles. Within that stretch of land it would be my guess that there is at least one station no matter how close to a major city it is. So I would have to believe that an army should be able to get on at any place.

[Sava]

Ralf, you completely missed the point, but it was my mistake for not referring to another thread.

With my order giving idea, it would be more realistic, because in the real world, armies don't take turns.

Also there wouldn't be as many units running around because armies would only be built according to the resources. Read my "Production needs to be redone thread" to see how units would be built. During peace time, armies don't just run around exploring... In that thread I touched on the ideas of explorers being easier to build. You have to have a little faith when reading these new ideas.

Again, the whole settler's thing. There wouldn't be any settler's building tile improvements. TI's would be build like cities build buildings. The computer would just select the closest source of whatever resource it needed and build the appropriate building. And when new tech's are discovered, the new improvements would be built automatically. When I say, "relinqueshing control" I mean just that. They should call the earlier Civ games, "building irrigation" because that's what you do half the game. I want to make the game more realistic by letting leaders focus on real issues, diplomacy, trade, military conquest, science, and culture. I hate repeating myself so please read ALL of the threads I created to get a complete understanding of what I want to see in a CIV game.

And please don't compare AI's from earlier games to new ideas, that is a weak argument. The whole idea of a new game is that you are writing a new AI to work with your new idea.

[Sava]

I guess its just too hard for some people to use their imagination. I forgive you for not being able to understand my suggestions, based your response you didn't understand what I was suggesting. And please, as I said before, using the whole "the AI in the earlier game did this..." argument is just weak. The whole reason the computer did go back and forth was because the AI wasn't written very well. My AI model would calculate objectives based on where it knew certain units were. It would follow the same "fog of war" rules as the players. i.e. the computer would only see the units in its range. Then the AI would take action according to what data it had on the enemy.

Making a strategic AI isn't hard. I have pseudo code written on how it would work because I am working on my own AI models for use in a game. This whole forum is about "in a perfect world" this idea would work because... and you have to look at it with that point of view. That's what the development stage of programming is all about. Talking with the user and asking what he/she wants and then giving ideas on how to make it work. Then you write code and make it work. There are no impossible tasks in programming. If people want a realistic strategic AI, it will be written.

[Sava]

tniem, you are forgetting something. In the currect turn based model, players have to wait for each other to move, if everyone orders their units at the same time, it will dramatically decrease waiting time. And only a few units, will need to be given "on the fly" orders when they encounter enemy units.

It's simple math. If there are 7 players and it takes 2 minutes for each to move their units, that's 14 minutes per turn.

If there are 7 players and they all give orders at the same time in 2 minutes. The turn is 2 minutes. With 1 or 2 on the fly orders, taking maybe 5 or 10 seconds... I don't see how that is anything but a faster game.

[markusf]

quote: Originally posted by SoulAssassin on 05-12-2001 11:06 AM tniem, you are forgetting something. In the currect turn based model, players have to wait for each other to move, if everyone orders their units at the same time, it will dramatically decrease waiting time. And only a few units, will need to be given "on the fly" orders when they encounter enemy units. It's simple math. If there are 7 players and it takes 2 minutes for each to move their units, that's 14 minutes per turn. If there are 7 players and they all give orders at the same time in 2 minutes. The turn is 2 minutes. With 1 or 2 on the fly orders, taking maybe 5 or 10 seconds... I don't see how that is anything but a faster game.

civ2 already has that(undocumented feature).... Works just fine, although there are some interesting issues that pop up in multiplayer.

[Mathphysto]

I can see the point behind SoulAssasin's idea, but I prefer the turn-based system myself. It seems to me that bookeeping is easier for a turn-based game. One thing that I would like, though, is to see the concept of INITIATIVE introduced. At the end of each round of turns, there should be some measure of initiative - the player with the most initiative goes first, etc.

The benefit of this is that (assuming the concept of initiative is properly implemented) it makes the turn-based game more realistic. If I'm playing a WWII scenario as the Soviets, but am always before the Nazis, then I'm able to attack - which is bad at the beginning of Barbarossa. The Nazis should be able to attack first in a round - at least in the beginning. Then, if the Nazi attack bogs down and initiative passes to the Soviets, they will go first and be able to launch an effective counter-offensives.

I know that there are some games out there which do have this idea in them, although I can't think of any off the top of my head (Third Reich? Fortress America?). So it can be done, although I don't know how effectively so.

[Sava]

In response Mathphysto... It wouldn't be too hard to code an option that would allow either simultaneous movement (order giving) and having the traditional turn based system.
[This message has been edited by SoulAssassin (edited May 13, 2001).]