Announcement

**RonHiler** · July 26, 2000, 21:07

I object strenuously to Ron's vote!

Seriously, far be it from me to introduce any controversy. I do think you guys would be best off with a pre-planned turn system, but my opinion is hardly unbiased (since it's the system we are using, of course I think it's the best). So I would have no objection to y'all striking my vote from the record, if you think it's best.

I'm sure whichever system you guys end up using, it will work out fine, none of them would make me think "this game is going to suck with that system!". Using any of the three, I will still watch your progress with interest, and look forward to seeing the first Alpha release.

Ron

**heardie** · July 27, 2000, 01:52

I have no objections to using Ron's vote.

Also although I voted 1 I wouldn't mind in the slightest if 3 is used aftyer Amjayee explained it
[This message has been edited by heardie (edited July 27, 2000).]

**ElmoTheElk** · July 27, 2000, 11:01

Sorry, but why is the vote closed so soon anyway? I think just a little more people may want to vote as this is a very important factor in the game.

(As I voted too late, mine is not included, while I voted 1).

**dan ward** · July 27, 2000, 13:39

quote:

Originally posted by ElmoTheElk on 07-27-2000 11:01 AM
Sorry, but why is the vote closed so soon anyway? I think just a little more people may want to vote as this is a very important factor in the game.

A quick vote was essential because turn order is a fundamental issue which affects every other aspect of the game.

**The Joker** · July 28, 2000, 05:52

I feel more or less the same way as Heardie. I vote #3, but I wouldn't mind if #1 was chosen.

**phunny pharmer** · July 29, 2000, 20:59

Joker: I'm sorry the Imperialism II demo didn't work. I have the game at home, but it takes up one CD (110 MB). I can't quite fit that on my Yahoo account! The game's quite a cool one, though.

**The Joker** · July 30, 2000, 11:14

Double post.
[This message has been edited by The Joker (edited July 30, 2000).]

**The Joker** · July 30, 2000, 11:15

No prob, Phunny!

I have also heard great things about the game. But I haven't played it yet.

So. Have we reached a conclusion in this matter? Will we be using the preplanned turns or the traditional kind?

------------------
"It is only when we have lost everything
that we are free to do anything."
- Fight Club

**amjayee** · August 4, 2000, 08:53

The votes seem to have divided evenly between 1 and 3. Does it cause serious objection among the voters for 1, if we now decide to implement the system 3? It is after all more modern. If not, we can start designing the system. If you feel unsure and haven't read my explanation of the system, read it in the vote for turn order thread. It would be good if we can make the final decision now.

Quite frankly, I think the more advanced features we are planning in the new game models, would be harder to make with the traditional turn system. That's why I suggest number 3. But just my opinion.

**Guildmaster** · August 4, 2000, 09:15

I would like to further offer support to the more modern option #3. The take-turns option is I think too limited and has too many fundamental flaws, knot the least of which is the relationship between seeing and being seen with regard to military units. Remember how the origional Civ and Civ2 games worked? How there may be an enemy bomber attacking and they can have free reign over all your territory until the end of their turn and you couldn't do squat about it until your turn... mind you, AFTER they have already done their damage? What's the point of air superiority if you can't use it to protect your airspace? Also submarines, there could be a first strike option for all stealth-type units that in order to be implemented properly we need to use some kind of simultaneous move system.

Also, what about strategy? A lot of strategy is based on speculation: what you think the other guy is going to do this turn. How can you do that when you already know what he's done this turn, and then how can you do it if he gets to wait until you're done to decide what to do? Decide all your plans for this turn, and then see how the market reacts to those plans. You might make more money or less than you speculated, simply by not knowing what the competition is going to do, and not how the competition is going to respond to what you do. Plan first, then move. Plan the whole turn, then determine the results, not just in military maneuvers, but in economics as well. Plan what economic policies you intend to enact, then the game compares those to the other players' plans... Say you plan to offer coal at $320/ton, the other player plans to offer it at $310/ton. Bye-bye coal industry. You can't have that kind of unpredictability in old-fashioned turn order.

I have to go to work now... does anyone know what's up with the terrain&map forum,?

**amjayee** · August 4, 2000, 10:56

I agree completely with what you posted. Thanks for your support. I also like the idea, that you plan your turn, then bite your fingers waiting what happens. That's the way to do it. Of course in military things, we need some mechanisms to react to other player's aggressions, but let's worry about those later.

About map&terrain thread, so you can't access it either? Strange. When I try to open it, I get only a blank page. Should we contact the guys at apolyton?

P.S. I sent a message to MarkG. Let's see what happens.
[This message has been edited by amjayee (edited August 04, 2000).]

**Guildmaster** · August 5, 2000, 23:33

Actually, a blank page is what I meant when I said I couldn't access it. =Þ

And here's some thought about the timing issue...

If we break the game turn down into (bear with me) "sub-turns", or perhaps "twelveths" of turns if the turn is one year, and the player will strategize for one year. Then the simlutaneous movement could go like this: The game could be coded so that it will move each player's units, enact policies, etc one at a time, like in old-style, and do this twelve times. A unit with three movement would move once every twelveths of a turn and would be eligible to engage any enemy units depending on where he is during that twelveth. or whatever segment you're currently on. That would also give an actual growth line... players could perhaps plan for prices to go into effect during specific "months". All the player sees though, is the plan they put into effect, and the end result at the end of the turn.

Just on of many possibilities, this could be a really simple way to do a really complex thing.

Better idea: Each player decides everything and the game moves everything exactly at the same time. If there is a conflict, either pre-set orders take into effect or a pop-up menu will appear asking the player what to do. Pre-set orders would be something like "Engage Y enemy at will" or "Buy X at lowest available price" or something like that. The game will assume that each unit will follow orders (unless you allow deserters in the game-options menu

**The Joker** · August 6, 2000, 11:42

Guildmaster:

I don't really like having twelveths turns. I like Amjayee's initial system better.

Also, for simplicity, I think that economic stuff and such should simply all be handled at the beginning or at the end of the turn, in stead of being spread out over it. The preplanned turns would propably only be for the units.

One thing that we need with this system is a unit's speed, which might very well not have anything to do with it's operating range/deployment range. An airplane would in game turns be able to get to everywhere in it's deployment range instantly (in game turns) where a legion would take several "subturns" to move around inside it's deployment range.

This system definately needs some work, but I still find it superior to the traditional turn system.

Anyway, what are we deciding? Is it the preplanned?

------------------
"It is only when we have lost everything
that we are free to do anything."
- Fight Club

**amjayee** · August 7, 2000, 08:37

Here are some thoughts to clear some things out. First, I think the turn should always be one year. In early game, or when there is nothing to do, the player could skip as many turns as he likes, or skip only the empire management phase, moving only units; after all, unit movement takes generally less time than management, since we use armies¨and some auto-moving features.

About Guildmaster's "sub-turn" idea, I had something like that in my mind, too. What I think is, that the turn is one year, but units would move in one-month turns; usually, when nothing special happens, they simply move the whole year's movement, but during wartime, they could be moved in monthly scale; the idea is, that units could attack more than once per year, and wars usually require some maneuvering around the units, so this would be used as a partial solution to war problems. As I said, moving units should be quite fast, so this shouldn't slow down even multiplay very much - and since wars are very consuming, they usually don't last as long as in civ2. At least 100-year wars would not be very intensive all the time; rather they would consist of lots of smaller wars.

About empire management, I agree that there should be one phase at which you can give those orders; usually in the beginning of each turn's design phase. If you don't have anything to change, you could simply skip that phase entirely. Since cities have some ai and automation, usually you don't need to traverse through all cities changing the orders, giving more stuff to produce etc., but rather you can concentrate on the big picture.

About which system we choose, I asked people if it's ok if we choose number 3. There's no opposition so far, but let's wait a couple of days. After that, we can start designing the system.

Announcement

VOTE RESULT: Turn Order

VOTE RESULT: Turn Order

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment