EC3 New Idea #15 - Simultaneous turns of play

[korn469]

by Adm.Naismith

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>Simultaneous turns of play - During a turn, every AI and human player place his/her/its order, (dynamic as movement or attack, to alert as counter fire or sentry or simply building & management). When every player end the turn the computer (as a "game master") put in effect and resolve every order. Units in movement can fall in ambush, defensive units (if alerted) react to attack more realistically, fighter scramble, nuclear MAD, etc.
You can see all this happening as a continuos animation (computer zooming here and there without the loss of general scenario).
Some rules are needed to resolve conflicting orders (you can't fund adiacent city by different settler, can't end same Wonder in two different cities, etc.) but you can have a better use of time (better multiplayer support, not PBEM), and some mix of TBS and RTS strong points.

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

[Seeker]

Yes, as per Imperialism. Think of how long an Imperialism turn would take if the players had to take turns!

[ChrisShaffer]

This idea is closely related toEC3 Fix #3 - MULTIPLAYER SUPPORT.

This should be #1 on the Essential List.

Asynchronous multiplayer - players submit orders to a server which adjudicates on a schedule, with the AI taking turns for players who do not submit orders - would be a great boon for multiplayer Civilization.

btw, the text for this suggestion reads <center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>you can have a better use of time (better multiplayer support, not PBEM), and some mix of TBS and RTS strong points
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center> but the real benefits of this model are not realized in direct-connection-play, but in PBEM with a server.

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by ChrisShaffer (edited February 22, 2000).]</font>

[pauli]

as long as the tried and true method is still there, then i'll be happy. personally, i've never liked simultaneous movement in games; it feels too awkward. granted, turn based movement is even less realistic then other modes, but still, it works well and is easy to understand. so, sequential, simultaneous, synchronous, and aysynchronous movement options... options are good

[korn469]

Adm.Naismith

if asked why out of the five things to put on the new ideas thread why would this idea belong? what are the greatest strength in adding this idea? and what if any weaknesses or exploits does this idea have?

would this system be similar to the current SMAC simultaneous turns system or is it different?

[Adm.Naismith]

Sorry korn469, my english understanding is hitting a wall about your questions. Where @*% is my dictionary?

I'll try my best, please feel free to correct me if I misunderstand anything

Starting from the last question (just for a change ), I played lot of CIV, CIV II and SMAC games, but only stand alone. I have no idea about comparison with multiplay in SMAC, sorry.
I only supposed that this game model will help also on-line, because (in general) can reduce the time you are waiting for another player movement: both are declaring orders, more or less using the same time, and the faster player should only wait the slower player to finish (only a time *difference*, not the whole turn) and too hit "End turn".

The AI will use at least the same slot of time of human player (and faster CPU have more time to "think"), apart CPU time spent to manage user commands and graphic animations.

On the "stand alone" game, we have these strong points:

no ability to move unit, fire against enemy sitting on defense, repeat until defeated, then flow your troops into the defensive hole and kill some city 10 square far, because of Rail Road. In simultaneus turn you can order troops to attack, move, charge, blitz, but also to defense, counterattack, artillery make fire barrage, rush reinforcements, scramble fighters (in SMAC they add this last feature as an aftertough, but it's a little out of the general concept of turn based), and also make ambush (hidden map, you put an army in hidden defense, the enemy run to you without proper scouting/exploring/early warning and BANG, real bad defensive minus ).

In SMAC model you can build only strong attacker, then roll over everything into your turn, without care of defense level (you count your attack point, the enemy only the defense). But if you have to care of fire barrage and simultaneus counterattack you must care also of defensive points or specialized defenser stacked. I know there are other proposal to balance this topic, mine will only subtact the effect of "units not in turn are like sitting duck".

RTS games add a lot of movements at the price of furius click fest I can't cope with (age 36, you know ) nor I enjoy. Simultaneus turn is a good compromise IMHO.

It can also add a lot to the fun of the game because, when the computer resolve the orders, you can see every movement/fight in a sequential way, more like a movie: your right wing catched into a fire barrage, your explorer meeting a new faction only to be killed in ambush, your fighters scrambling to clean up that nasty bombers running on your cities... Wonders really rushed to the dead without cheating about who first finish it because of turns order.

A simultaneus ICBM launch will be available, if you have proper early warning and have selected missile target and automatic launch under attack (or some midturn pop-up to let you decide about escalation or not). You really have to fear about nuclear rush, SDI research make more sense, no way to overkill any enemy into the last game turn and win by world conquer.

I played time ago Battle Isle 1 by Blue Byte with similar turn rules, and enjoyed so much the model I can't believe the TBS kings are not using it to counteract the RTS wave

Added later by editing
I forgot to explain that I think this is a NEW idea and not a FIX because it change a lot of game dynamics and is enough different from the original Turn Based architecture to put it in an hybrid genre between TBS and RTS. You won't say that a Real Time CIV is simply a fix, will you?

------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Adm.Naismith (edited February 24, 2000).]</font>

[TheTron]

In this era of internet multiplayer games it would be a serious mistake not to allow simultanious turns like civnet if the game is multiplayer. in the late game turns take so long that the game cannot be finished in any realistic time. This is the number one requirement for a multiplayer version on civ3.
In a six player game, the difference between the 500 slowest turns and all 3000 turns is the difference between finishing the game and abandoning it.

[MidKnight Lament]

at this stage it'll be getting one of my votes.

i'm not sure if the game could be made so that turn-based and simultaeous is possible as an option though... could be a lot of work to get them both balanced.

[ChrisShaffer]

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>i'm not sure if the game could be made so that turn-based and simultaeous is possible as an option though... could be a lot of work to get them both balanced.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Why do you assume that simultaneous is different from turn based? With simultaneous movement, the sequence is as follows:

• Turn starts
• Each player receives a copy of the turn report
• Each player submits orders
• Turn adjudication
• Turn ends

That looks a lot like turn-based to me.

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>if asked why out of the five things to put on the new ideas thread why would this idea belong? what are the greatest strength in adding this idea? and what if any weaknesses or exploits does this idea have?
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Adm. Naismith's response has some good points. In addition to his comments, simultaneous turns would make multiplayer a reasonable possibility - no more scheduling six hours with six friends to play a game in direct-connect mode, and no more waiting two weeks for a turn to be emailed between seven people and watching the game die after playing six months.

[ChrisShaffer]

Just in case Adm. Naismith doesn't make it here to post a final draft of this idea...and because I would have posted it myself if he hadn't beaten me to the punch, here's a final draft for this proposal.

EC3 New Idea #15: Simultaneous Turns of Play

Abstract

• Each turn, all players (human and AI) create a set of orders for units, cities, and diplomacy. All orders are adjudicated simultaneously. Each player receives a personal report of events that occurred during the turn.

Advantages

• More realistic combat model. Forces players to consider both offence and defence. Eliminates the problem of "rolling attacks" where the defender has little or no opportunity to react. Makes it harder to nuke your opponent to death before they can react.
• Practical multiplayer options. In direct-connect mode, simultaneous orders creation saves considerable time. Eliminates the lag problems inherent in PBEM, as games could be hosted on web or email servers with set turn schedules. Players could receive turn reports, create orders, and submit them to the server for the next adjudication. The AI could create orders for players who do not meet the deadline.
• Increased realism and excitement. In the real world, everyone acts at the same time, they don't wait until their turn. More tension in the rush to achieve objectives such as wonder building. No more waiting to see if the first thrust of an attack is successful before committing the entire army.

Needed to implement this proposal

• Development of a priority mechanism to settle conflicting orders, such as movement, resource allocation by competing cities, etc.
• Turn reports that allow detailed review of events. "Replay" of any portion of the turn report as desired.
• Options for reactive movement and combat. Multiple defensive postures for units. Method of determining whether a unit is attacking, defending, or both.

[korn469]

ChrisShaffer

looks good! that sounds like it would work, and would work better than the current system. however, to be fair and official Adm.Naismith will need to post the final draft. did you have an idea in the new ideas list? if not and there is no word from him by wednesday you can assume responsibility for this idea, and your draft will then be the final draft.

korn469

[Adm.Naismith]

FINAL DRAFT
Simultaneous turns of play

Current Turn Based limit:
Actual CIV Turn Based model force the player to act as if faction's time were strictly "sliced down" and put on a unrealistic sequence, where first player can move units, fire against enemy "sitting" on defense, move another unit and fire, until enemy is defeated, then blitz his/her troops and kill some city 10 square away. During the turn, the attacked faction can't properly react (reinforce, hurry defense, counterattack on a different area, etc.).
Every war declaration has a "Perl Harbour" feeling, where the attacker has every advantage against the defenser: also in SMAC model you can build only strong attacker, then roll over everything into your turn without care of defense level (you count your attack point, the enemy only the defense). If you have to care of fire barrage and simultaneus counterattack you must care also of defensive points or specialized defenser stacked.

Same will happen if you decide to make a "Nuclear carpet attack", firing enough Nuclear Missiles to erase any opponent on the planet, before he can react firing his/her/its missiles (as a credible MAD - Mututal Assured Distruction - of a cold war scenario).
The same again about building a city first on a contended terrain because it's your settler turn, or hurry up a Wonder first.

On a On-line game, you also need to wait until every player has finished to manage his/her/its turn (time required = total amount of every civ turn). In PBEM you must send saved games here and there before having a turn ended.

Real Time addressed this at the price of some lost of human player awareness (you can't look everywhere on a large map), privileging fast mouse click over strategical deepness (click first, think after).

Basic idea:
Using simultaneous movement, the sequence is as follows:

1) Turn starts
Each player submits orders (dynamics as movement or attack, to alert as counter fire or sentry or simply building & resource management), that are projected, not executed, on the map (fire order are placed, not resolved, units movement are grayed out, etc.)

2)Turn adjudication
When every player "push the button of" end turn, the computer (as a "game master") put in effect and resolve every order (also mastering every mutual exclusive orders, as two settlers trying to build a city on the same terrain)

3)Turn ends
During this phase you can see all the actions happening, more as a continuos animation (with the point of view zooming here and there on the actual action without the loss of general scenario). Where all the orders are properly reproduced you can see the new state of the map and the loop go back to #1) Turn start.


Benefits:
Each player can submits usual and "delayed" orders: order troops to move, attack, charge (different kind of movement let the unit more exposed to counterattack or ambush), blitz (your unit will force an advance if will win the fight), but also to retire if overkilled, force to defense at all costs, automate a counterattack, make fire barrage (typical by artillery units on defense), rush reinforcements, scramble fighters, make ambush (hidden map, you put an army in hidden
defense, the enemy run to you without proper scouting/exploring/early warning and got a bad defensive minus).

It really sound more similar to strategic level of command, where you decide and order about the general plan, then things happens before you (the Main Commander) can change your mind.

It can also add a lot to the fun of the game because, when the computer resolve the orders, you can see every movement/fight in a sequential way, more like a movie: your
right wing catched into a fire barrage, your explorer meeting a new faction only to be killed in ambush, your fighters scrambling to clean up enemy bombers running on your
cities... Wonders really rushed to the death without cheating about who first finish it
because of turns order.

A simultaneus ICBM launch will be available: if you have proper early warning and have
selected "missile targetted on automatic launch". You really have to fear about nuclear rush, SDI research make more sense, no way to overkill any enemy into the last game turn and win by world conquer.

The AI will use at least the same slot of time of human players (and faster CPU have more time to "think"), apart CPU time spent to manage user commands and graphic animations. Some AI cheating would be easier for lazy programmers, because AI will know human orders "just in time" .

This game model will help on-line play too, because it can reduce the time you are waiting for another player movement: all are declaring orders, more or less using the same time, and the faster players should only wait the slower player to finish (only a time *difference*, not the whole turn).

ChrisShaffer added that this model will allow an Asynchronous multiplayer - players submit orders to a server which adjudicates on a schedule, with the AI taking turns for players who do not submit orders.

On my view, the game server can collect players turns, play as AI factions (faster CPU available on servers = more strong AI) and act as Grand master, sending back the end turn save (with animation resolved on the PC side).
Messages can be short, because they'll contains only one players data (and enemine's knowed, of course), where the general map and the detailed info can be kept on the server, so no one can cheat with saved files.

Feasibility:
The turn model is still here under the new idea, but of course Firaxis should rebuild the engine a lot. In my opinion it will be time well spent to fill the gap form a TBS to RTS with a solution that pick the best of the bunch.
The Game server mode suggested can also put CIV on-line into real feasibility, without "lag" problem of RTS.

(Sorry for the leght of Final Draft, I can't really manage to explain me on a shorter way)

------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant

[ChrisShaffer]

I'm not sure why it's "fair" that Adm. Naismith is the only one who can write the final draft. He just happens to be the first one who posted the idea (good going Adm.). I would have posted it myself - but I followed the guidelines that said not to post something that someone else has already posted. So, merely by virtue of being "first" he gets "ownership" of the idea?

I think to be "fair" you should publish both final drafts for the voting. I like his well enough, but it severely exceeds the 300 word limit and I think mine is worded better.

Nothing against Adm. N at all, I just don't think the current system is very fair.

[ChrisShaffer]

OK, Adm. N, korn469 says:

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>work together and make a single final draft that is an amalgum of both of your ideas...that is why you have to wednesday to discuss and compromise and reach a consensus
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

I like your examples a lot, but I think my wording is a bit better. Also, I'm under the 300 word limit at 270 words, while you are way over at 997 words.

If we were to combine our two posts, which parts of your proposal would you most like to keep?

Your point about preventing multiplayer cheating is really good. I also like your examples of delayed orders (the two paragraphs under "Benefits").

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by ChrisShaffer (edited March 06, 2000).]</font>

[Seeker]

Whoa...just saw something early in this thread that disturbed me. Someone wanted simultaneous turns like CIVnet?! No way! I thought CIVnet was RTS anyway....Good ideas, this is definitely getting a vote from me.

[ChrisShaffer]

No, this is NOT like CivNet. The idea is not that players would be moving units at the same time, with whoever clicks fastest getting the move. Under this proposal, priority would be determined by things in the game (unit movement factors, morale, random, etc.) - not by who clicks on a square first.

The way this proposal works:

• All players review the previous turn report.
• All players write a set of potential orders for their units, cities, etc.
• All players submit their orders
• The computer adjudicates all the orders simultaneously. If, for example, two units try to move into the same hex at the same time, the computer has priority rules to figure out who succeeds and who fails.
• The computer gives a turn report to each player.

[ChrisShaffer]

Final Consensus Draft

by Adm.Naismith (aka mcostant) and ChrisShaffer

EC3 New Idea #15: Simultaneous Turns of Play

The Problem

• The current turn-based model uses an unrealistic sequence, where a player can move units, attack a defender, and repeat. The defender can't properly react (reinforce, counterattack, etc.). All war declarations have a "Pearl Harbor" feeling, with significant advantages for attackers.
• Multiplayer is too difficult.

Abstract

• All players (human and AI) receive a turn report, which can be reviewed and replayed as desired.
• All players create a set of potential orders for units, cities, and diplomacy.
• All players submit orders.
• All orders are adjudicated (on schedule or when all players have submitted orders). Conflicting orders are decided using a rule-based priority system.
• Game generates turn reports.
• Repeat.

Advantages

• More realistic combat model. Forces players to consider both offence and defence. Eliminates the problem of "rolling attacks" where the defender has little or no opportunity to react. First strike nuclear attacks more difficult.
• Practical multiplayer options. In direct-connect mode, simultaneous orders creation saves considerable time. Eliminates the lag problems inherent in PBEM, as games could be hosted on web or email servers with set turn schedules. Players could receive turn reports, create orders, and submit them to the server for the next adjudication. The AI could create orders for players who do not meet the deadline. Eliminates most opportunities for cheating in multiplayer.
• Increased realism and excitement. In the real world, everyone acts at the same time, they don't wait until their turn. More tension in the rush to achieve objectives such as wonder building.

Needed to implement this proposal

• Development of a priority mechanism to settle conflicting orders, such as movement, resource allocation by competing cities, etc.
• Turn reports combining animation and text that allow detailed review of events. "Replay" of any portion of the turn report as desired by players.
• Options for reactive movement and combat. Multiple defensive and offensive postures for units. Method of determining whether a unit is attacking, defending, or both. For example, a unit could be ordered to "attack and hold," "charge," "attack and advance," "counterattack if attacked," and so forth.

Conclusion

• Simultaneous turns of play is more like a strategic level of command, where you make decisions and orders about the general plan, and then things happen according to your overall plan before you (the main commander) can change your mind.

[yin26]

Nicely done! I added this idea to my "Multiplayer Support" thread a bit ago, but you've done a much better job explaining it here. Any chance I could steal this proposal in the event Multiplayer makes it on the list?

[ChrisShaffer]

I'm in favor of anything that gets this proposal implemented. If copying it to the Multiplayer fix does that, go for it.

[yin26]

Thanks! It's such good work, I'm going to put it there now (and give you guys credit, of course).

[Adm.Naismith]

ChrisShaffer, sorry I crosspost over your previus Final Draft.
I don't want to keep this idea to me (50% of share income will be enough ).

I'm on a business travel, posting from a Hotel just to keep up the idea, so I have trouble to assure my presence on forum

I really support your summarize, and your english is surely better than mine, so thanks Chris, I hope we will find enough support to catch Firaxis attention.

Yin26, thanks for your effort into pasting this into multiplayer. I really would like to play this in "solo" mode also, let's hope will be a good mode in both case.

------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant

[Adm.Naismith]

Damn, nothing or too much (double post removed)

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Adm.Naismith (edited March 08, 2000).]</font>

[Adm.Naismith]

So far, I counted 26 votes for our proposal:
not enough to be on the final list.
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font>
We need more power, Scotty!

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Vote us, we will do the best for our game!


------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Adm.Naismith (edited March 16, 2000).]</font>

[ChrisShaffer]

Another advantage that we forgot - this would allow anyone to design an AI for the game! Just take the turn report as input, output a set of orders, and off you go.

[ChrisShaffer]

And yet another point...simultaneous turns would prevent multiplayer rollovers based on play order. For example, in SMAC, if Spartans and Believers are allied, they get two turns to press an attack before the defenders get to respond - because the play order is ...Morgan-Spartan-Believer-Peacekeeper... It's even worse if Morgan is allied with the Spartan-Believer combo.

[MidKnight Lament]

It's disappointing that this didn't get in (same goes for hex!!!), but looking at the way they're planning to send the results, I'll be highly surprised if Firaxis don't read your summary and take it seriously anyway.

So good work, guys.

- MKL
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited March 28, 2000).]</font>

[Adm.Naismith]

Australian people become more and more nice to me MidKnight

Seriusly, I suppose someone doesn't support radical changes because he/she thinks CIV III development is too advanced to reproject the main pillars.

I also note many people really want more hype on tactical combat (e.g. commander or general units, more different unit) and Firaxis is speaking about this way.

I really like tactical wargames, still I think is a mistake putting too much combat into a CIV game. I also think that much more units is a nonsense: I hardly used so much different units in SMAC, and there I have a full workshop to build them to my taste!

I never feel the need of really advanced units or too much different type because winning is too easy, and to be an attacker pay too much revenue. AI limits are the real pain in the ... neck, so it's not difficult to me (and I'm not a very good player) crush the PC factions without subtle tactics.

OTOH for Firaxis is easier to set a bunch of new units and some commander in a stack, than rebuild the game engine on a different concept.

But 36 Apolytoner Saw The Thruth of Simultaneous Turns of Play and I tell to You that The Lord Of Games will be Here sooner or later to bring to us The Light of a New Simultaneous TBS that will fight the evil of RTS and bring back to The Right Way the unbeliever of old TBS.

Too bad we already miss the 1st day of 2000 for the new game advent, but ChrisShaffer and me are working hard on the calendar to find a new data

------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant

[MidKnight Lament]

Haha. You're very welcome. And after all this discussion I'm keen to play something with simultaneous turns now. Any suggestions as to what's already out there that I might like to try?

- MKL

[Seeker]

Try Imperialism 1.

[Adm.Naismith]

Hmmm, I know Blue Byte is working on the 4th episode of Battle Isle (don't count the previus "Incubation": it's been labelled battle isle 4 too for marketing, it's a completely different game).

Battle Isle has been for the previus three game a wargame (not a Civ affair) with a setted campaign to crawl scenery after scenery, with some special resource to harvest, building and repairing of military units, supply units (no unlimited ammo or fuel, you have to use wisely your gun ), weather change that afflict movement.

They will show the new game preview early, and are speaking about a september 2000 release.

They used a form of simultaneous turns on original Battle Isle (BI for short) on Commodore Amiga, then they switch on conventional turn for BI2 and BI3, also because the development team changed in between.

Now they are speaking about a turn system where you are busy with some activity also during enemy turn, but they don't tell more until the PR guys will reveal the whole game on next E3 show.

A fan forum is on http://www.cdmag.com, and a Blue Byte developer is often there.

They are also building a dedicated site at http://www.battleisle.com but it's still an empty work in progress.


------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant