Design Doc 0.2 discussion and vote

[S. Kroeze]

I hope it will be clear why I am adding this information about infrastructure in pre-industrial times. I have some rather peculiar ideas on the turn-system discussion. Perhaps it doesn't make sense, because my knowledge and understanding of programming possibilities/impossibilities are almost non-existent. Please DO NOT LAUGH!

In my view the central issue in this discussion is the relation between real-time and game-time and the relation between government(=player) and his subjects/armies/governors. So I think it might help to face the question how an Empire was actually ruled in pre-industrial times, before the discovery of Railroad, Telegraphy and Telephone. When my line of thinking would be followed, it would also limit in a realistic way the power of overextended empires.

Would it be possible to break down one turn (=one year) into twelve months, all lasting exactly the same amount of time, let's say fifteen minutes? I wouldn't complain when the game would continue unrelentingly, night and day, nor would I think it necessarily boring. I would settle my day-to-day worries and only examine the condition of my kingdom when it suited me.

'Travel, "the mother of tidings," brought news of the world to castle and village, town and countryside. The rutted roads, always either too dusty or too muddy, carried an endless flow of pilgrims and peddlers, merchants with their packtrains, bishops making visitations, tax-collectors and royal officials, friars and pardoners, wandering scholars, jongleurs and preachers, messengers and couriers who wove the network of communications from city to city. Great nobles like the Coucys, bankers, prelates, abbeys, courts of justice, town governments, kings and their councils employed their own messengers. The King of England at mid-century kept twelve on hand who accompanied him at all times, ready to start, and were paid 3d. a day when on the road and 4s. 8d. a year for shoes. Befitting the greater majesty of France, the French King employed up to one hundred, and a grand seigneur two or three.

An average day's journey on horseback was about 30 to 40 miles, though it varied widely, depending on circumstances. A messenger on horseback, without riding at night, could cover 40 to 50 miles a day and about half as much on foot. In an emergency, given a good horse and good road (which was rare) and no load, he could make 15 miles an hour and, with changes of horses awaiting him, cover 100 miles a day. The great merchant cities of Venice and Bruges maintained a regular postal service between them so highly organized that it covered the 700 miles in seven days. Packtrains made about 15 to 20 miles a day; armies, when slowed by baggage wagons and retainers on foot, sometimes covered no more than 8 miles a day.

The length of France, from Flanders to Navarre was generally reckoned a journey of 20 to 22 days, and the width, from the coast of Brittany to Lyon on the Rhône 16 days. Travelers to Italy across the Alps usually went by way of the Mont Cenis pass from Chambéry in the territory of Savoy to Turin. Snowbound from November through May, the pass took 5 to 7 days to traverse. Traveling from Paris to Naples via this route took five weeks. The voyage from London to Lyon took about 18 days and from Canterbury to Rome about 30 days depending on the Channel crossing, which was unpredictable, often dangerous, sometimes fatal, and could take anywhere from three days to a month. One knight, Sir Hervé de Léon, was kept 15 days at sea by a storm and, besides having lost his horse overboard, arrived so battered and weakened, "that he never had health thereafter." It was no wonder that, according to a ballad, when pilgrims took to sea for the voyage to Compostella or beyond, "Theyr hertes begin to fayle."

Except for galleys powered by oarsmen, ships were at the mercy of the weather, although rigging had been improved and the swinging stern rudder gave greater control. Maps and harbor charts were in use and the compass was allowing navigation to leave the coastline and merchant cargo to take the risk of crossing the open sea. As a result, larger ships capable of carrying 500 tons or more cargo were being used for these voyages. Barge transportation by river and canal was much cheaper than packtrain, even given the tolls imposed by local lords at every convenient point. Along the busy Seine and Garonne, tolls succeeded each other every six or seven miles.

Wagons and peasants' two-wheeled carts were used for short hauls, but since roads were usually impaasble by wheeled vehicles im winter and there was no connected system of roads and bridges, the mule train remained the essential carrier. Four-wheeled covered wagons drawn by three or four horses in tandem were available for ladies and the sick.

Given the hardships and the length of time consumed, people journeyed over long distances to an astonishing degree- from Paris to Florence, from Flanders to Hungary, London to Prague, Bohemia to Castile, crossing seas, alps, and rivers, walking to China like Marco Polo or three times to Jerusalem like the Wife of Bath.'
(source: B.W.Tuchman;'A Distant Mirror',1978)

Sincere regards!

[S. Kroeze]

Here is an example of the importance of information:

'In January 1127 the Anglo-Norman barons and prelates swore an oath to accept Matilda as ruler after her father's death. From then on whoever married her could expect in due course to become iure uxoris king of England and duke of Normandy. Just a few months later the unforeseeable crisis triggered off by the murder of the count of Flanders meant that this man was Geoffrey of Anjou.

By 1135 Henry I was quarrelling openly and violently with his designated heirs. This quarrel had the effect of re-opening old divisions within the Norman baronage. By driving those magnates who remained loyal to Henry into opposition to Geoffrey and Matilda this meant that when the old king died they would find it difficult to come to terms with his chosen successors. In this sense it was Henry himself who provoked the succession dispute which followed his death. Even at the end of his life he still wanted his daughter and son-in-law to succeed, but he had been unable to bring himself to take measures which would have enabled them to do so. Henry I had been an outstandingly able and successful king, the master-politician of his age, but even he -like many other competent kings- failed to cope with the tensions of the succession question. It was for this reason that Henry of Huntingdon portrayed Henry as a king in a permanent state of anxiety. "Each of his triumphs only made him worry lest he lose what he had gained; therefore though he seemed to be the most fortunate of kings, he was in truth the most miserable."

Henry's ultimate failure made it inevitable that Geoffrey and Matilda would have to fight for their inheritance. And fight they did. Eventually, after no less than ten years of sustained campaigning, they were rewarded by a partial achievement of their ambition: the conquest of Normandy. The political structure of the Anglo-Norman realm meant that once Stephen of Blois had been recognized as king of England he was in a very strong position in Normandy as well. From then on the Norman barons could give their allegiance to someone else only at the risk of seeing their English estates taken away from them. There were a few nobles who took a different view but, by and large, those with most to lose felt that they had to support Stephen. Right from the start of their campaign to win their due inheritance, Geoffrey and Matilda found themselves opposed by the most powerful magnates of the Anglo-Norman state, men like Robert of Gloucester and the Beaumont brothers, Waleran of Meulan and Robert of Leicester.

If they had been able to prevent Stephen from carrying out his remarkable coup, then it might have been a different story, but this they were in no position to do. When, at the end of November 1135, the news came that Henry I was dying, they were in their own dominions, either in Anjou or Maine. Stephen, on the other hand, was in his county of Boulogne. This accident of geography gave Stephen a head start, an advantage which he exploited to the full in three hectic weeks after Henry's death. On 22 December he was crowned and anointed king at Westminster. But is was not only the Angevins who were put at a disadvantage by Stephen's relative proximity to London at the crucial moment. So too was Stephen's elder brother, Theobald count of Blois and Champagne. He was still discussing terms with a group of Norman barons who were prepared to offer the throne to him when the news came that Stephen was already crowned. These barons, including Robert of Gloucester, at once announced that they would now prefer to support Stephen "on account of the honours which they held in both countries."'
(source: J.Gillingham: 'Richard Coeur de Lion',1994)

I would also like to add a quote about communication and travel in eighteenth century Europe(!). Though some progress had been made, distance was still a restrictive factor to the exercise of power.

'Communications were a serious problem, whether in terms of the movement of people or of goods, of transport with speed or in bulk. Poor communications magnified the effects of distance and imposed high costs on economic exchanges. Road transport was particularly bad across most of Europe. Without metalled roads or mechanised transport, land communications were generally slow. The quality of roads reflected the local terrain, in particular drainage and soil type, and the ability and determination of governments and local communities to keep the roads in good repair. The resistance of the road surface to bad weather or heavy use was limited. The rainy summer of 1708 made the Russian and Lithuanian roads very soft, hindering Swedish military moves. The need for constant repair was expensive in terms of money, manpower and government effort, and it is easy to appreciate why road construction or improvement might be seen as a poor investment. The most important Russian road, that between St Petersburg and Moscow, was laid out by Peter I in the first two decades of the century. The roadbed consisted of tree trunks, with piles driven into the marshes and low-lying soft spots. Covered with a layer of gravel, sand or dirt, such a roadbed was supposed to provide a firm and relative smooth surface, but the rotting of the wooden base, erosion of the surface and gradual subsidence of long stretches into the soft, marshy soil, kept it in a permanent state of disrepair. Important Russian secondary roads lacked any roadbed and were simply a cleared expanse on which construction and cultivation were forbidden. The absence of any standardisation helped to ensure great variety in European roads. In the kingdom of Naples land communications were so bad that it was easier to ship olive oil than take it across the country by cart. In contrast the roads in the Austrian Netherlands were both relatively good and well maintained. In France the transportation networks were substantially denser and more interconnected north of a line stretching from Geneva to St Malo than south of it. There was no integrated French national framework. Poor roads led to long and unpredictable journeys that strained individuals, damaged goods and tied up scarce capital in goods in transit. The bad Portuguese roads ensured that the 350 km journey between Lisbon and Oporto took about a week. The newly crowned Adolphus Frederick of Sweden when touring his territories was forced in 1752 to abandon his plan to return from Finland along the shore of the Gulf of Bothnia, because of the difficulty of crossing the rivers, the bad state of the roads and the impossibility of finding sufficient horses.

Some road improvements were made. A powerful incentive was governmental, with the need to move instructions, officials, armies and monarchs more swiftly. The improvements made on the St Petersburg-Moscow road between the death of Peter I (1725) and the 1760s, including the construction of bridges, reduced the journey time over its 825 km from five weeks to two. It is clear that economic motives also lay behind much road improvement, particularly when, as in northern Italy, different states would gain from any shift in trade routes. In 1748 over 500 labourers were employed in building a new road from Bologna to Florence which it was hoped would improve trade between Lombardy and Tuscany. Six years later the Austrian government were worried about the effects on their possession of Milan of Genoese plans to build a major road from their port of Sestri to Parma. By the end of the century there were signs of improvements in areas such as Spain, France (particularly Languedoc) and Savoy. The École des Ponts et Chaussées established in Paris in 1747 was partly responsible for the development of French bridge-building in the second half of the century. However, in general road transportation was still bad. Main roads were often still primitive, that between Verviers and Aachen in 1785 being still in part 'a narrow sandy lane'. There were major gaps, such as between Provence and Genoa, that prevent any depiction of an integrated system. The enormous effort that was required for those that were built, for example the mountain road over the Col de Tende between Nice and Turin taking 17 years to build, helps to explain the relative absence of significant change. In Britain the government played a far smaller role. A sizeable network of 'turnpikes' was created, radiating from London by 1750 and from the major provincial centres by about 1770. The main impetus for this came from trade and the desire of local merchants and manufacturers for growth.

The difficulties and cost of road transport helped to ensure that much was moved by sea or river. A Tuscan government inquiry in 1766 found that it cost as much to move goods overland from Pescia to Altopascio as on the water route from Altopascio to Livorno, which was six times as far. Water was particularly favourable for the movement of heavy or bulky goods, such as building stone from Savoy to Lyons. In 1703 the Swedes used the Vistula to move their heavy baggage and artillery in Poland. But the river system was not always helpful: many rivers were not navigable and transport was often only easy downstream. Furthermore, rivers did not always supply necessary links. This was clear in the case of St Petersburg, separated by the nearby continental divide from the Volga and Dnieper river systems that provided much of the rest of western Russia with a good network of trade routes.

There was little improvement in the condition of European marine transport during the century. It still remained heavily dependent on the weather, as Charles XII of Sweden discovered when a storm disrupted the movement of troops from Sweden to her Baltic provinces in October 1700. The seasonal variation of insurance rates reflected the vulnerability of wind-powered wooden ships, which had not yet reached their mid-nineteenth-century levels of design efficiency. Sea travel was very slow compared sith what it was to become in the following century. However, it was the cheapest method for the movement of goods and the sea brought together regions, such as south-western Scotland and eastern Ireland, or north-western Spain and western France, whose road links to their own hinterlands were poor.'
(source: J.Black:'Eighteenth Century Europe 1700-1789',1990)

[korn469]

ok here is an example of how i think a turn should work

here is my preferred version

ok there would be two phases and a number of turn options
the first phase would be the action phase:
this is where the player moves playing pieces
every playing piece on the map (including units, armies, factories and mines) would have a number of action points...which would be similar to movement points in civ

to move, attack, repair, produce, construct would take action points

ever unit should have dots representing action points as part of the unit profile...the dots should light up Fallout:Tactics style

now action points would allow us to have a turned based real time RPS(role playing strategy game)

basically what i am advocating is that inside of every turn furing the action phase the game run in a pseudo-real time mode...action points aren't quite realtime - FO:T isn't counterstrike by any means and i don't want GGS to become AOK but i think that the civ2 turnbased chain gang will break down...i also don't think that preplanned turns will work...i mean have you guys ever tried to make your own plan in Rainbow Six? i think that most people will have an easier time grasping smaller pieces of the overall strategy that fold out before them rather than try to put the entire thing together at once

the second part of the turn would be a planning phase:
during the planning phase it would work similar to what many are suggesting now...you could issue orders to any (or all) playing pieces but these orders would go into an order que...the orders would not go into effect until the action phase actually started

diplomacy could be conducted during any phase, and every so often during the action phase a player could pause the game and call a diplomatic summit

during the action phase the player could also issue order into the order que so that units could make concentrated and well co-ordinated attacks...the orders wouldn't go into effect until the player activated the order que

as for turn options i think that the players should have a great deal of flexability

the host can set the length of the action phase and the planning phase though there should be a standard time limit; that limit would automatically be overridden when all players hit turn finished

one option would be to either make a phase infinite or to make it automatic

you could set both options to be infinite or automatic

when you set them to infinite the turn can't proceed until all players hit "turn finished" when you hit automatic the computer skips that turn

so if you had an automatic action phase and an infinite planning phase it would basically be almost the same as you are suggesting for preplanned turns

if you had a short time limit action phase and an infinite planning phase it would basically be realtime

that is how i think it should work

any thoughts, comments, critiques?

korn469

[amjayee]

Korn: I don't think the plans would be as complex as in rainbow six - at least it would be very rare. But I have to admit that I like the idea that there would be a real-time phase - perhaps of a fixed length, as S.Kroeze suggested. But I fear this would make the game very slow, and it would not be necessary all the time. Perhaps if we allow the possibility to skip the real-time phase if all players hit a special button? I admit it would make large military campaigns easier to handle. About pausing the game, perhaps the turn could be divided to 12 months, as S.Kroeze suggested, and pausing would be allowed (for penalty in score perhaps) at the end of each month. There could be a time limit to the pause, and players could either negotiate or change their plans during that phase.

I'm a little hesitant with this idea, but if done well, it might be a god addition to some things, without restricting or slowing down the game too much.

S.Kroeze: the stuff about transportation and information was very interesting. We need to have that in the game. The road construction should be an important thing. I was thinking; Romans could build great roads. How much effort did it take for them to discover that technology, and how expensive it was to build and maintain the roads? I mean, why didn't the later European nations research better road building technology, and build better roads? We need to know that so we can make the system work in the correct way.

Also naval transportation system need to be considered. We cannot have individual ships built and move on the map - perhaps players (and their people) could build naval transport capabilities?

[ElmoTheElk]

lol @ the turn based real time role playing strategy game. thisis about every game mode i know. (exept from racing sims! )

But serious, I like the idea you explained about the fallout: tactics type of turns. I DO think it's pretty hard to make for an emire building game like ggs. I like the realtime->turnbased idea! Although I DISagree on 2 phases. I really don't think we should have 2 different phases. Escpacially in your system, the 2 phases can be easily combined into 1. What the real difference between them anyway? In the first, you can only plan, and in the second you can plan AND actually move the units. I think the 2nd is already enough.

I'm developing my own turn system based on korn's ideas, fallout: tactics's and my own. Hope I can show you something within 2 days. See when I have the time...

Elmo

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Amjayee, Joker, Korn469, Leland and others,

Thank you for your kind and encouraging words! And I also thank you for not making me look ridiculous! Yet I am not sure whether my main point has come across, so I will elaborate a bit more...

Perhaps I am really stupid, but I don't see the essential difference between Korn's ideas including an action and planning phase and the original preplanned turn system. Please explain it to me!

Yet there is one point where I disagree with Korn, provided I am interpreting his words at least correctly (forgive me when I am not!):

• Since in pre-industrial societies without Railroad, Telegraphy and Telephone travel takes a lot of time, and consequently both dissemination of information and commands too, the central government can only have a rather limited control of its armies, unless the King/player decides to leave his capital and to become commander-in-chief, which has other disadvantages, but could be a possibility

This is the main reason why preplanned orders and units all moving simultaneously, make sense to me. With Korn's action points I don't have a problem.
In CivII the player seems to be not only all-powerful, but also all-knowing. This was and is one of the main causes of much odious micromanagement! In reality it could take months before a government received information about distant colonies, disasters or defeats. And before its new instructions, reacting to a report, arrived in the colony, many more months would have passed.

The voyage from Amsterdam to Batavia (Jakarta) lasted about eight or nine months in the seventeenth century, the home voyage lasted seven months. And the voyage to Batavia was relatively easy: Goa, another colony in India, was part of the year completely inaccessible due to the monsoon. So the demands of the VOC were only met after two years: a demand dispatched in September 1680, confirmed in December, was received about eight months later, between May and August, in Batavia. When all went smoothly, the demanded goods could be sent away in December 1681 or January 1682, arriving in Holland in the summer. It was possible to send a message by land route via Aleppo, which took less time to arrive, but this route was much more unreliable and unsafe too.

Nor was ruling an Empire on which the sun never set -like that of Charles V- an easy job! Even in Europe communication was generally slow: in peacetime during summer a letter from Bruxelles arrived in Toledo within 12 or 14 days; in winter or during a war, when France acted actually as a natural obstacle, this could take a month. Often more than one copy of the same letter was sent by different ways. And the Habsburgs had perfected a courier and postal system which was, probably, the best in Europe. Philip II, by all accounts a more effective ruler than most, was barely able to cope with these problems:

'Even then, communication between the king and his governors of his dominions remained dangerously slow. But much worse than the geographical handicaps were Philip's own habits. Painstaking and conscientious, his craving for ever more information hid an inability to distinguish between the important and the trivial and a temperamental unwillingness to take decisions. His much admired selfpossession covered an occasional tendency to panic, as in 1571, when he suddenly ordered the evacuation of the population of the Balearic islands from fear of a Turkish invasion, or as in 1587, when he ordered the marquis of Santa Cruz to set sail against England in November, regardless of the weather and the number of ships which were sea-worthy. In both cases his ministers refused to carry out his commands.(!) But the reverse was much more common. It was of lack of orders that the viceroy of Sicily, García de Toledo, complained when he wanted to relieve the siege of Malta, in 1565. It was the lack of clear and timely decisions from Madrid which helped to undermine the authority of Philip's government in the Netherlands.'
(source: 'New Cambridge Modern History, vol.III')

The story in my previous post about Henry I, Matilda and Stephen of Blois, is just one example where an advantage in information could result in the conquest or loss of a kingdom!

So in this proposal, the player -”government of the civ”, whoever that is- will receive every month reports about his armies and dominions, some of them already outdated, and has the possibility to give new commands, which will only take effect when they arrive at their destination. Until then, the old commands will apply. Satellite link with foreign rulers, like in CivII, should be dispensed with! You could send an ambassador to Constantinople, but you wouldn't expect an answer to your proposals before he has returned to Lisboa, four months later or more, -assuming the Porte is willing to grant him an audience- when his ship doesn't founder.
Of course the duke of Milano can expect an answer from the doge of Venezia in the short term.
The slow dissemination of information is another reason why swift invaders like Avars, Magyars of Mongols were terribly effective: news of their raid arrived almost simultaneously with the barbarians themselves!

In SMAC one even knows exactly which units are present and produced in every enemy city in great detail when you have established an embassy there, which spoils in my opinion the element of surprise completely.

About the Roman roads: it is true the Romans have in this respect an excellent reputation. I'll search for further information. Yet there is also a tendency, especially among classicists, to overrate their accomplishments. So beware! Eighteenth century Europe was definitely more advanced, both scientifically and technologically. Even during the Later Middle Ages many technologies were developed the Romans never dreamed of, like the windmill and printing.
In western Europe they were more or less the first to build any road at all. The Greeks and Egyptians on the other hand considered them barbarians!

Sincere regards,

S.Kroeze

Human history was no pleasant picnic in the park! The more CivIII will portray the harsh reality of the 'condition humaine' the more I'll like it. In the current CivII the computer keeps up a semblance of resistance only by massive cheating and plotting together.

I would suggest the following to ensure suspense till the end: better AI, the possibility of secessions and civil wars, peasant revolts and feudal risings, more random elements like crop failures and epidemics, more influence of religion and economics making it possible to win in different ways, dangerous barbarians able to conquer large empires and to create a new civilization, the possibility to start at a later starting date for the advanced player, the introduction of 'decay' factors affecting older and conservative civilizations.

The very linear, predictable structures of CivII should be broken,
CHANCE EXISTS!

[ElmoTheElk]

New turn system proposal
------------------------

I read a lot about turn systems in TBS games lately. I have seen that it isn't the easiest thing to design in an tbs game, especially in an empire building game. Loads of systems have been proposed on our forum, other apolyton forums and multiple sites. After reading a lot of it, I concluded some things.

First of all it isn't necessary difficult to make a turn system that works good in single player, but the real challenge lies in the multiplayer part. In single player, you make you moves, do your things and simply skip to the next turn. Not so much flexibility needed. However, in a multiplayer game, a player needs something to do, even when he have moved all his armies and chattered with all his neighbours. Someone with a large empire simply needs more time than someone with only 2 regions. So we have to come up with a system that deals with the ‘time gaps’ that will occur in, for example, simultaneous mode.

The best way to do this is, in my view, make diplomacy, economic changes, and making order queues for your armies, regions and technology real time. You can make all this kind of changes any time you like, also during an other player’s turn. You can directly react to the actions other players take.

When it’s your turn, you can move your armies (most of the time by accepting the move queues you made for them). Also regions would build there improvements and research is done. The length of this turn is dependent on the number of armies, regions and maybe more of you and other civs. The more units there are, the more time you get, however, the system is progressive. If you have 4 minute for 3 armies and 2 regions, you won’t get 8 minutes for 6 armies and 4 regions, but, for example, only 6. Also, when there are 2 players, you get more time for 2 regions then with 8 players, because otherwise the time would be too short in small games and too long in large, many player games.

This is not only more realistic (since you won’t need twice as much time for twice the amount of armies), but also goes hand in hand with the Rise and Fall. It becomes more difficult when you have numerous armies and you have less time during the other’s turns for other things than setting army’s queues. However, if you choose to keep up less armies as a great power, you will be very vulnerable and you’ll have to challenge the difficult task to stay in peace with foreign civs. (Apart from that, you’ll also have less armies to control your population in problem areas.)

Most probably the actual turn length will be based action points, pointed out by Korn in his post. The real-time mode would be just like it’s your turn in civ2 (apart from the army movement), but without any noticeable progress. The progress (building, researching, income, etc.) will occur when your turn begins. Your turn can also end when you hit an ‘end turn’ button.

I hope I made myself clear. I can say I’m pretty happy with turn system this way. I really think it’s flexible enough for both multiplayer and single player and is very much playable and fun. Hope you also thing that way about it. J

ElmoTheElk

[This message has been edited by ElmoTheElk (edited February 27, 2001).]

[ElmoTheElk]

In reaction to S, Kroeze's post:

I agree with you on many things here. It really took long to get information where it has to be. Order to an army can't het to the army itself within 1 month (before any decent road was constructed). However we should eb carefull hoe to implent that in the game. We try to make it as realistic as can be, but definaltly without abusing the gameplay part. We can have a very realistic game that noone want to play because it's not fun.

I personally was thinking about ginving the player less xontrol over there army. Escpacially when there is a lack of good supply routes for the armies, order have serious delay, up to 12 months (maybe even more??). Thins can be done by delaying the queue order of an army. Just send the order i.e. 12 months later and you'll definatly notice the difference.

When paved roads, telegraph and radio (internet?) are researched AND well developed (so not only the sience is needed, but also the practical experience->tech), comunication will improve with your armies, but also possibly with other civs or with you r population.

Elmo

[korn469]

thanks for all of the feedback guys!
this thread is actually alive! (MarkG we need a thumbs up icon)

ok so let me clarify some points that you have brought up

first thing

S. Kroeze you just gave me a great idea! (or so i think) i agree that units being far away from home before communications technology made it possible for CNN to televise the gulf war means that commanding those units should be difficult however the best way to do that is this...

Decrease a unit's (play piece) action points as it moves away from it's civ's central command

this is the easiest game design method to solve this problem and it is fairly easy to program...units do a range check from their HQ if the distance is over a certain range units get an action point penalty that increases with distance...this would prevent early conquest of the entire map

an option would be to place units under local command which would mean that the AI would control the unit but it would have it's full action point value...however units under local command would take a significant loyalty penalty and if left under local command for too long these units would simply revolt...you could issue Rules of Engagement (RoE) to unit under local command but you couldn't change these unless you recalled these units and placed them back under central authority (the player's control)...loyalty would have a natural decay rate which would represent these units becoming more and more independent of central authority...if they conquered a region it couldn't be placed under central authority until units from central command had arrived

explaining recalling a unit a little further...when you recall a unit it would make its way back to the closest region under central command as best as it could; the AI would follow the RoE issued to it so it might take it quite a while to make it back...a unit could only be placed back under central command at a region which was under central command...units under local command wouldn't reveal the map they discovered until they either came back to a region under central command or until they encountered a unit under central command...early on in the game the action point penalty for being away from the capital should be severe this would limit over expansion because far flung regions and units under central command would be inefficent and far flung regions and units under local command would be prone to revolt

ok and here are some more points

the difference between real time and turn based real time:

ok a real time game operates in what i like to call a tick system...every single unit gets the same amount of ticks but many times units set around wasting ticks doing nothing because the player is slow to click on his units...if you look at starcraft and buildtimes it is listed in ticks...for example a zerg hatchery has a build time of 100 ticks while a protoss Stargate has a build time of 80 ticks...this means on normal speed settings it takes nearly two minutes (120 ticks) for a zerg hatchery to build...on normal one tick is equal to one second however most games on b.net are played on faster or fastest which means that one tick is equal to less that a second (starcraft was balanced on normal but i have NEVER seen a game on b.net played on normal speed)

in turn based real time ticks get replaced with action points...every units has a set number of action points going into the turn and they will normally not get more action points (i think we should include a forced march concept into GGS which would give extra action points at some cost to the unit)...however unlike starcraft being a slow clicker will not penalize a player; in starcraft if you are slow you permanently lose the use of ticks, but in GGS under normal conditions you should be be to utilize most of your units action points...if you have the option on to skip the planning phase (in my system) and have conveyor belt turns then action points would regenerate over time...so it would be almost realtime but not quite

so a turn captures a set amount of time (probably a year) and the action points lets you play that turn out in a semi-realtime fashion...this means that all players can participate at the same time, so everybody is in on the action, but planing and not reflexes are the most important aspect to the game (though starcraft takes a great deal of planning)

if the action points regenerate over time then this would prevent to an extent allowing the leading player to utilize his larger numbers unfairly...in a traditional turn based game, whoever hase the most units get a distinct advantage...try playing battle tech (the boardgame) when it's one mech versus four (an entire lance)...even if the one mech is a heavy mech and it's versus 2 light and 2 medium mechs the player with more mechs can use the light mechs as cannon fodder to make the player with the heavy mech waste his movement...this would be less of a problem with action points (even if the turns aren't flowing into each other aka action points regenerating automatically)

so it seems that i should jettison the planning phase from my system and just have one phase the action phase with one of two options
[*]option 1: solid turns - actions points do not regenerate until either all players have hit turn finished or until the turn time limit is up and at the begining of the new turn all units have full action points[*]option 2: flowing turns - action points regenerate automatically one action point at a time at a rate determined by the game host (this could be adjusted during the game) for example 1/2 of a unit's action would regenerate in three minutes we could call this the turn's half life

the host should be able to switch back and forth between options during the game

keep the feedback coming i think we are building a great system here!

p.s. the order que would still remain in my new system

korn469
[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited February 27, 2001).]

[ElmoTheElk]

I disagree with some things here:

- I don't see a very big differnce between the simultanous turns and your system. Only difference here is that in simultanous turn there are no action points, but only a time limit. So when I have to explain your system, I will say it's a simultanous system with the time limit limited by action points.

OR

- If I get it wrong and you mean that a new turn will begin when the units' action points are regenerated, I also see problems. The game will be very much real-time, with the only differene that some player cannot move his units before the other's units have used there action points. But how do you want to implent that? Will one action point take a certain amount of time to use? You will still get the wait times for other players.
Instead I lie to see a ****inous option for players to change things, only the actual turn the units move (as in there queue) and progress in made (tax income, improvement building, etc.). The turn lenght is also based on action points, but not dependent on units, but on armies, population, number of regions and more FROM ALL PLAYERS, not only yours. This is made so that you still have enough time for all your stuff even in 2 player mode.
In single player mode, it will be a regular 'end turn' button who will end a turn, but of course amry movement, regions improvement building, etc. is limited (by action points).

- I really disagree that the host of the game is able to change so radicale things during the game. I really don't think it's good if we give the host the ability to change turn limits (time or action points)

- I LIKE your new ideas on how to penalty distant amrnies. By giving them less action points, there power is reduced. However, I also know this is not totally realistic, since an armies is still capable of moving the same distance, but have a lack of control over it. In order to make it a little better, I ALSO want to include the system I proposed ealier. Giving queues delays.

I agree with you that we are making a great and also innovative turn system that would really set us apart from other civ games, AND make our game more playable and fun (and realistic)! Still, please comment...

ElmoTheELk

[amjayee]

I didn't have time to read the messahes, but Elmo said in his first message that he thinks we don't need two phases, that one (the real time one) is enough. Let me clarify my idea of this. (Sorry if this was discussed in the other messages, I didn't read all of them.) I think it would not have 2 "phases"; rather, at the start of the turn the game would be in pause mode, which would end after a time limit, or when all players have ended the pause mode or something. Then real time would begin, until someone pauses the game at the specified possible pause times. That pause mode would end only after a time limit, or when the pausing player ends the pause mode. The paused mode in the beginning of tuen is required for empire management. There is so much more to do than in fallout : tactics that I think we need it. Also the real time mode could be accelerated, if everyone wants, so it goes by quickly if there's not much the players want to do during that phase.

[The Joker]

I actually agree with Amjayee's last post more than I do with any of the other ones.

I think Korn's system would mean mostly that fast clickers would get an advantage, since they would be able to move a lot of units around before the slower player gets to do so.

Elmo's system is pretty much old fashioned Civ2 TB, since players all have their distinct turns, where they are the only ones who can move things. In stead we need to make all players have their turns (or whatever) simultaneusly. This is not only better from a gameplay POV, it also does not limit the amount of players we can have in one mp game to a very low amount, as Civ2 style turns do.

Amjayee's system, on the other hand, although not described very in depth, incorporates the greatness of the preplanned turns' planning phase with a realtime phase where players can actually change their unit's orders in a mode much like the one advocated by Korn - realtime turn based with action points. Granted, fast clickers would have an advantage in such mode, but the planning phase (or paused mode, whatever you like to call it) allows slow clickers to make a strategy which, since they can give pretty complex if/then orders to their units, can defeat a fast clicker but poor planner.

------------------
"If you are to hurt someone you better do it so good that you don't have to fear revenge."
- Machiavelli

GGS Website

[amjayee]

I liked S.Kroezes post. I think that it would be a good idea to have real-time turns, a pause mode for planning, but no action points but just delay the receiving of the orders depending on transportation and communication technology. This would emphasize planning the defense (realistic) and would not give any advantage for fast clickers; there would not be much clicking. Instead, players would mostly plan the defense, give orders for armies (which would take some time to travel) and the units would follow those orders. You would not need to shepherd the units around as in StarCraft and other RTS games.

Also in diplomacy the distances could be taken into account; the players would "chat", but the messages would take some time to arrive to the receiver. I think we should not have a system where messages can get lost - that would be frustrating. But the travel time would be realistic, and depends on transportation infrastructure. That would make diplomacy quite realistic; the system would be chat-like, but the players would have to consider what they say and compose meanigful messages to other players. Also it would be difficult to cooperate with very faraway nations.

I agree with Joker that this system would be really good. It would take best parts of all current systems, and also it would suit quite well the game system we are planning. This could be a real decisive feature to put us apart from other games.

[korn469]

the joker

i don't think that you read my post very carefully

what i said is that i think that we should give the player options on how they can set up their turns...i think that one option would be for the turns to be distinct and always have a pause at the end of the turn, with a turn being defined by an amount of action points...the other would be for the turns not to pause at all and to flow on in a semi realtime mannor...it wouldn't be true realtime though one turn without a time limit (assuming the players are patient) could last for possibly thirty minutes

however if turns didn't pause then players would have incentive to pick up the pace some, however this should be a game option for the players to agree on...an option that could be changed during the game...i don't think that we should force players to have to go without default system i think that we should give them as many choices as possible

also i do not think that in most games one player is going to be able to move his mouse significantly faster than the other player so that click time and click time alone will determine the outcome of the game...most of the time a player loses in starcraft it's not because they are a slow clicker but because they are using bad strategy...and with action points determining the length of the turn then all players in the default pause at the end of every turn mode will have the same oppertunities as any other player...every unit would have a full turns length of action points and all players would have had the chance to issue orders into the order que (aka preplan their turn)

amjayee

i don't think that we should get rid of action points because they provide flexability in the real time/turn based system...they allow us to measure a turn by more methods than just time alone 9in the default pause mode)

also i don't think that delaying orders is a good idea...are you also going to delay the draw time on the map? if not then you are going to have players frustrated because their unit just sets there and dies because it doesn't defend itself when it runs into a far away unit...and if the units draw on the map at a delay then it will be like trying to play with lag...you might be issuing order to a dead unit, and most players don't like lag

i really hate running around in diablo2 after i hit a lag spike and my hardcore character is dead but i think that i'm still alive...or when you are getting hit but because of lag it looks like nothing is around you

also the following phrases scare me

quote: there would not be much clicking You would not need to shepherd the units around as in StarCraft

it sounds like to me (please correct me if i am wrong) that basically the AI plays the game and every once in a while the player adds a slight correction to the AIs strategy

i do not think that this would be fun or workable

i totally agree with click saving devices like rally points, build ques, order ques, order hotkeys (like you select an army then hit F1 and it will know to go to the nearest town regroup and to fortify that town)...but i do not think that the best away to cut down on micromanagement should be to turn the units over to the Ai which will probably be very poor for quite some time

i think that players should have a good deal of control (but not total control) over their units and that the players and not the AI should determine the best course of action for the units...

basically i want the player to have lots of choices to make...i want the player to have constant involvement with the game so they won't become borded...i don't think that there should ever be long stretches in the game where the player is setting around doing nothing...but i don't want to force the player to do a lot of busy work and make alot of unneeded clicks...this might be your aim to amjayee and if it is then i agree 100% with you

but if however you vision of the game is that the Ai runs the game and every four or five minutes the player will make an adjustment to the AIs strat then i disagree with you totally

basically over the real time/turn based part of the game i think that we all (joker amjayee and I) all agree in general but will maybe have to work out a few details (which isn't a big deal)

however on the overall vision of the game i'm not sure if amjayee is saying the same thing as I am or not...please clarify that Ok amjayee?

otherwise i think that we can agree that this will be our approach and work out the details as we proceed

korn469

[amjayee]

I wasn't meaning that AI will play the game, and I certailny didn't mean that AI would make any strategies for the player. What I meant by having less clicking and not having to shepherd the units around was this: what really brakes my nerves in RTS games, and the main reason why I don't play them (except AoE once in while) is that the units are so darn stupid. You have to keep an eye on them all the time so they don't do anything foolish or get killed just because they don't react to anything on their own. In my vision the player would make all strategies, but AI would aid player in carrying out those strategies so he doesn't need to spend all his time to do all those tedious things. Mainly, this means just that player tells the units how to react to different things (and there would also be a default reaction setting if player forgets this) and then he would make strategies for offense and defense etc. Then, if some unexpected situations occur, like enemy units are spotted or the units are attacked, they would react on their own; basically, in this point there's not much the player could do so AI can quite well handle this. The idea would be, that most of times the units would react on their own to attacks etc.

We can debate how sensible it would be to "lag" the flow of information in the game; I think it would be a nice new feature in the game, and also a new challenge; it would require better planning to defend a country in ancient times. But of course in major wars the player could act as a supreme commander of the army, removing the lag; of course this would give some penalties to running other affairs of state. But this feature will be no problem, it's quite easy to give the players possibility to disable it.

About action points and such, I'm not excactly sure how the system would work, so we'll see about that later. It just didn't sound good. But I you are correct with that we basically agree with the system. We just need to design the system now.