 |
| |
|
|
dan ward
|
|
We need to decide now on how players take their turns. After some discussion we have three options, these are; (more detailed descriptions are included at the end)
1. Traditional; i.e. Civ style
2. Simultaneous; i.e. SMAC multiplayer
3. Plan first, then simultaneous move.
If you have already voted elsewhere on this you should vote again here.
Note this is for BOTH the single and multiplayer game.
At this point we are not considering any other options.
Voting ends at July 24th at 00:00 GMT.
1. Traditional
--------------
This is how Civ single player works. Players take their turns sequentially, whilst a player is taking a turn other players cannot move their units.
Advantages
----------
- We're all familiar with it. Gives players plenty of time to plan & strategise.
Disadvantages
-------------
- Too slow for multiplay.
- Old fashioned.
2. Simultaneous
------------
I believe this is how SMAC multiplayer works. There are still turns but all players can move at the same time.
Advantages
----------
- Suitable for multiplayer.
- More up to date approach which is more likely to appeal to a wider audience.
- Enforcing turns ensures that it doesn't turn into a RTS.
Disadvantages
-------------
- Combat model would have to change (from tradition Civ) as attacking a unit that has not yet move gives the attack an unfair advantage.
3. Plan first, then move.
-------------------------
Turns are first planned, then executed - all units move simultaneously, and all players plan the turn simultaneously.
Advantages
----------
- Some real-time elements, while remaining turn-based
- Fair combat; the quicker and more militaristic players don't get any unfair
Disadvantages
-------------
- Never been done before. Will take a lot longer to develop
- Lacks immediacy. Players want to see an immediate response to their actions
- Extra work needed to solve the possible conflicts in unit orders
- We need a possibility to pause the turn if something unexpected from some player's point of view happens, for example, if his units are attacked or his territory is entered.
[This message has been edited by dan ward (edited July 08, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dan ward
|
|
vote: simultaneous
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
I am definately for the planfirst/move simul thingy. The fact that it hasn't been done before ought to be exciting for you guys but instead I see people talk like they're scared of it! How disappointing.
------------------
Goober
|
|
| |
|
|
|
heardie
|
|
Vote: Traditional
but
somewhere down the track I think simeltanious for m/player
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
dan ward
|
|
I'm not convinced that 3) is the new way to do things. I don't see anyone condeming Civ3 or CTP2 for not working this way. From what I can see everyones talking about the new gameplay elements & not about turn order. BTW how many people are there out there playing games this way compared to turn based or simultaneous games? Of course if that's what everyone vots for we'll do it that way grrr...
The two big things that concern me are;
- Immediacy. Some seen the immediate affect of an action will turn away lots of users.
- Too many unknowns. So far no one has produced a convincing model of how this will work.
The fact that it hasn't been done before ought to be exciting for you guys but instead I see people talk like they're scared of it! How disappointing.
There are plenty of things that haven't been done that I wouldn't want to do.
[This message has been edited by dan ward (edited July 14, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by dan ward (edited July 14, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
markusf
|
|
I vote for traditional....
For things like caravans and units like that can't we just automate the process? As soon as you build a caravan you can select what city you want to send it to, and it goes there?(out of the players control) but if you want to save it for helping building a wonder you can move it like a normal unit. This like this would really speed up the game. And with micromanaging minimized the game would run a lot faster.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
heardie
|
|
If Dan is still voting 3 than the current results are:
1.) 4
2.) 0
3.) 4
Only 7 days to go!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Knot that I haven't already voted, but think about this one for a sec...
This is OUR game. It is NOT a civ clone. There is no reason to make a game like civ1 or civ2. As for the thing about the simultaneous turn order thing, I don't see what is o difficult about implementing it? It's not impossible. Methinks a lot of you guys are afraid of doing things differently just because they are different. I'm not saying we should do it this way just bcause it's different, but it then it IS a revolutionary idea.
Moreover, civ games of the future will be doing things the (3) way... here we could be one of the first games to have the turn order that way.
------------------
Goober
|
|
| |
|
|
|
F_Smith
|
|
Austin, Tx 78728
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Just a little info, to help ya'll with your discussions:
1) Several games have used '3'. "Lords of the Realm II" was one of the best. If you haven't played that game, it's an absolute must, for design examples. It's old, and can't be more than $20. I just bought 'Shogun', also, and it uses the same turn design. It is, indeed, vastly superior, in terms of gameplay. It's the same rule that the old boardgame 'Diplomacy' used.
2) To implement, wouldn't each unit just have a collection of 'orders' that would be processed each 'turn'? During their turn, players give orders to troops/etc to go here, do this, then click the 'turn' button to watch those orders carried out?
P.S. -- I have no vote, just this info. Forgive me for sticking my nose into ya'lls process. I will go back to lurking now.
[This message has been edited by F_Smith (edited July 17, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
amjayee
|
 |
Jyväskylä, Finland
Oct 1999
time: 07:14
|
|
What F_Smith told about unit orders is correct. Units are given "order chains" during the turn planning phase. The given orders would be shown on the map with graphics, like the path the unit will take, what unit they will try to attack, what area they are going to scout etc. When all orders are given (also empire management orders) the player hits start turn- button. When all players (ai or human) have ended the turn design, turn is started. Building and empire management actions are carried out first, then units are moved all simultaneously, according to their speed. Battles are resolved, possibly pausing to show messages to players etc.
This allows us to have more strategic choices for players, without slowing down the multiplay too much. Like I said earlier, it also allows us to use the more complex unit movement system I have proposed earlier - they key points were, that units have a deployment range, and maneuvering range. Units move farther, and more realistically. This is a must, if we are going to use much larger map as planned.
I'm quite optimistic about that it is also not necessarily very complicated to make. With implementing good unit ai, the units can solve most problem situations themselves. This way, also the need to allow the player to pause the game is smaller - it should be possible only in most critical situations, like when enemy makes a surprise attack or declares war. Also the possible conflict situations in unit movement orders are not very many, and they can be solved automatically.
All in all, if we plan the system sufficiently well, we are not going to have too much trouble. And as people have pointed out, it would also be more modern way to handle turns. I can try to make a better and more thorough explanation of the system soon. Send your comments and ideas, and what is bothering you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
#2 is a thing of evil. Never go with that.
To me #1 would work fine. It is simple and easy to do.
But that #3 sounds exciting. Amjayee seems to have a somewhat clear vision of how it should work. If he could explain it to the rest of us it could give us a better basis of making our decision.
What I am saying is, that if we can make it work #3 is what has my vote.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dan ward
|
|
Guildmaster:
Choosing a turn system on the criteria that it's never been done before is plain dumb. If we're going to change something it should be for the right reasons.. You could try giving some reasons instead of criticising team members just because they hold different opinions to you.
OC3 is a Civ-clone, deal with it. Being a Civ-clone has a lot of advantage; 1. there's lots of people out there who'd be interested in a similar sort of game & 2. it means we don't have to reinvent the wheel for everything we can pick and choose what we want to carry forward. Clash has gone the 'we are not a Civ-clone' route & look at how much they're struggling to get something playable. Freeciv on the other hand has gone the Civ clone route and they now have an excellent game, a big community and the opportunity to move in whatever direction they want to take. We are not experienced game developers & designers so let's not try to run before we can walk.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
Dan:
I don't think we should be just a civ clone. At least my visions for OC3 is not about is just being yet another civ clone. We should try to make this game different from Civ2 in many ways, including the very basics of the game: Population and economy.
If we were only to make a civ clone then what would the point in making the game at all be? I see no point in ever playing FreeCiv, as it is not superior to Civ2 in any ways (at least not as far as I know). Clash, on the other hand, is trying to make a game that is different, revolutionary. This means that they will have a hard time developing the game, but also that they can make a game that is truly great.
I think we should do the same. Our game should the the Civ game of our dreams. This means that it will require work for us. But is that necessarily bad? We are a small team, so we shouldn't have too much trouble agreeing on things. And the fact that we all have very different interests in the game means that we can each focus on the subject that has our interest, and let other people handle the other things. I, for instance, will accept almost any combat model that I am presented with.
When all this is said I must also agree with you that change only for the sake of change is really not good. But I can see great new opportunities with the new turn system. So making something new isn't just for it's own sake. It could actually improve the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dan ward
|
|
Amjayee
It seems reasonable to wait until you can get a detailed description to option 3) how long do you thing this will take?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RonHiler
|
|
California, USA
May 2000
time: 21:14
|
|
???
There is nothing mysterious about how pre-planned turns work. Go to the Stars! site and/or the Space Empires 4 site and pick up the demo(s) if you're not clear on the concept.
http://www.webmap.com/stars/
http://www.malfador.com/se4.html
HTH
Ron
[This message has been edited by RonHiler (edited July 21, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dan ward
|
|
Thanks for the links Ron.
We still need a more detailed description of how it will be done for OC3.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-07-2000 15:13
True I can program somewhat better now at a lower level, and will have actual college credit for it, but...
|