VOTE: turn order

[dan ward]

We need to decide now on how players take their turns. After some discussion we have three options, these are; (more detailed descriptions are included at the end)

1. Traditional; i.e. Civ style
2. Simultaneous; i.e. SMAC multiplayer
3. Plan first, then simultaneous move.

If you have already voted elsewhere on this you should vote again here.

Note this is for BOTH the single and multiplayer game.

At this point we are not considering any other options.

Voting ends at July 24th at 00:00 GMT.

1. Traditional
--------------
This is how Civ single player works. Players take their turns sequentially, whilst a player is taking a turn other players cannot move their units.

Advantages
----------
- We're all familiar with it. Gives players plenty of time to plan & strategise.

Disadvantages
-------------
- Too slow for multiplay.
- Old fashioned.

2. Simultaneous
------------
I believe this is how SMAC multiplayer works. There are still turns but all players can move at the same time.

Advantages
----------
- Suitable for multiplayer.
- More up to date approach which is more likely to appeal to a wider audience.
- Enforcing turns ensures that it doesn't turn into a RTS.

Disadvantages
-------------
- Combat model would have to change (from tradition Civ) as attacking a unit that has not yet move gives the attack an unfair advantage.

3. Plan first, then move.
-------------------------
Turns are first planned, then executed - all units move simultaneously, and all players plan the turn simultaneously.

Advantages
----------
- Some real-time elements, while remaining turn-based
- Fair combat; the quicker and more militaristic players don't get any unfair

Disadvantages
-------------
- Never been done before. Will take a lot longer to develop
- Lacks immediacy. Players want to see an immediate response to their actions
- Extra work needed to solve the possible conflicts in unit orders
- We need a possibility to pause the turn if something unexpected from some player's point of view happens, for example, if his units are attacked or his territory is entered.


[This message has been edited by dan ward (edited July 08, 2000).]

[dan ward]

vote: simultaneous

[Victor Galis]

Simultaneous is the root of all evil.

Classic all the way, or at least an option you can set. (Though player should be able to access theirs cities and change production and other non-unit moving things during opponents' turns to speed up game). The third option is a little better, but... it's harder (Civ isn't Diplomacy, things die in civ, armies don't "bounce").

Simultaneous is as bad as RTS.
[This message has been edited by Victor Galis (edited July 08, 2000).]

[dan ward]

quote: player should be able to access theirs cities and change production and other non-unit moving things during opponents' turns

The plan is to allow players to manage their Civ's whilst waiting for their turn.

quote: Simultaneous is as bad as RTS.

There'd be definite separations between to turns to enable city management & combat would be redesigned to prevent the player who moves first from having an advantage.


[This message has been edited by dan ward (edited July 08, 2000).]

[Guildmaster]

I am definately for the planfirst/move simul thingy. The fact that it hasn't been done before ought to be exciting for you guys but instead I see people talk like they're scared of it! How disappointing.


------------------
Goober

[Lord God Jinnai]

plan first/simulaniously is done in clash so as to not being done before that's not really correct (unless your counting finished games only ^_^

Anyway that's what i would like to see. Simultanious can get out of hand if you have too large of areas to deal with or multiple fronts.

[heardie]

Vote: Traditional

but
somewhere down the track I think simeltanious for m/player

[Victor Galis]

I saw simo turns in Age of Wonders... and thought "Hell, no!" I don't want to worry that I have to move these units first, because otherwise bad things happen, or worry if I attack with an area that was underprotected a turn ago area with some bombers that fighter will show up in the meantime.


The third is interesting, but I don't know how you'd implement that... in the meantime my OOP skills (what little I have) are melting away in a C class True I can program somewhat better now at a lower level, and will have actual college credit for it, but...

[Victor Galis]

Also, if multiple modes are supported. I would say that the first turns of MP (before the players make contact) would be played simo regardless. Once contact is made, your choice of modes would take effect.

[RonHiler]

quote: 3. Plan first, then move. ------------------------- Turns are first planned, then executed - all units move simultaneously, and all players plan the turn simultaneously. Disadvantages ------------- - Never been done before. Will take a lot longer to develop

Actually, this system has been used before. Stars! uses it (~5 year old game), as will it's almost released sequal SuperNova. Space Empires 4(or is it 3?) uses this system. Both Clash and Manifest Destiny will also use it. As far as multiplayer TBS games go, I think it's the new standard way of doing it. The others are outdated now, IMO.

So if I get a vote, I vote for 3

Ron

[amjayee]

My opinion has always been #3. Like Ron said, the others are out of date. Its advantages are smoother multiplay, more fair combat, and also it allows better unit movement (as I have suggested before) and it emphasizes strategy, since you don't see the effects immediately, but rather you have to plan first.

We shouldn't be afraid of change. Number 3 requires the most work, but does it do any good, if we rush to finish a game that no one wants to play anymore?

I think even number 1 is better than 2, like people have been talking here. But my vote is 3.

[VetLegion]

Hi everybody,

Vote: 1) Traditional

About:
2) Simultaneous action
While this is proven in SMAC, and really works good (you can even collect time you havent spent), it is same as real time to me, which I wouldnt like initially.
Also, I wonder why SMAC is played mostly by PBEM (play by e-mail) when there are excellent MP capabilities built in. I will ask that on SMAC MP forum. (dan, your "unfair unit" example is not unfair really. Its the way things are )

3) Simultaneous execution
I dont like this. Complex algorithms are not a way to do this. Can anyone give me a literally "one sentence" explanation about how precedence of actions would be solved? If there is no simple solution, it shouldnt be done.

Perhaps leave it like in civ2. The unit with more movement points is considered "faster" and has precedance in conflict situations?

About it adding to "strategic" feel of the game, I think independant army generals would add much more. My point is: actions must be very predictible, no uncertianty with units.

[dan ward]

I'm not convinced that 3) is the new way to do things. I don't see anyone condeming Civ3 or CTP2 for not working this way. From what I can see everyones talking about the new gameplay elements & not about turn order. BTW how many people are there out there playing games this way compared to turn based or simultaneous games? Of course if that's what everyone vots for we'll do it that way grrr...

The two big things that concern me are;
- Immediacy. Some seen the immediate affect of an action will turn away lots of users.
- Too many unknowns. So far no one has produced a convincing model of how this will work.

The fact that it hasn't been done before ought to be exciting for you guys but instead I see people talk like they're scared of it! How disappointing.
There are plenty of things that haven't been done that I wouldn't want to do.


[This message has been edited by dan ward (edited July 14, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by dan ward (edited July 14, 2000).]

[markusf]

I vote for traditional....

For things like caravans and units like that can't we just automate the process? As soon as you build a caravan you can select what city you want to send it to, and it goes there?(out of the players control) but if you want to save it for helping building a wonder you can move it like a normal unit. This like this would really speed up the game. And with micromanaging minimized the game would run a lot faster.

[heardie]

If Dan is still voting 3 than the current results are:
1.) 4
2.) 0
3.) 4
Only 7 days to go!