Announcement

**Mark_Everson** · October 12, 1999, 21:23

Hey Glak:

You weren't rude. I've had people be Nice to me worse than that .

Unfortunately for you, My focus is on single player. That doesn't mean that I don't think Clash can't be a Great Multiplayer game.

If you want to invest the time, you can be another voice for multiplayer-friendly design decisions in the group.

I just played racketball and am beat so this'll be brief...

10 hours: No Problem

Real Decisions: Major thrust of Clash, All the decisions real rather than accounting

True Conflict: You will get conflict with other players Only if you survive long enough!

Cya,

Mark

**Lord God Jinnai** · October 13, 1999, 00:15

I think the only real way to solve both problems to the fullest extent is do what was done with Quake...two seperate versions (after Quake 2) both of which were focused on just 1 aspect and completly ignored the other.

**Glak** · October 13, 1999, 09:52

No no, that is just what I mean. You shouldn't have to play against the computer for a while before you are allowed to play the actual game. Let's compare the two of the best rts games, SC and AoK. Basically you can break rts games up into a series of turns or chapters. A new one is started when either player changes his strategy. This sort of leads to a branching strategy tree. Each player really only makes one decision before they see what the other player has done, all other actions support that decision. Then one they see what the other is doing they will each make a new decision on how the game will flow, new decisions are made at about the rate of one per minute afterwards. Making each decision is where the strategy is, the rest is just tactics and accounting.

Now lets look at AoK. According to many SC players it is a good game, however there is one glaring flaw that you just have to accept. The game doesn't really get going until a lot later. In your first 10 minutes or so you only make 1-2 strategic decisions. Sure you make tactical decisions when deciding how to gather resources but it doesn't really add anything into the game. They could have just started you an age later and given you a whole bunch of extra villagers.

After the game gets going it becomes a great game filled with strategy. Of course you have to play 15 minutes at peak performance to even have a chance at winning the actual game. I think most people would rather get right into the game when they hit the start button, not after they have played an arbitrary amount of time dictated by the designer.

So basically you want the player to make decisions based on what other players are doing, you also want to maximize the number of decisions made. Everything before the first viable chance of conflict is a single decision. So in Clash you should be able to hurt you opponent in some way in the first 3-4 turns. If the first conflict is possible in say 20 turns then you will only think of what you want to have in 20 turns, then you will play accordingly. You will be playing from a script. Sure you could introduce complications but then that just means you need to play from a branching script.

This brings up another point, people will master your game. You have to take this into account. If the game is popular it will be debated endlessly and all strategies will be tested and codified. Those who study the game will know the game better than you ever imagined and will have a planned response for every computer generated event. The only thing that people won't master is the other person's brain.

Also by conflict I don't necessarily mean battle, any form of player vs player conflict will do, in the end they are all the same.

Keep in mind that realism is just a popular theme, like science fiction or fantasy. Nothing more. It is not a goal, it just just the clothing that the game wears. Realism might appeal to people and can make games easier to understand but don't let it intrude on your game mechanics. I just brought this up because I was talking with my strategically impaired roommate yesterday. He was shocked when I told him that I would like SC just as much if the three races were retangles, ovoids, and triangles and the units were just various sized shapes.

**Lord God Jinnai** · October 13, 1999, 11:39

Originally posted by Glak on 10-13-1999 09:52 AM
>
No no, that is just what I mean. You shouldn't have to play against the computer for a while before you are allowed to play the actual game. Let's compare the two of the best rts games, SC and AoK. Basically you can break rts games up into a series of turns or chapters. A new one is started when either player changes his strategy. This sort of leads to a branching strategy tree. Each player really only makes one decision before they see what the other player has done, all other actions support that decision. Then one they see what the other is doing they will each make a new decision on how the game will flow, new decisions are made at about the rate of one per minute afterwards. Making each decision is where the strategy is, the rest is just tactics and accounting.
>

First off I'm not saying and neither is Mark (i believe) that u have to play against the computer at all. If u want to play only milti-player, u can.

The rate of descisions is true for real-time based games, but this isn't...its turned based and turns can last longer than that (hopefully not too much longer though ^_^)

>
Now lets look at AoK. According to many SC players it is a good game, however there is one glaring flaw that you just have to accept. The game doesn't really get going until a lot later. In your first 10 minutes or so you only make 1-2 strategic decisions. Sure you make tactical decisions when deciding how to gather resources but it doesn't really add anything into the game. They could have just started you an age later and given you a whole bunch of extra villagers.
>

Well first u have to find the other civs...for all u know, there could be only one or up to some number undecided yet.. and though it may take only a few turns, u could be in the middle of nowhere where no one is...I'd think this should be in options to put the civs close together, esp in multi-player games, but it also depends on the size of the map. Too close and u'd get killed prob b4 u even started.

>
So basically you want the player to make decisions based on what other players are doing, you also want to maximize the number of decisions made. Everything before the first viable chance of conflict is a single decision. So in Clash you should be able to hurt you opponent in some way in the first 3-4 turns. If the first conflict is possible in say 20 turns then you will only think of what you want to have in 20 turns, then you will play accordingly. You will be playing from a script. Sure you could introduce complications but then that just means you need to play from a branching script.
>

Umm..well i think that's open to debate...

>
This brings up another point, people will master your game. You have to take this into account. If the game is popular it will be debated endlessly and all strategies will be tested and codified. Those who study the game will know the game better than you ever imagined and will have a planned response for every computer generated event. The only thing that people won't master is the other person's brain.
>

This is, sadly true...only games relying on complete randomness can never be mastered, atleast with our current tech...the thing is to keep mastering it very hard and even masters have some weaknesses they have to watch out for. This is getting better and better all the time however.

>
Also by conflict I don't necessarily mean battle, any form of player vs player conflict will do, in the end they are all the same.
>

Ok, well again if u're playing on a large map this should take a few more turns and who said there has to be a conflict? couldn't it be an allaiance?

>
Keep in mind that realism is just a popular theme, like science fiction or fantasy. Nothing more. It is not a goal, it just just the clothing that the game wears. Realism might appeal to people and can make games easier to understand but don't let it intrude on your game mechanics. I just brought this up because I was talking with my strategically impaired roommate yesterday. He was shocked when I told him that I would like SC just as much if the three races were retangles, ovoids, and triangles and the units were just various sized shapes.

>

Realism is popular theme, but so is strategy.

Anyway go ahead and respond! We need all the input we can get.
[This message has been edited by Lord God Jinnai (edited October 13, 1999).]

**Big Dave** · October 13, 1999, 13:53

Please pardon the fact that most of my comments are going to (how to put this?) reflect changes I'd like to see to an existing game. These are also features that I feel would be desirable in any game of this genre.

One of the things that is going to make Civ:CTP a classic (even if they never release another patch) is that it is almost endlessly customizable. This is a good thing.

One feature that I would like to see is the possibility of alternate victory conditions. For example, in the 1980's the U.S. spent the Soviet Union out of existance. (Yes, there are over 1000 other issues there, the U.S. economy was damaged, the Russian government is still a problem, the region was destablized, etc, etc, but I don't want to deal with all the political talk, it's not relevant to my point, which is alternate victory condidions.) So there should be alternate victory condidions possible in the game. Economic victory is one possibility. CTP has non-standard warfare, a feature I like alot and one I feel is very relevent throughout history. There is no question that religion has been responsible for some terrible wars, as well as having been blamed for others. Slavery has been common throughout much of history. And lawyers have been a problem nearly as long.

Slavery, or other atrocities (exterminating a "tribe", "race", "Civilization" or "People", whatever you're going to call them) might be worth victory (atrocity) points. Having an economic base might be a path to victory, making alliances to form a 1 world gov't might be a "victory choice". Obviously there is the "last man standing" victory. Some sort of scientific victory ought to be possible, too. Altho' I would certainly hope it would be better than some lame alien life thingy.

In all of the above ideas I'm thinking of some sort of point scale. That is assuming that the game ends in year 2545 or whatever.

Well, just some food for thought. Sorry if I posted in the wrong place. My first visit to this section of the board.

Big Dave
[This message has been edited by Big Dave (edited October 13, 1999).]

**Glak** · October 13, 1999, 17:06

>First off I'm not saying and neither is Mark (i believe) that u have to play against the computer at all. If u want to play only milti-player, u can.

Yes I now that, however multiplayer games are fundamentally different than single player games in terms of game mechanics.

>The rate of descisions is true for real-time based games, but this isn't...its turned based and turns can last longer than that (hopefully not too much longer though ^_^)

Yes of course the time scale will be different unless people play really fast, however I think that there needs to be a lot of branch points in the game and that they should be distributed evenly so that the game is fun from beginning to end.

>Well first u have to find the other civs...for all u know, there could be only one or up to some number undecided yet

Finding your opponents (or choosing to not find them) is a clear boundary between the chapters of a game. Once each player sizes up the other he must reevaluate his current strategy, thus he makes his second strategic decision in the game. Before he gets opponent generated feedback he can only make one strategic decision.

>.. and though it may take only a few turns, u could be in the middle of nowhere where no one is...I'd think this should be in options to put the civs close together, esp in multi-player games, but it also depends on the size of the map. Too close and u'd get killed prob b4 u even started.

No, good design will allow you to place players fairly near each other and not turn the game into a rush fest, while still allowing rushes to be barely viable. Map size and unit build time must be directly linked. For example say I am going for a default build and you are going for a rush build. You finish creating your first military unit at the same time I start mine. However by the time you get to my base my unit is finished, the fight is a draw and because of my superior economy I have the advantage. Map lag is an essential part of strategy games, without players are unable to risk being behind for a little in exchange for power later. With too much map lag you can power all you want.

>Umm..well i think that's open to debate...

by all means reply, I don't see why anyone would want to play a scripted game. I think that constant conflic is so core to the concept of a game that I don't see why anyone would think otherwise. Obviously other people do but I can't figure it out.

>This is, sadly true...

No it is good, playing at a high level of skill is much more fun than playing with the unskilled, even if you are unskilled. When I win a game of something I generally feel cheated in that I learn more when I lose. Of course I like winning, but I like losing too.

>only games relying on complete randomness can never be mastered, atleast with our current tech...the thing is to keep mastering it very hard and even masters have some weaknesses they have to watch out for. This is getting better and better all the time however.

No this is bad. A little randomness is essential in some types of games but it should only be used when no other solution works. If the game is too random people will just get frusterated. How would you like it if you lost a really close and intense game because of a random event? I doubt that you would find it pleasurable.

You need people to become very good at the game, otherwise people will be unable to even understand what strategies work and which don't. People need to be able to look at the game in depth and analyze its inner workings so that they can focuse on formulating strategies.

>Ok, well again if u're playing on a large map this should take a few more turns and who said there has to be a conflict? couldn't it be an allaiance?

Yes they could ally, they shouldn't have to battle. However they must have the option for their decisions to be meaningful

>Realism is popular theme, but so is strategy.

No strategy is not a theme, it is well hmm hard to explain. It something that can be used to decide the outcome of the game. Like in action games your hand speed determines the outcome, the theme does not and in fact does not affect the game in any way.

Let's look at four games: DOOM, Heretic, Warcraft2 and Starcraft. DOOM and Heretic are both first person shooters. War2 and SC are both rts games. Doom and SC both have science fiction themes, heretic and war2 both have fantasy themes. So let's just say a skilled doom player and a skilled war2 player decide to play a game of heretic. Who will win? The doom player will win and by a lot even though he does not regularly play fantasy themed games.

So in order to look at the strategy elements of Clash you need to be able to strip away all references to the real world and be able to dress it up in any theme, whether it be pokemon or a game about collecting antiques.

Oh back on topic, 10 hours? How long is each turn and how many games will each game take? If you go with six minute turns you only have 100 to work with. Keep in mind that human players will be able to counter each other. Perhaps you should look into what you want your end game force to be. In all successful rts games is has been limited resources, in TA and its spawn is was super weapons. In RISK it is trading in 3 cards to get 60+ armies. Alternate victory conditions are an artificial alternate to end game forces and should be turned off in multiplayer games, though they are acceptable in single player games. Alpha Centauri doesn't have an end game force. The only concievable result is each player with an intensly fortified island out of planet buster range of the other factions (all other land is destroyed by planet busters).

**Glak** · October 13, 1999, 17:21

Oh I did remember on acceptable vicotry condition, sort of a capture the flag thing. I used to invite my friends over for a watergun fight each year. We would battle four hours in the woods with a variety of strategies. We used waterguns, water balloons and bags filled with gallons of water, they sure hurt even if you weren't hit directly. However no one ever won. After a few years it just wouldn't be fun. The battle had to progress into a game.

I sat down and thought it over. I needed a way to keep everyone in the game (so it is fun) but people had to die. I set the game up a little differently. Now instead of playing in the woods and tree forts we played in a small field. Two areas were marked off, one where you went when you died and another far away. Each player started with a painted stick (so it wouldn't look like other sticks). In order to win you had to bring 5 out of the 7 sticks to the second area. The sticks were also a sort of money.

