Announcement

**Adm.Naismith** · April 23, 2001, 18:02

Sounds interesting. Well, as soon as your Clash will be almost ready I'll be happy to try it!
When do you plan to have the game beta advanced enough? (Sorry, I know I should jump to the Clash Forum section, but I'm busy enough browsing Civ III area...

BTW I noticed Sid interview stating that Civ III will have a "innovative multiplayer option": let's hope it will worth all the wait and posts!

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

**0:) Innocence** · April 23, 2001, 18:43

quote:

Originally posted by Stuff2 on 04-23-2001 11:12 AM
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?).

I don't really see how this would make it any easier to play?! The pace of the simul-method is slow enought without slowing it down with by a factor of 12.

**Mihai** · April 23, 2001, 18:45

I never have the opportunity to play multiplayer, but I like the idea of TBSE. I think it could work even on singleplayer : if is a tile between your army and an enemy army there will be a gambe if you choose to move your army in that tile. In pure TB, if is your turn first, you'll benefit of terain defence bonus, if is AI turn, you'll know for sure where the enemy army goes.
IMO anything that approach the game to reality without slowing it too much is welcome. I like to use my brain, not my reflexs.

**0:) Innocence** · April 23, 2001, 18:58

Yes Mark, that sounds like the exact same model I w

The tick twist is interresting, although you're creating an enormous amout of work for yourself with it

In case you didn't know, in most of these games using this model battles will only occur at the end-point of movement, never in between - iow. the unit being attacked will move to it's next waypoint (provided of course that it doesn't hit a minefield or other obstacle on the way) and battle will take place at that place.

Your method makes good sense though - with it a faster unit would be able to intercept a slower moving one BEFORE it reaches the endpoint. Very nice indeed.

Another thing to consider is automatic interception: A player should be able to set his units in patrol mode, making them attack targets of opputunity within their partol radius (LOS). That would make it harder for an enemy to slip through in between your units, and would lessen MM for the defender.

Btw. Ceci n'est pas Snapcase, don't worry about my name. I couldn't even make that slashed o-letter appear at all

**Mark_Everson** · April 23, 2001, 19:58

Hi 0 Innocence:

The ticks aren't that much extra work! We will have automatic interception, patrolling, and also something that I haven't seen mentioned here...

The capability to automatically support adjacent friendly armies if possible! I believe this is critical for a simultaneous turn-based movement system to function well. Otherwise it is virtually impossible to construct a robust defense with strategic reserves behind the front armies. Of course the reserves won't always get there in time, it depends on the details of the engagement and luck.

quote:

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 04-23-2001 06:02 PM
Sounds interesting. Well, as soon as your Clash will be almost ready I'll be happy to try it!
When do you plan to have the game beta advanced enough? (Sorry, I know I should jump to the Clash Forum section, but I'm busy enough browsing Civ III area...

We are only about 30% through alpha, so it's going to be a while. But you should check out our website and forum, since the big difference with here is that your comments are fairly likely to have a final effect on the game!

**Ceci n'est pas Snapcase** · April 24, 2001, 00:32

I did type in Jørn, as far as I can remember. Sorry if I misspelled your name... (Er, MarkG's name appears by the news item, but I wrote it. It's a bit hard to explain.)

**Mark_Everson** · April 24, 2001, 00:51

The simultaneous turn-based turns are also what we're using in Clash of Civilizations. I can give you a draft of our turn ordering and what happens in each phase below. Just skim any bits you aren't interested in.

We used the simultaneous turns thing in our 'demo 4' and didn't get any complaints that I can recall on military movements being simultaneous. It just makes military planning more challenging and less 'surgical' which it is in Civ2.

The way we handle simultaneous military movements is that each turn is divided into 10 'ticks' and armies (we call them Task Forces or TFs) execute actions according to their orders in the soonest tick available depending on the order. (the ticks idea originally came from korn469) If two opposing TFs end up in the same square then they can fight or not depending on their orders (advance cautiously, attack targets of opportunity, perform recon., take X city if odds meet an 'odds' test etc.) The player determines the basic orders (or the AI can, given player directions) and then those orders are implemented without player intervention during the ticks of the military phase. If you are worried about boneheaded attacks taking place etc. we have global rules that the player can issue such as (paraphrased) "don't attack at less than 2:1 odds".

Below is just an edited copy of a post from our forum here at Apolyton. Just ignore the boldface stuff, it indicated what was updated in the most recent edit. There are some undefined acronyms, if you see something you don't understand, just skip it...

[Begin old post]

I start with step 1, which is stuff the player does before ending the turn.

note: the order of these phases is not fixed. I will try and note which models need to go before others, at least as I think it should be. Obviously there is feedback going both ways between each of a pair of models fairly frequently. In these cases I have put the model where the feedback to the other is strongest IMO first. We can see if my proposed sequence is adequate, or needs to be rearranged. Sometimes I will skip numbers, or have them in the wrong order, since there is no point in rearranging all the numbers each time a change is made.

My current take on the overall turn sequence is that each phase should be executed for all civs before moving onto the next phase. This is especially critical for the governmental and military areas, but I expect it may also be important in the economic area if we have merchants making real-time decisions about trade across civs boundaries [/b]

1. During the turn the player orders actions like: military movements, changes in economic or government areas, diplomacy, etc.
Also the AI thinks about its moves to whatever extent it can while the player is moving.

Or, alternatively, the turns can be run in "streaming" mode. In this case, the AI will execute turns itself for the player based on the player's general orders. In this case, the "end turn" button is pushed automatically until either a player-set interrupt condition is met, and streaming mode stops, or the number of turns the player wanted to stream has elapsed.

When the turn ends:

(I think the military stuff should generally go first, because it can change the results of most other models. For instance, if a given area was actively fought over during the turn, economic production there will of course be suppressed. However, I have tentatively put the government stuff first, since in principle revolts can be started in response to player actions, and since revolts and riots should be able to surprise the player and cause combats, it needs to go before the military stuff.)

2. AI final decisions for military movements etc. are made. If the AI had a lot of chance to think during the player turn, then the best decisions are used. If the AI hasn't yet had time to think about something it will use the quick-and-dirty action that seems best. After this point the turn handling for the player civ and AI civs is the same.

3. Government/social/riots turn handler (similar to military in that it can affect many other models)
A. Government

[*] policy changes applied[*] special orders applied[*] Change current govt profile a step forward to the already computed equilibrium point. (the eq point is computed after a ruler's intervention in the govt interface or automatically after some years w/o ruler's intervention)[*] update Knowledge Levels and Representation Values[/list=a]
B. Riots

[*] compute PAFs and probabilities for events[*] check for revolts/riots/disturbances (can create/change allegiance of military units, these units can't move on the turn created, but can fight, at least that's my take on it )[/list=a]
C. Social

[*] calculate religion spreading[*] compute Tendency Values for cultures (only done every N years)[*] check for new Great Religion of the World appearing[/list=a]

A. consumption (before rest since nutrition is important contribution to others)
B. handle disease model
C. births and deaths
D. migration

A. disaster model + pollution effects & climate effects

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited April 23, 2001).]

**0:) Innocence** · April 24, 2001, 03:35

quote:

Originally posted by Mark_Everson on 04-23-2001 07:58 PM
The ticks aren't that much extra work! We will have automatic interception, patrolling, and also something that I haven't seen mentioned here...

Brilliant - I see a few problems that might arise but I'm sure those are the things you haven't mentioned

quote:

The capability to automatically support adjacent friendly armies if possible! I believe this is critical for a simultaneous turn-based movement system to function well. Otherwise it is virtually impossible to construct a robust defense with strategic reserves behind the front armies.

Fully agree.

quote:

Of course the reserves won't always get there in time, it depends on the details of the engagement and luck.

Yes, depending on the distance from the battle and the speed of the unit. Does your model support for reinforcements to arrive during battle?

quote:

We are only about 30% through alpha, so it's going to be a while. But you should check out our website and forum, since the big difference with here is that your comments are fairly likely to have a final effect on the game!

Hehe... true, that's why I'm trying to pursue people into speaking up now instead of waiting until parts of the system are set in stone. I will check it out - I'm curious as to what are the major differences between MD and Clash
[This message has been edited by 0

Innocence (edited April 24, 2001).]

**Mark_Everson** · April 24, 2001, 11:56

quote:

Originally posted by 0 Innocence on 04-24-2001 03:35 AM
Does your model support for reinforcements to arrive during battle

If the battle lasts more than a tick, then reinforcements can arrive in mid-battle. Some of this stuff is still TBD though. But I won't comment here further about Clash since I don't want to hijack the thread. Please come by our forum if you want to dicuss further.

-Mark

**Stuff2** · April 24, 2001, 13:09

quote:

Originally posted by 0 Innocence on 04-23-2001 06:43 PM
I don't really see how this would make it any easier to play?! The pace of the simul-method is slow enought without slowing it down with by a factor of 12.

Innocence. I wasn't talking about simultanius moves. I suggested that every miniturn you can move 1/12 of your units. Then the computer opponents can do the same. One bye one, NOT at the same time. The thing is that it would make warfare so much interesting.

**johndmuller** · April 24, 2001, 13:39

I'm feeling a clash of time scales here; on the one hand, we have a game that takes place over hundreds of years, and on the other, movement and battles where hours and minutes are in play. It's gonna be hard to find a happy medium.

While "going first" is a really big advantage, having to address all of the possible mid-turn events seems to be a real drag, especially as nearly all of the possible events will NOT occur in any given turn.

I haven't seen any provision for dealing with major new information coming to light during your turn, like when a unit sailing by in the boondocks on a railroad/magtube happens to notice a big army sneaking into the country, or how to deal with chance encounters of isolated mindworms/barbarians who might disrupt your big picture by occupying a key element of your force. I could see a hybrid system whereby you put in orders, but if a certain class of event occurred (like a Pearl Harbor, or the Black Death), you would get to revise some of those orders. In other words, you wouldn't have to deal with all the possible betrayals and conflicts if you weren't already at war; a war declaration would give you a chance to revise at least some things. Of course, this effectively adds an extra turn in the middle...

I think that there is a major difference in feel between orders and pure turn based and some people will have a definite preference on that alone.

I don't know where they are going with "Leaders", but I can imagine a game system where it plays like pure turn based to the user, but then the host server evaluates these "moves" and adjusts for conflicts using a leader's "profile" to determine what will be done in the unexpected circumstances (unlead troops would have some standard or partly random profile). Thus, each leader would be your own little AI with (hopfully enough) user control of various decisions to stand in for you. This way you would set the desired goal, i.e. go to Paris and hang out, but if you met the Moors along the way, your "general" would have a reaction based on his preset profile. The profile would contain all these things talked about here, like aggressiveness and whatever, but could also have some individual foibles plus and minus (afraid of Huns, inspires extra effort defending, shoots first asks questions later); as the game went on, individual leaders could mature as their profiles got fleshed out, possibly improving with experience.

**Mark_Everson** · April 24, 2001, 16:09

Your point about what to do about new information is very good. I can only say that it helps to have the turn size so that not that much info is likely to change from when orders were issued to the end of the turn. So movement distances shouldn't be too large etc. So all the AI has to be able to do is make small mid-course corrections. Obviously expecting the AI to do any real enlightened execution in response to new information is asking too much.

Don't be mislead by the time scale that has a year or more passing every turn. The Military stuff you can actually do in a turn (fight a battle, move a few squares) is IMO more like what you could do in a month. This timescale disparity, where military actions happen at an effectively different rate than economic or technological progress is very common in whole-history games. Just too much can go on in the military area in a year to be able to play several thousand years of history in a reasonable amount of time .

So I think the info gap for a simul turn-based game is bearable, even for Pearl Harbor-type surprise attacks. IIRC in that case the US was not able to do that much militaryily with the info that it was at war during December '41 anyway. It didn't allow meaningful reinforcement of the Phillipines, or the Pacific islands for instance.

**0:) Innocence** · April 24, 2001, 19:01

quote:

Originally posted by Stuff2 on 04-24-2001 01:09 PM
Innocence. I wasn't talking about simultanius moves. I suggested that every miniturn you can move 1/12 of your units. Then the computer opponents can do the same. One bye one, NOT at the same time. The thing is that it would make warfare so much interesting.

I don't doubt it could work, but this is not a useful alternative to simul-turn. I want to plan my moves offline without the pressure of a harsh timelimit - your proposal still requires real-time involvement for multiplayer.

**0:) Innocence** · April 24, 2001, 19:13

Mark already explained it all, although I have a single comment:

quote:

Originally posted by johndmuller on 04-24-2001 01:39 PM
Thus, each leader would be your own little AI with (hopfully enough) user control of various decisions to stand in for you.

Actually as a player I'd demand that you would have an oppotunity to set these triggers on any unit you control, regardless of Leaders being present - and that's usually the way it works in these games anyway

You must never leave the player with a feeling that he is not in control of his armies and fleets - since this model relies heavily on AI decisions in certain situations, the least you can do is to make sure that every unit acts as intelligent as possible, preferably according to the master plan set by the player. The best way is, as Mark explained, to make sure that the AI wont be overwhelmed with choices, since that would only lead to bad decisions and frustrated players.

Players will never get the chance to change orders during turn-generation. If you allowed this you would have to halt the game every time just one player had a special movement issue, which would annoy everyone else since they'd get a half-done turn thus dragging our the gameflow.

This is the same reason that players wont be allowed to move units in tactical battles (like in MoO) - imagine the other players waiting for 30 turns while two of the other players plays out a skirmish

Once orders are submitted to the host and generated that's it - it's out of your hands.
[This message has been edited by 0

Innocence (edited April 25, 2001).]

**ChrisShaffer** · April 25, 2001, 15:16

Nothing in the turn-based simultaneous-execution model precludes the use of action profiles. There could be a number of preset profiles (guard location, attack aggressively, defensive withdrawal) with the capability for players to define their own profiles in as much or as little detail as desired. Players would then be able to assign profiles to units during the orders phase - and it should be possible to select a group of units and order all of them to follow a single profile, easing the amount of work for the player.

This isn't that different from the current system, where players have a set of potential orders to give each unit (like move, irrigate, fortify).

Given the capability to define or use pre-defined profiles, the problem of 'expecting the AI to do too much' isn't really a problem at all.

Announcement

Pure TB, TBSE or STB?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment