VOTE: turn order

[Guildmaster]

Knot that I haven't already voted, but think about this one for a sec...

This is OUR game. It is NOT a civ clone. There is no reason to make a game like civ1 or civ2. As for the thing about the simultaneous turn order thing, I don't see what is o difficult about implementing it? It's not impossible. Methinks a lot of you guys are afraid of doing things differently just because they are different. I'm not saying we should do it this way just bcause it's different, but it then it IS a revolutionary idea.

Moreover, civ games of the future will be doing things the (3) way... here we could be one of the first games to have the turn order that way.

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

[amjayee]

Dan was complaining about the fact that no one has explained, how number 3 would be done. I can try to explain what I have in mind. Please list the things that are concerning you, I might not be able to see all the unclear things, since the system is so clear to me. But I agree with Guildmaster about that it is possible to make the system, and get it working well, and it is not necessarily even too difficult. More work, yes, but acceptable for getting a state of the art turn system, among the first games made.

[F_Smith]

Just a little info, to help ya'll with your discussions:

1) Several games have used '3'. "Lords of the Realm II" was one of the best. If you haven't played that game, it's an absolute must, for design examples. It's old, and can't be more than $20. I just bought 'Shogun', also, and it uses the same turn design. It is, indeed, vastly superior, in terms of gameplay. It's the same rule that the old boardgame 'Diplomacy' used.

2) To implement, wouldn't each unit just have a collection of 'orders' that would be processed each 'turn'? During their turn, players give orders to troops/etc to go here, do this, then click the 'turn' button to watch those orders carried out?

P.S. -- I have no vote, just this info. Forgive me for sticking my nose into ya'lls process. I will go back to lurking now.
[This message has been edited by F_Smith (edited July 17, 2000).]

[Victor Galis]

Wasn't LOTR II Simultaneous? I can't remember well.

In any case the tactical battles from LOTR II are a good example of what not to do... A royal keep defended by 600 troops should not be stormed by 900 troops, with only 100 casualties (you could manually dodge the arrows )

[amjayee]

What F_Smith told about unit orders is correct. Units are given "order chains" during the turn planning phase. The given orders would be shown on the map with graphics, like the path the unit will take, what unit they will try to attack, what area they are going to scout etc. When all orders are given (also empire management orders) the player hits start turn- button. When all players (ai or human) have ended the turn design, turn is started. Building and empire management actions are carried out first, then units are moved all simultaneously, according to their speed. Battles are resolved, possibly pausing to show messages to players etc.

This allows us to have more strategic choices for players, without slowing down the multiplay too much. Like I said earlier, it also allows us to use the more complex unit movement system I have proposed earlier - they key points were, that units have a deployment range, and maneuvering range. Units move farther, and more realistically. This is a must, if we are going to use much larger map as planned.

I'm quite optimistic about that it is also not necessarily very complicated to make. With implementing good unit ai, the units can solve most problem situations themselves. This way, also the need to allow the player to pause the game is smaller - it should be possible only in most critical situations, like when enemy makes a surprise attack or declares war. Also the possible conflict situations in unit movement orders are not very many, and they can be solved automatically.

All in all, if we plan the system sufficiently well, we are not going to have too much trouble. And as people have pointed out, it would also be more modern way to handle turns. I can try to make a better and more thorough explanation of the system soon. Send your comments and ideas, and what is bothering you.

[The Joker]

#2 is a thing of evil. Never go with that.

To me #1 would work fine. It is simple and easy to do.

But that #3 sounds exciting. Amjayee seems to have a somewhat clear vision of how it should work. If he could explain it to the rest of us it could give us a better basis of making our decision.

What I am saying is, that if we can make it work #3 is what has my vote.

[amjayee]

I will post something soon. Let's delay the decision until I have explained the system properly. After that, we could use either #1 or #3, but I hope #2 is not used.

[dan ward]

Guildmaster:
Choosing a turn system on the criteria that it's never been done before is plain dumb. If we're going to change something it should be for the right reasons.. You could try giving some reasons instead of criticising team members just because they hold different opinions to you.

OC3 is a Civ-clone, deal with it. Being a Civ-clone has a lot of advantage; 1. there's lots of people out there who'd be interested in a similar sort of game & 2. it means we don't have to reinvent the wheel for everything we can pick and choose what we want to carry forward. Clash has gone the 'we are not a Civ-clone' route & look at how much they're struggling to get something playable. Freeciv on the other hand has gone the Civ clone route and they now have an excellent game, a big community and the opportunity to move in whatever direction they want to take. We are not experienced game developers & designers so let's not try to run before we can walk.

[The Joker]

Dan:

I don't think we should be just a civ clone. At least my visions for OC3 is not about is just being yet another civ clone. We should try to make this game different from Civ2 in many ways, including the very basics of the game: Population and economy.

If we were only to make a civ clone then what would the point in making the game at all be? I see no point in ever playing FreeCiv, as it is not superior to Civ2 in any ways (at least not as far as I know). Clash, on the other hand, is trying to make a game that is different, revolutionary. This means that they will have a hard time developing the game, but also that they can make a game that is truly great.

I think we should do the same. Our game should the the Civ game of our dreams. This means that it will require work for us. But is that necessarily bad? We are a small team, so we shouldn't have too much trouble agreeing on things. And the fact that we all have very different interests in the game means that we can each focus on the subject that has our interest, and let other people handle the other things. I, for instance, will accept almost any combat model that I am presented with.

When all this is said I must also agree with you that change only for the sake of change is really not good. But I can see great new opportunities with the new turn system. So making something new isn't just for it's own sake. It could actually improve the game.

[Victor Galis]

I think ideally, we want to be evolutionary, not revolutionary. Valid points are that we cannot run before we learn how to walk, and therefore should stick to things that have been done before (this does not mean program Civ2... we can easily innovate by making combat more realistic (Will someone please read my Combat Model?!), or simulating population (revolts) and such better.)

[amjayee]

I agree with Joker about that if we want civ2 clone with some enhancements, we can play freeciv or tweak its code a little to allow some new enhancements. But making a new game requires new ideas. And implementing new ideas requires more work than recycling ideas from other games. That is something we have to face.

I also agree it's wise to take ideas from existing games, but only the ideas that are so good they don't need enhancing. Civ2 turn system is far from perfect. I think with the system #3 we could have a near-perfect system, and make our game original in one blow. Just allow me to explain it, that's coming soon. But of course we could use a civ2 system with some enhancements. That's open for debate, hold on for a while until I have had time to collect my thoughts.

[dan ward]

Amjayee
It seems reasonable to wait until you can get a detailed description to option 3) how long do you thing this will take?

[RonHiler]

???

There is nothing mysterious about how pre-planned turns work. Go to the Stars! site and/or the Space Empires 4 site and pick up the demo(s) if you're not clear on the concept.
http://www.webmap.com/stars/
http://www.malfador.com/se4.html

HTH

Ron
[This message has been edited by RonHiler (edited July 21, 2000).]

[dan ward]

Thanks for the links Ron.

We still need a more detailed description of how it will be done for OC3.

[amjayee]

I agree, Dan. I will try to send my explanation later today, if I can make it.