Game playe went as follows: if you got shot you lost the limb or died if you got hit in the head or torso. If you died you went to the area where dead people go. If you wanted to have minions you would run over to the other area and drop a stick. For each stick you dropped you got a piece of cloth. You could purchase people with peices of cloth and they would all serve you until you died. When you died they were free. Anyone could pick up sticks off of the ground or take them from fallen foes. Hmm so basically while the game was to get all of the sticks it let to constant battle as teams formed and crumbled. I guess I got off track but what I am trying to say is make sure that each player should be able to counter every move made by an opponent. It leads to gameplay that is fun from the very begging to the end.

**Mark_Everson** · October 13, 1999, 23:01

Hey Glak:

I hear ya' and I'm reading your posts. I am thinking about what you say too . This is just not my focus at the moment, or is it likely to be in the forseeable future. But I will read any comments vis-a-vis multiplayer and the game models that you care to make.

A few comments:

In general I find the bare-world concept that's in civ and many of the rts games Really annoying. For that reason I think Clash worlds should be Teaming with people. The first strategic decisions in Clash will likely have nothing to do with human competition, but how to survive a rush of local barbarians that have united under the banner of a capable warlord. I dispute your claim that the only valid strategic thought is that directed toward the actions of another player. I intend to disprove it

I think 1 minute per turn is Easily Achievable. Thats 600 turns in your 10-hour game, which is plenty. I think we can get there because the game models are meant for a Leader, not a micromanager. Everything the player does will be strategic or tactical. With AI that is a cut above the rest, a Lot can be turned over to subordinates.

Am I full of it? Maybe... But I Know we can do it with enough thought and effort. There's no proof right now, we just need to work like hell to make it happen.

Cya,

Mark

**Lord God Jinnai** · October 14, 1999, 02:13

>Yes I now that, however multiplayer games are fundamentally different than single player games in terms of game mechanics.

Fundamentaly? I wouldn't go that far. Though there is a huge differance. FE I play Ultima Online which is made only for multiplayer and it does have things that are drastically differnt than a single player rpg, but at its core it still is the same as the other ultimas. You still try to get experience in life and make ur best in this world, although not ness by adventuring.

>Finding your opponents (or choosing to not find them) is a clear boundary between the chapters of a game. Once each player sizes up the other he must reevaluate his current strategy, thus he makes his second strategic decision in the game. Before he gets opponent generated feedback he can only make one strategic decision.

Not nessasarily. U've played civ2 and have gone the entire game almost without knowing anyone purposefully. And why? Because I was building up my military. No one knew who or where i was so they had no info on me and couldn't make strategies based around me. Although i couldn't do the same the fact that i can build up my defences, economy and offesenes greatly while in the cover of darkness is a considerable advantage.

>allowing rushes to be barely viable. Map size and unit build time must be directly linked. For example say I am going for a default build and you are going for a rush build. You finish creating your first military unit at the same time I start mine. However by the time you get to my base my unit is finished, the fight is a draw and because of my superior economy I have the advantage. Map lag is an essential part of strategy games, without players are unable to risk being behind for a little in exchange for power later. With too much map lag you can power all you want.

Well that may be true to some extent but just because u have a better economy doesn't mean it'd be a draw. As far as risking goes, you'd risk even by building units to attack first since the other player may be developing techs to render them useless and then counterattack.

>by all means reply, I don't see why anyone would want to play a scripted game. I think that constant conflic is so core to the concept of a game that I don't see why anyone would think otherwise. Obviously other people do but I can't figure it out.

I'm saying that you shouldn't ness be able to hurt ur opponent in the first 3-4 turns...even in a multiplayer game u have more to deal with than just other players and that's what should be the main concern for the first 5-10 turns, espically since u prob won't know where ur enemy is by then...20 turns is fine...that's a good starting point for the time when things start to heat up. IMO no game should start out full blast in the first few seconds/turns...it makes the buildup more dramatic.

>only games relying on complete randomness can never be mastered, atleast with our current tech...the thing is to keep mastering it very hard and even masters have some weaknesses they have to watch out for. This is getting better and better all the time however.

>No this is bad. A little randomness is essential in some types of games but it should only be used when no other solution works. If the game is too random people will just get frusterated. How would you

Your right that it shouldn't be too random, however since Clash isn't a pure strategy game, and only strategy games i know have some that have no randomness (ie chess, stratego, etc) However the randomness also makes the game more difficult because u don't nessarily know if doing a will lead to b based on c because that's how it goes in the textbook example. Even in real-life strategy there is often randomness. FE the weather, malfuctions, natural disasters, etc.)

>You need people to become very good at the game, otherwise people will be unable to even understand what strategies work and which don't. People need to be able to look at the game in depth and analyze its inner workings so that they can focuse on formulating strategies.

I'm not saying that people needn't be able to become good at it, I'm saying they shouldn't be easy and they shouldn't become so good that they'd win every single time vs. the AI on the hardest level. Most of the time yes, but this also refers back to the last statement...If they know how the AI would react this is exactly what would happen so there must be some randomness both for the AI and for good/bad things to happen to u and ur opponents.

No strategy is not a theme, it is well hmm hard to explain. It something that can be used to decide the outcome of the game.

Strategy is still a theme. Using ur examples I will explain why the opposite is also easily true. Someone playing doom and switches to SC vs someone who played warcraft may indeed lead to ur outcome, but also the person who played warcraft may like fantasy games so much he couldn't feel at home in space and the doom player will have to get control of how his units work, but its not that hard. My friend is like this. He likes heretic and warcraft (well doom also) but he hates descent and C&C Why? Cuz he likes midevil and bloody games that use strategy When he plays in the other types he just doesn't feel right and can't think as clearly. The same basic tactics work, just more people to worry about. U can lead enemies into ambushes in both doom and SC. You can (when with other players on ur side) attemt flanking manuvers in doom, space permiting of course. The same would be true for SC and even moreso for warcraft. You can take an enemy by surprise by scouting out where he is then making a plan of attack and attack from a long range while u damage the enemy...the differance is maily the perspective and the fact that in one u have all the weapons on 1 person whereas the weapons are devided amonst units in the other.

>So in order to look at the strategy elements of Clash you need to be able to strip away all references to the real world and be able to dress it up in any theme, whether it be pokemon or a game about collecting antiques.

Well that may be true, but like i said this isn't a purely strategic game.

**Glak** · October 14, 1999, 15:07

>Fundamentaly? I wouldn't go that far. Though there is a huge differance. FE I play Ultima Online which is made only for multiplayer and it does have things that are drastically differnt than a single player rpg, but at its core it still is the same as the other ultimas.

Online roleplaying games are actually single player games that you play with other people. I play everquest and I have come to conclude that it is in fact a single player game in most ways. I play on the racewar server. However there are no wars. This is because the game was not designed for wars. They attempted to tack on something after the fact and it failed horribly.

> Not nessasarily. U've played civ2 and have gone the entire game almost without knowing anyone purposefully. And why? Because I was building up my military. No one knew who or where i was so they had no info on me and couldn't make strategies based around me. Although i couldn't do the same the fact that i can build up my defences, economy and offesenes greatly while in the cover of darkness is a considerable advantage.

This illustrates my point perfectly. You made only one decision: to build up economically and militarily while avoiding contact. Everything you did was just tactical. Every action you made was in pursuit of your current goal.

>Well that may be true to some extent but just because u have a better economy doesn't mean it'd be a draw. As far as risking goes, you'd risk even by building units to attack first since the other player may be developing techs to render them useless and then counterattack.

No it does, assuming that a fight between 2 equal units causes a draw. Let's just say there are two kinds of things we can build, enhancements and soldiers. They cost the same and take the same amount of time to build. They differ in function. Let's say that the soldier lets you kill people and the enhancement produces wealth. Ok say I go for a rush build and you go for a generic build, you should win. Since I am rushing I make a soldier first, since you are going with a generic build you build an enhancement first. Now we both finish up. I start building another soldier, you start building your first soldier. Meanwhile I send my soldier over.

Now by the time I get to your base things have changed. My second soldier is built back home, your first soldier is built in your base. Additionally your enhancement has produced one point of wealth. Our soldiers fight. We each have one soldier and they are identical. The kill each other simultaneously. Now at this point I have one soldier in my base and you have one enhancement in yours. You also have one point of wealth. You clearly have the advantage. At this point we make our second strategic decision on how the game will go, perhaps I can come back but if we both play equally well you will win because you have the advantage. Then there are power and tech builds, though they would probably be combined in Clash because of how research is linked with other stuff. It all leads to a rock paper scissors relationship that increases the number of strategies dramatically

>I'm saying that you shouldn't ness be able to hurt ur opponent in the first 3-4 turns...even in a multiplayer game u have more to deal with than just other players and that's what should be the main concern for the first 5-10 turns, espically since u prob won't know where ur enemy is by then...20 turns is fine...that's a good starting point for the time when things start to heat up. IMO no game should start out full blast in the first few seconds/turns...it makes the buildup more dramatic.

No it doesn't, it makes it more tedious

>Your right that it shouldn't be too random, however since Clash isn't a pure strategy game, and only strategy games i know have some that have no randomness (ie chess, stratego, etc)

Starcraft only have randomness in a few very rare situations, other than that the game has no random factors. Warcraft had randomness but it was removed because it was not in the best interests of the game.

>However the randomness also makes the game more difficult because u don't nessarily know if doing a will lead to b based on c because that's how it goes in the textbook example. Even in real-life strategy there is often randomness. FE the weather, malfuctions, natural disasters, etc.)

I am not looking to play a difficult game, I would much rather play a difficult opponent.

>I'm not saying that people needn't be able to become good at it, I'm saying they shouldn't be easy

Of course, it should require hundreds of hours of study in addition to hundreds of games, but rest assured if people truely like the game they will do it.

>and they shouldn't become so good that they'd win every single time vs. the AI on the hardest level.

I'm not talking about games with the AI, like I said multiplayer is different.
No strategy is not a theme, it is well hmm hard to explain. It something that can be used to decide the outcome of the game.

>Strategy is still a theme. Using ur examples I will explain why the opposite is also easily true. Someone playing doom and switches to SC vs someone who played warcraft may indeed lead to ur outcome, but also the person who played warcraft may like fantasy games so much he couldn't feel at home in space

Yes this is true, some people indeed prefer particular themes and will play games based on themes. However this has nothing to do with actual game play. How much a person likes a game and how good he is at it are two entirely different things.

> and the doom player will have to get control of how his units work, but its not that hard.

If you can say this with a straight face I am certain that you have never played SC, at least not really. I play SC a lot, I mean more than I go to school. I am very good. I have beaten three people at once (though it was very hard). However I am by no means a master. There are people who can beat three of me, I know this because I have had the pleasure of losing horribly to them. These people have such amazing unit control skills I feel like a newbie playing them. It is like they are three people playing the same guy. They know what you are doing at all times. If you deviate from what they expect you to do it is because YOU messed up.

> My friend is like this. He likes heretic and warcraft (well doom also) but he hates descent and C&C

It is perfectly normal to like some games in a genre and not like others. I would never consider playing anything by cavedog.

> Why? Cuz he likes midevil and bloody games that use strategy When he plays in the other types he just doesn't feel right and can't think as clearly. The same basic tactics work, just more people to worry about. U can lead enemies into ambushes in both doom and SC. You can (when with other players on ur side) attemt flanking manuvers in doom, space permiting of course. The same would be true for SC and even moreso for warcraft. You can take an enemy by surprise by scouting out where he is then making a plan of attack and attack from a long range while u damage the enemy...the differance is maily the perspective and the fact that in one u have all the weapons on 1 person whereas the weapons are devided amonst units in the other.

Like nearly all games first person shooters do have a strategic element. However it is not dominant. Like many games rts games require good mouse and keyboard control. However it is not dominant either. The two genres are very different. I don't believe what you are trying to argue here and I doubt that you do either.

>Well that may be true, but like i said this isn't a purely strategic game.

Oh well, I just hope that it is the dominant trait

**Glak** · October 14, 1999, 15:23

>In general I find the bare-world concept that's in civ and many of the rts games Really annoying. For that reason I think Clash worlds should be Teaming with people.

I agree, it would be cool to be in a game with 20+ players. My question is why do any of them have to be computer players? With simultaneous turns I think we could just have massive games. Coordination would be hard but you could have it so that the game runs according to a schedule and if people don't show up they just miss their turns. I think a great way to test the game would be for everyone at the forum to play in one big game that would last a week or two. Once we all know how to play you should have some ideas on how to go back and improve the AI.

> I dispute your claim that the only valid strategic thought is that directed toward the actions of another player. I intend to disprove it

Will these computer players use the exact same rules that a human player uses? If they do and if they are smart enough then they could be considered human players. Thus you would be making a multiplayer game with single player capabilities.

>I think 1 minute per turn is Easily Achievable. Thats 600 turns in your 10-hour game, which is plenty. I think we can get there because the game models are meant for a Leader, not a micromanager. Everything the player does will be strategic or tactical. With AI that is a cut above the rest, a Lot can be turned over to subordinates.

But is this only optional? If people are allowed to manage something they won't turn it over to the ai no matter how trivial it seems. In earlier threads I got the idea that you didn't have to let the computer manage certain things. You might just want to not allow certain things in order to get the game over with. Also one minute turns? People like to talk and they like to scheme.

**Lord God Jinnai** · October 14, 1999, 17:25

>This illustrates my point perfectly. You made only one decision: to build up economically and militarily while avoiding contact. Everything you did was just tactical. Every action you made was in pursuit of your current goal.

No I didn't. I had to decide what i was going to build and develope and where i was going to go and also how to be avoided. This is more than 1 descision.

>Now by the time I get to your base things have changed. My second soldier is built back home, your first soldier is built in your base. Additionally your enhancement has produced one point of wealth. Our soldiers fight. We each have one soldier and they are identical. The kill each other simultaneously. Now at this point I have one soldier in my base and you have one enhancement in yours. You also have one point of wealth. You clearly have the advantage. At this point we make our second strategic decision on how the game will go, perhaps I can come back but if we both play equally well you will win because you have the advantage. Then there are power and tech builds, though they would probably be combined in Clash because of how research is linked with other stuff. It all leads to a rock paper scissors relationship that increases the number of strategies dramatically

First off ur assuming I know where u are. This is prob not going to be true to begin with. I've also played games where those that did develope there military instead of there economy fared much better because they stockpiled units. Someone who builds units doesn't have to send them out right away. Also your assuming that all other things are equal in the combat between the units and even if that were so there still is chance occurance that could leave one or the other to survive.

>No it doesn't, it makes it more tedious

That's ur opionion and i'm sure you'll find a majority who will disagree with that except for die-hard strategy only elemnts. You shouldn't not have to worry about the natural elements around u in this type of game when we have to in reality.

>no random factors. Warcraft had randomness but it was removed because it was not in the best interests of the game.

Actually it does. The damage done per attack varries.

>I am not looking to play a difficult game, I would much rather play a difficult opponent.

That's fine to want to play a difficult opponent, but that doesn't mean the game's toughness should be sacrificed for that reason, it would only make the opponents that much better if they can cope with these situations.

>If you can say this with a straight face I am certain that you have never played SC, at least

Not SC, but i do play warcraft alot. And i can beat up to seven opponents at a time if given atleast a chance to build up my resources (ie the players aren't too close to each other).

>Will these computer players use the exact same rules that a human player uses? If they do and if they are smart enough then they could be considered human players. Thus you would be making a multiplayer game with single player capabilities.

It isn't too hard with today's technology. The addon's to quake2 for a deathmatch against the pc are considered excellent. I have another friend who is very good at that game and he played the new AI and he said if it were inserted into a multiplayer game, u'd not notice the differance.

Now its true that strategy ganes and simulations (what clash is) are not the sane, but if it can be done for one, it can be done for another.

>But is this only optional? If people are allowed to manage something they won't turn it over to the ai no matter how trivial it seems. In earlier threads I got the idea

In a multiplayer game they might. And if the AI is VERY good they will. Not all AI have to be dumb and some may end up doing better in certain circumstances if they are smart enough. For multiplayer games it would be unreasonable for players to micromange everything. This game is going to be based on reality and in reality a leader doesn't worry whether or not this unit takes this path or that to get to there, but allows his generals to decide and in fact the generals may get quite angry at him if he keeps ordering them to do things, esp things that they don't like. The same is true with govenors and mayors and merchants and everyone else. They don't mind general guidelines and the occasional specific orders (micromanagement) but they do hate having it all the time. How would u like it if u were a govenor in a supposably denocratic society with your president keep nosing his business to see that your producing that granary instead of the aqueduct u think is more important.

>the game over with. Also one minute turns? People like to talk and they like to scheme.

I think he was talking on average.

**Glak.** · October 14, 1999, 23:16

>No I didn't. I had to decide what i was going to build and develope and where i was going to go and also how to be avoided. This is more than 1 descision.

Well I suppose that depends on how much pre game planning you do. You see I would have a plan for pretty much everything that the random map generator would throw at me, other players would too. We would share ideas and the best ones would become adopted by lots of players. So you see I wouldn't really be making decisions, I would just sort of follow a script written by the minds of hundreds of players.

>First off ur assuming I know where u are. This is prob not going to be true to begin with. I've also played games where those that did develope there military instead of there economy fared much better because they stockpiled units.

The example above was a rush. When rushing you tend to send units as fast as possible. I made it 1v1 to keep the example simple, just multiply the number of units on both sides if you want. In general if one person goes more for economy and the other goes military then the military player must attack before the economic player starts to get a return on his investment. Economy creates power, military exploits weakness.

>Someone who builds units doesn't have to send them out right away. Also your assuming that all other things are equal in the combat between the units and even if that were so there still is chance occurance that could leave one or the other to survive.

Yes that is true, but I wanted to keep the example simple. Simple models are easier to debate.

>That's ur opionion and i'm sure you'll find a majority who will disagree with that except for die-hard strategy only elemnts. You shouldn't not have to worry about the natural elements around u in this type of game when we have to in reality.

Yes it is my opinion, it is however the opinion of a lot of people that want to play tbs games but can't.

>>no random factors. Warcraft had randomness but it was removed because it was not in the best interests of the game.

>Actually it does. The damage done per attack varries.

Correct, I meant to say that SC doesn't have randomness except when firing uphill or into trees

>That's fine to want to play a difficult opponent, but that doesn't mean the game's toughness should be sacrificed for that reason, it would only make the opponents that much better if they can cope with these situations.

No, because players cannot generate these situations. Also if we look at Chess I think everyone will agree that you don't just have random peices going around hunting down your pawns. The board is just a grid and can't hurt anyone.

> Not SC, but i do play warcraft alot. And i can beat up to seven opponents at a time if given atleast a chance to build up my resources (ie the players aren't too close to each other).

Are you talking computer players? See what I mean? You shouldn't be able to beat 7 computer players. You must have developed strategies that are good against beating computer players. However they aren't likely to work against humans.

>It isn't too hard with today's technology. The addon's to quake2 for a deathmatch against the pc are considered excellent. I have another friend who is very good at that game and he played the new AI and he said if it were inserted into a multiplayer game, u'd not notice the differance.

Glad to see that you agree with me. I think it would be nice to focus on multiplayer and then have the AI try to be like a human. So you can play q2 in 3 basic modes right? single player campaigns, multiplayer, and simulated multiplayer. The game rules for the last two are the same right? (I don't actually know but I think I am making a reasonable assumption).

>Now its true that strategy ganes and simulations (what clash is) are not the sane, but if it can be done for one, it can be done for another.

Ahhh you used the sim word. Sims are bad. If I wanted a sim I'd get a terrarium or something like that. I don't play games to relive real life, I want to play something more intense and more compelling. Something that wakes me up in the middle of the night and calls to me... just one more game.

>In a multiplayer game they might. And if the AI is VERY good they will. Not all AI have to be dumb and some may end up doing better in certain circumstances if they are smart enough. For multiplayer games it would be unreasonable for players to micromange everything. This game is going to be based on reality and in reality a leader doesn't worry whether or not this unit takes this path or that to get to there, but allows his generals to decide and in fact the generals may get quite angry at him if he keeps ordering them to do things, esp things that they don't like. The same is true with govenors and mayors and merchants and everyone else. They don't mind general guidelines and the occasional specific orders (micromanagement) but they do hate having it all the time. How would u like it if u were a govenor in a supposably denocratic society with your president keep nosing his business to see that your producing that granary instead of the aqueduct u think is more important.

Ok I agree. What I am saying is you should not make it optional. When given an option people will take it unless they are slackers. So by all means don't let the player boss everything around.

>>the game over with. Also one minute turns? People like to talk and they like to scheme.

>I think he was talking on average.

But what if I talk five minutes each turn? Communication is the key to any game with more than two players, whether you are talking teams or ffa.

**shimmin** · October 15, 1999, 08:42

People only micromanage if they have time to do it. If you're playing 1-minute turns, or 5-minute turns, or whatever, you only do what you feel is most important at that juncture, because you only have a set amount of time before the turn is up, then it's the next turn. This is the only way I know (esp. when combined with simultaneous turns) to make TBS fast enough to be feasible.

In multiplayer, the AI should be there to handle what you don't have time to.

Announcement

so is clash going to be a multiplayer game?

so is clash going to be a multiplayer game?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment