Pure TB, TBSE or STB?

[Ceci n'est pas Snapcase]

I just read this article on the Manifest Destiny site, and I must say I agree with what he says. What do you think?

[chrispie]

Have to say I agree too. After all this is how it happens in real life. The biggest draw back with such a system is the problem of when unit A tries to attack unit B, but unit B has moved that turn, how would that be solved?

I guess the best way would be to use a loop, going trough all the orders, picking a random player, thus;

1. Carry out a player 5 order
2. Carry out a player 2 order
... and on 'till there are none left

Otherwise, one player's orders would be done first, which is just as bad as the normal turn based system.

[ChrisShaffer]

This has already been proposed in the Essential Civilization threads - item #15: Simultaneous Turns of Play. See http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000301.html .

I'm entirely in favor of this idea. It's a great idea, no matter what name you give it.

Here's the draft from our proposal:

Final Consensus Draft

by Adm.Naismith (aka mcostant) and ChrisShaffer

EC3 New Idea #15: Simultaneous Turns of Play

The Problem

• The current turn-based model uses an unrealistic sequence, where a player can move units, attack a defender, and repeat. The defender can't properly react (reinforce, counterattack, etc.). All war declarations have a "Pearl Harbor" feeling, with significant advantages for attackers.
• Multiplayer is too difficult.

Abstract

• All players (human and AI) receive a turn report, which can be reviewed and replayed as desired.
• All players create a set of potential orders for units, cities, and diplomacy.
• All players submit orders.
• All orders are adjudicated (on schedule or when all players have submitted orders). Conflicting orders are decided using a rule-based priority system.
• Game generates turn reports.
• Repeat.

Advantages

• More realistic combat model. Forces players to consider both offence and defence. Eliminates the problem of "rolling attacks" where the defender has little or no opportunity to react. First strike nuclear attacks more difficult.
• Practical multiplayer options. In direct-connect mode, simultaneous orders creation saves considerable time. Eliminates the lag problems inherent in PBEM, as games could be hosted on web or email servers with set turn schedules. Players could receive turn reports, create orders, and submit them to the server for the next adjudication. The AI could create orders for players who do not meet the deadline. Eliminates most opportunities for cheating in multiplayer.
• Increased realism and excitement. In the real world, everyone acts at the same time, they don't wait until their turn. More tension in the rush to achieve objectives such as wonder building.

Needed to implement this proposal

• Development of a priority mechanism to settle conflicting orders, such as movement, resource allocation by competing cities, etc.
• Turn reports combining animation and text that allow detailed review of events. "Replay" of any portion of the turn report as desired by players.
• Options for reactive movement and combat. Multiple defensive and offensive postures for units. Method of determining whether a unit is attacking, defending, or both. For example, a unit could be ordered to "attack and hold," "charge," "attack and advance," "counterattack if attacked," and so forth.

Conclusion

• Simultaneous turns of play is more like a strategic level of command, where you make decisions and orders about the general plan, and then things happen according to your overall plan before you (the main commander) can change your mind.

[ChrisShaffer]

quote: The biggest draw back with such a system is the problem of when unit A tries to attack unit B, but unit B has moved that turn, how would that be solved? I guess the best way would be to use a loop, going trough all the orders, picking a random player, thus; 1. Carry out a player 5 order 2. Carry out a player 2 order ... and on 'till there are none left Otherwise, one player's orders would be done first, which is just as bad as the normal turn based system.

This is only one way to do it. Another way is to assign an initiative value to each unit, and have the units move in order according to their initiative. It certainly doesn't have to be completely random, though an element of randomness wouldn't be a bad thing.

[RonHiler]

quote: Originally posted by chrispie on 04-20-2001 03:42 PM Have to say I agree too. After all this is how it happens in real life. The biggest draw back with such a system is the problem of when unit A tries to attack unit B, but unit B has moved that turn, how would that be solved? I guess the best way would be to use a loop, going trough all the orders, picking a random player, thus; 1. Carry out a player 5 order 2. Carry out a player 2 order ... and on 'till there are none left Otherwise, one player's orders would be done first, which is just as bad as the normal turn based system.

I can tell you how we handle this problem in MD. I don't necessarily claim this to be the best method, but it works for us.

You have two possible cases.

In the first case, a unit is acting independently. It's movement or action cannot be affected by another unit. In that case, you can move it whenever you like, and in full. It doesn't matter. This is what happens the majority of the time.

In the second case, two or more units can affect the outcome of an action. This would happen if two units are heading for the same city, or one unit was chasing another. At this point, you send all units that would have an effect on some particular action into a loop. Based on movement rates, you move each unit a minimum distance, until all units have moved their entire movement-rate distance. Note that they should move *simultaneously* if they are moving in the same loop iteration.

During that time, you make checks after each loop for one unit catching another or entering a city.

This is easier to show than to explain. If you had two units, Unit1 being chased by Unit2, and you had a 6 round loop, it would go like this maybe:

Unit 1: Movement Rate 4
Unit 2: Movement Rate 6

   U1   U2   Notes

1:       *    Unit2 moves, may catch Unit1 now

2: *     *    both move at the same time, there couldn't be a catch event

3: *     *    etc.

4: *     *

5:       *

6: *     *

Ron

[SerapisIV]

I'd love to see a simultaneous movement in Civ. It would make war campaigns much more realistic as you have to plan for holes in defenses to be explioted and you're flanks couldn't be as exposed as they usually are. Only problem is that there would have to be much more autonomy in the AI as units like fighters and ships would have to be set to aggressive/passive settings to be useful because how often will units be able to see enemy ships to attack prior to their turn? They usually end suddenly seeing them mid-move, then attacking. From a strategy standpoint, simultaneous play is the kind of game I'd rather play the most. And to make it more reasonable, city building should be done after units have finished moving from prior order and before new orders to move are given (not simultaneously as movement is) to allow the player to adapt his production/civ to changing battlefield, terrain situations

[SerapisIV]

Unfortunately, I doubt we'll simultaneous movement in a Civ game until at least CivIII's sequel or later.

[0:) Innocence]

Just for the record my name is not J¥÷rn "Innocence" Garde, but Joern Gaarde (I'm Danish), using the nick Innocence, and I'm not really a employee at RJ Cyberware, just a devoted fan and gamer

Apart from these minor inconsistencies I stand by the article. Again I stress that this model is NOT invented by be and is by no means a new idea. It's age makes it so much more odd that so many people fail to see the huge advantage of this model - though I see that most people here agree that it's a far better model if you want a fair and realistic strategy game.

And yes, the model has many names, which I suspect is the main reason why it is often confused with other models - many people belive I'm talking about real-time execution when I mention the word simultaneous.

I see Ron has already answered the question on what's gonna happen when a unit follows another, but there's still seems to be a question on how the AI is going to handle encounters and such. All I can say is: Yes - there WILL have to be "much more autonomy in the AI" if it's going to handle this well. Nothing more frustration than seeing a stupid AI waste your precious army due to bad decisions.

Basically what you do is to give the units a aggressive/passive setting exactly like SerapisIV suggested. These settings will determine whether the units flees, attacks with caution, makes a full frontal attack or performs another action. This may sound complicated, but belive me it's not

The the question on city building is related to another issue of this model: Orders are executed in relation to what type the order has been submitted - iow. it does NOT matter WHEN the order was planned. ALL orders in a given phase is carried out BEFORE the next phase. Now, I haven't seen the Order of Execution in MD, but in for an example this is a rough plan of the Stars! OoE:

1) Waypoint Zero orders - all orders for units with orders to perform BEFORE they move are executed.
2) Movement - all movement orders are executed
3) Minerals from planet mining is added to player stockpile
4) Production - fleets, factories and mines are build (this is where city-building would go in MD)
5) Population grows/dies
6) Random events occur
7) Battles - fleet battles are carried out for fleets who met due to movement
8) Bombing - planets with only enemy bombers in orbit are bombed
9) Waypoint 1 orders - all orders for units with orders to perform AFTER they have moved are executed.
10) Fleet transfer - if a player has given a fleet to another player, this is the phase where that player receives it.
11) Minefield sweeping - all fleets with capable weapons in minefields sweep.
12) Fleet repair - ships and starbases are repaired.

Remember: There is NO player interaction BETWEEN any on these phases! All the actions are stated in the Orders submitted by the players before turn generation. After point 12), turn generation is over and the host utility sends the new turn to the players.

On a side not: Yes, I sincerely doubt CivIII will contain another turn-based model than the usual one. CivIII will be a spiced up version of the former Civ versions, which is fine for those who like exactly those games. I however would like another somewhat more strategic approach

And remember this model has been VERY THOROUGHLY tested in games like Stars! and VGA Planets. It works and provides for just as easy gameplay as the Civ model.

If anyone has any question feel free to ask
[This message has been edited by 0 Innocence (edited April 22, 2001).]

[me_irate]

I dont think i like simu turns as i understand you all want them implemented. Are you saying we put in all our orders b4 the turn, and then push a button and have them implemented. If so, i like the present way much better. This would seem like it takes all the control, and would seem like a different game alltogether.

I dont like this for several reasons.

For one most of the units i move is settlers, so i would need to make the unit move to a square and irigate it, then i make 20 others dot the same thing and push end turn and they do this. I get a turn report and i see that they have done this, i dont sound very fun to me.

Another thing that i dont like is assuming I had 10 knights and stacked combat for some reason wasn't included. If i launched 5 of them and got killed by one pikemen usually i wouldnt send any more do to them having 3 pikemen in that city, but your way i would get my report and lose them all.

The other reason is that make nukes less easy to launch(acording to an earlier post), i launch all of my nukes and end turn. I get a report i desroyed 15 of his cities, he gets the same report. How much more dificult is that.

I would like simu turns, but implemented a different way, in the way i believe would be best everyone would move same time. If i want a certain unit to attack first he would be the one i select to move first. While my enemy might be moving other units i attack him there. He still has control of the 3/4 units he hasn't moved yet, and he can counterattack then. not perfect but in my eyes an improvement over the current model.

[0:) Innocence]

quote: Originally posted by me_irate on 04-22-2001 05:42 PM I dont think i like simu turns as i understand you all want them implemented. Are you saying we put in all our orders b4 the turn, and then push a button and have them implemented. If so, i like the present way much better. This would seem like it takes all the control, and would seem like a different game alltogether.

All I can say is if you tried it you would know that it works It does not take away control form the player in any way.

quote: For one most of the units i move is settlers, so i would need to make the unit move to a square and irigate it, then i make 20 others dot the same thing and push end turn and they do this. I get a turn report and i see that they have done this, i dont sound very fun to me.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying... in what way is the Civ way of pushing "I" to Irrigate more fun than givin a one-time order to Irrigate?

quote: Another thing that i dont like is assuming I had 10 knights and stacked combat for some reason wasn't included. If i launched 5 of them and got killed by one pikemen usually i wouldnt send any more do to them having 3 pikemen in that city, but your way i would get my report and lose them all.

Two comments on this:
1) Like I wrote you give the armies a setting which describes how it will react in combat. In the scenario above, if I was uncertain how many enemies were there I would give my stack a setting like "Retreat if outnumbered". During turn-generation, this would make my army retreat if the enemy was too powerful, and thus be much more useful that sacrificing 5 knights to test their strength like you would. Btw. you always get a Battle Video to see exactly how the battle was fought - not just a dry message
2) Realism. Think about how it would be fought in real life and then tell me which of the two methods resemble reality best.

You're thinking too much in Civ ways of doing things

quote: The other reason is that make nukes less easy to launch(acording to an earlier post), i launch all of my nukes and end turn. I get a report i desroyed 15 of his cities, he gets the same report. How much more dificult is that.

What do you mean more difficult? I never said it the Civ way was difficult, just among other things unfair and unrealistic. So you get a model that is just as easy to use but without these big drawbacks? Is that a bad thing?

As for missiles, these should never be treated like Civ does, where a Nuke is a great scouting tool Say during planning phase a player decides to launch nukes at 15 enemy cities. The simultaneous system makes it possible to implement a retaliation feature: If another player has the tech to detech missile launch, he can simply switch on Nuclear Retaliation and pre-select targets. During turn generation, if nukes are launched at his cities, the attacker will be showered in nukes as well.

And btw. what is stopping the programmer from implementing great cut-scenes with detonating nukes, burning houses etc., just like Civ? Why do you think that a boring messagebox is all you will get?

quote: I would like simu turns, but implemented a different way, in the way i believe would be best everyone would move same time. If i want a certain unit to attack first he would be the one i select to move first. While my enemy might be moving other units i attack him there. He still has control of the 3/4 units he hasn't moved yet, and he can counterattack then. not perfect but in my eyes an improvement over the current model.

That's the way CivNet and CivGold is played, but don't you see the biggest problem with this model?!?: It requires all players to be online at the same time, waiting for the slowest person to finish his turn! I would NEVER play such a game, it reaks too much of RTS (a label where the term "strategy" is wildly misleading). IMO real strategy games should be played with plenty time for everybody to ponder on strategies, discuss plans with allies, handle diplomacy with other players over email, and THEN after long and careful considerations sit down and plan their turn in peace. You should never need to think about just getting done quickly so you wont slow down the game!

With a real-time model you would never get to play with people far from your time-zone, and you would become totally dependant on connection, not to mention the cost for people without flat-rate.

Finally you would still risk cheaters ruining the game.

IMO real-time has no place in strategy games. Tactical games maybe, but not strategic. The simul-model actually COULD be played with such a time-limit (just make the host auto-generate every 5 minutes or so). These games are known as "blitzes", but I really don't understand why anyone would want to play that way

I state again: This model is at LEAST 5 years old and has been stress-tested to the utmost by thousands of players! It works, and has all the benefits and very few drawbacks

[RonHiler]

quote: Originally posted by 0 Innocence on 04-22-2001 06:42 PM I state again: This model is at LEAST 5 years old and has been stress-tested to the utmost by thousands of players! It works, and has all the benefits and very few drawbacks

It has the drawback that it slows down the pace of the game compared to single player or the method that Irate is talking about (which is akin to RTS). Some people don't consider this a drawback, but others do. It depends on your style of play, I suppose. OTOH, it has a much faster pace than the "round robin" style PBEM games, which, IME you get to play about once every two days per person playing.

I think the system Jorn describes is the best one for multiplayer strategy games. But then again, I'm biased, since it's the system we are using

My personal preference is to play in games that run about 3 times a week. That gives plenty of time to ponder strategic decisions, and negotiate alliances, while keeping the pace at a reasonable level.

Ron

[me_irate]

I believe your method would work best for hotseat and other email type games. But as for normal mp games i think the current method, or the one i believe should be used works better. My strategy experiance relies on mostly ctp2. In cpt2 each takes their turn, (usually with less than a minute time limit) and the game progresses at a fairly good pace. During the times you are not playing you are changeing build orders, puting units on go orders, or chatting. Unless you are playing no time limit your turns come b4 you are ready. During your turn you just move the necessary units, and if most are fortified or on orders to "go" you end your turn quickly. This actually makes the game go quite quickly. The other method i described would also work well. The main prob with your method is that it takes the feal of the game away. I like fealing apart of civ. Reacting and puting my units to work myself. I feal your method would distance one from a game. I might be wrong however, since i dont remember playing a game like the one you are describing.

[0:) Innocence]

Hehe... I never saw the pace as a problem Ron, but I guess you would be right: Some people might see this as a drawback, while I see it as a strength. Guess it really depends on what kind of game you prefer: Do you prefer a fast-paced game where time is an issue but one that can be finished in a couple og days, or do you prefer a much longer game where strategic skills and diplomacy have a MUCH larger influence on the outcome. I prefer the latter, Irate obviously prefer the former. That's fine

quote: Originally posted by me_irate on 04-22-2001 10:05 PM I believe your method would work best for hotseat and other email type games. [/quote) While the sim-model works fine with any type of session, I agree that if playing on LAN you'd probably do just as well with a real-time model. Then again if you have a LAN session why bother playing strategy games when you could be playing Counter Strike [quote] But as for normal mp games i think the current method, or the one i believe should be used works better.

See, you define normal (ie. the typcical) multiplayer session as being online, whereas I prefer to play real strategy games offline. The Civ series is much like a beer and pretzels game - it doens't really offer any advanced strategic and diplomatic options and thus is very quick to play, since you don't really have much options. Add a ton of features to Civ and online play would simply be impractical at best.

quote: My strategy experiance relies on mostly ctp2. In cpt2 each takes their turn, (usually with less than a minute time limit) and the game progresses at a fairly good pace. During the times you are not playing you are changeing build orders, puting units on go orders, or chatting.

Like I said, this is exactly how the old CivNet did multiplayer. Of for lighter fastpaced games, but not for real strategy.

quote: Unless you are playing no time limit your turns come b4 you are ready. During your turn you just move the necessary units, and if most are fortified or on orders to "go" you end your turn quickly. This actually makes the game go quite quickly. The other method i described would also work well.

Yes, the reason we disagree is that we want different things in a game. You want faster pace, I want strategy and diplomacy and the time to work on both.

quote: The main prob with your method is that it takes the feal of the game away. I like fealing apart of civ. Reacting and puting my units to work myself. I feal your method would distance one from a game. I might be wrong however, since i dont remember playing a game like the one you are describing.

You seem to think the AI will take the game away from you. It will not. The multiplayer model does not in any way make you feel less part of the game - in fact with the time you get to really work with your civilization you often develop a role-playing feel in the game. Units become more than just "5 Knights" and "2 Settlers" when you have the time to inspect all issues of the game.

I guess it would help if you tried playing a game using this model. Stars! is an old game now, but the sequel Stars! Supernova Genesis is in beta now and will (lets face it ) go Gold some time before Manifest Destiny. I suggest you give S!SG a try when it comes out to see what I meam. Read more on http://crisium.com/sn/snnews.htm

[Adm.Naismith]

ChrisShaffer and me tried hard to explain how good would be this Simutaneous Turn (Simultaneous execution, in your model name).

We are for this model, but are overwhelmed by the reality numbers: most of games use old Sequential Turn Model (from boardgame tradition) or fast action clickfest Real Time (smart effort of Game Designer to pull game AI in field where it work best: quickest computing and moving ).

I must add to Innocence list of game using Simultaneous execution, a very old game by german BlueByte: Battle Isle (1) I played on Commodore Amiga (but available

It simplify the concept somewhat, giving every turn only a faction move order, while the other can fire and build (no problem of movement collision), but the execution was simultaneous (fire order executed before movement, to avoid escaping fire units).

Still it was a good and exciting step into the right model, sadly dismissed in Battle Isle 2 and 3 (I bet it happened because the whole original Development Team was changed), and it was done around 1993, so I'm sure actual Developers and CPU can do a lot better.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Stuff2]

I have another solution on this matter:

Divide the turn in smaller military turns, maybe 12 turns (one every month).
Then all your units are counted and you get a number of possible units to move each mini-turn. By the end of the whole turn you have moved every unit once. And so has your opponents. I also suggest that stacked units are treated as a single unit (why else would you stack them?).