EC3 New Idea #15 - Simultaneous turns of play

[ChrisShaffer]

No, this is NOT like CivNet. The idea is not that players would be moving units at the same time, with whoever clicks fastest getting the move. Under this proposal, priority would be determined by things in the game (unit movement factors, morale, random, etc.) - not by who clicks on a square first.

The way this proposal works:

• All players review the previous turn report.
• All players write a set of potential orders for their units, cities, etc.
• All players submit their orders
• The computer adjudicates all the orders simultaneously. If, for example, two units try to move into the same hex at the same time, the computer has priority rules to figure out who succeeds and who fails.
• The computer gives a turn report to each player.

[ChrisShaffer]

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.

[yin26]

Nicely done! I added this idea to my "Multiplayer Support" thread a bit ago, but you've done a much better job explaining it here. Any chance I could steal this proposal in the event Multiplayer makes it on the list?

[ChrisShaffer]

I'm in favor of anything that gets this proposal implemented. If copying it to the Multiplayer fix does that, go for it.

[yin26]

Thanks! It's such good work, I'm going to put it there now (and give you guys credit, of course).

[Adm.Naismith]

ChrisShaffer, sorry I crosspost over your previus Final Draft.
I don't want to keep this idea to me (50% of share income will be enough ).

I'm on a business travel, posting from a Hotel just to keep up the idea, so I have trouble to assure my presence on forum

I really support your summarize, and your english is surely better than mine, so thanks Chris, I hope we will find enough support to catch Firaxis attention.

Yin26, thanks for your effort into pasting this into multiplayer. I really would like to play this in "solo" mode also, let's hope will be a good mode in both case.

------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant

[Adm.Naismith]

Damn, nothing or too much (double post removed)

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Adm.Naismith (edited March 08, 2000).]</font>

[Adm.Naismith]

So far, I counted 26 votes for our proposal:
not enough to be on the final list.
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>
We need more power, Scotty!

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Vote us, we will do the best for our game!


------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Adm.Naismith (edited March 16, 2000).]</font>

[ChrisShaffer]

Another advantage that we forgot - this would allow anyone to design an AI for the game! Just take the turn report as input, output a set of orders, and off you go.

[ChrisShaffer]

And yet another point...simultaneous turns would prevent multiplayer rollovers based on play order. For example, in SMAC, if Spartans and Believers are allied, they get two turns to press an attack before the defenders get to respond - because the play order is ...Morgan-Spartan-Believer-Peacekeeper... It's even worse if Morgan is allied with the Spartan-Believer combo.

[MidKnight Lament]

It's disappointing that this didn't get in (same goes for hex!!!), but looking at the way they're planning to send the results, I'll be highly surprised if Firaxis don't read your summary and take it seriously anyway.

So good work, guys.

- MKL
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited March 28, 2000).]</font>

[Adm.Naismith]

Australian people become more and more nice to me MidKnight

Seriusly, I suppose someone doesn't support radical changes because he/she thinks CIV III development is too advanced to reproject the main pillars.

I also note many people really want more hype on tactical combat (e.g. commander or general units, more different unit) and Firaxis is speaking about this way.

I really like tactical wargames, still I think is a mistake putting too much combat into a CIV game. I also think that much more units is a nonsense: I hardly used so much different units in SMAC, and there I have a full workshop to build them to my taste!

I never feel the need of really advanced units or too much different type because winning is too easy, and to be an attacker pay too much revenue. AI limits are the real pain in the ... neck, so it's not difficult to me (and I'm not a very good player) crush the PC factions without subtle tactics.

OTOH for Firaxis is easier to set a bunch of new units and some commander in a stack, than rebuild the game engine on a different concept.

But 36 Apolytoner Saw The Thruth of Simultaneous Turns of Play and I tell to You that The Lord Of Games will be Here sooner or later to bring to us The Light of a New Simultaneous TBS that will fight the evil of RTS and bring back to The Right Way the unbeliever of old TBS.

Too bad we already miss the 1st day of 2000 for the new game advent, but ChrisShaffer and me are working hard on the calendar to find a new data

------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant

[MidKnight Lament]

Haha. You're very welcome. And after all this discussion I'm keen to play something with simultaneous turns now. Any suggestions as to what's already out there that I might like to try?

- MKL

[Seeker]

Try Imperialism 1.

[Adm.Naismith]

Hmmm, I know Blue Byte is working on the 4th episode of Battle Isle (don't count the previus "Incubation": it's been labelled battle isle 4 too for marketing, it's a completely different game).

Battle Isle has been for the previus three game a wargame (not a Civ affair) with a setted campaign to crawl scenery after scenery, with some special resource to harvest, building and repairing of military units, supply units (no unlimited ammo or fuel, you have to use wisely your gun ), weather change that afflict movement.

They will show the new game preview early, and are speaking about a september 2000 release.

They used a form of simultaneous turns on original Battle Isle (BI for short) on Commodore Amiga, then they switch on conventional turn for BI2 and BI3, also because the development team changed in between.

Now they are speaking about a turn system where you are busy with some activity also during enemy turn, but they don't tell more until the PR guys will reveal the whole game on next E3 show.

A fan forum is on http://www.cdmag.com, and a Blue Byte developer is often there.

They are also building a dedicated site at http://www.battleisle.com but it's still an empty work in progress.


------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant