If you can’t do something well. Don’t do it.
That’s been my philosophy on game development from the beginning. In Galactic Civilizations, it meant not having any multiplayer. We didn’t have the budget and resources to do multiplayer well. So we didn’t do it.
In Elemental, single-player is our focus. But we have decided to have multiplayer and that means we are going to do make sure it is done right.
Real-Time strategy games do well in multiplayer because the game continuously moves forward. Players don’t have to wait for other players. In turn based, players inevitably have to wait and that makes them less ideal.
From a design perspective, having lots of different options for handling turns is going to be our focus. From a sheer budget point of view, we cannot justify the resources required to do multiplayer if only hard-core grognards are playing it online.
So let’s look at the different options and then we can discuss your ideas on how we can make a turn-based strategy game fun in online multiplayer.
Elemental will be able to support multiple different turn options so we don’t have to pick one (though we will ultimately *default* to one).
Option #1: Traditional Turn-Base
This is where each player gets their turn. They hit the turn button and then the next person is able to move. There is typically a time limit on turns.
Option #2: Simultaneous turns.
This is where all players move at the same time. When done, they hit the turn button. There is typically a time limit involved on turns or a timer that starts when the first person hits the turn button.
So what are some things we can play around with here? What are some other OPTIONS we could have?
I like the idea of a time bank. You get N seconds per turn. If you finish your turn early, you get to add those seconds to your time bank. If you run out of time, it starts to cost you gold. Like 10 gold per second. If you run out of gold, the turn goes automatically.
There could be city improvements that give players additional time to take turns.
Example:
The default time you get would be based on what “League” you were in. 5 seconds for the “gold” league. “10 seconds for the “silver” league and 15 seconds for the “bronze” league. We’ll talk about these leagues more at GDC.
Player could build a Time Bank improvement that adds 1 second to what they get.
Each second they don’t use, goes into their global time pool. Players could “cash in” seconds at a rate of 5 gold per second they want to exchange for.
Obviously, the above would be for experienced online players of the game. Players could choose a variety of options here but what we are looking for is a way to satisfy players who know the game and want to play online with other people and not have it be a long slog.
Certain things would need to stop the clock. Namely, battles. We are inclined to have tactical battles turned OFF by default for online but players can turn it on depending on their setup.
Tactical Battle Options would include:
We will also have a Tactical Battle Threshold for minimum battle rating necessary to turn it into a tactical battle (ranging from 0 to 1000). You may not want a tactical battle of two soldiers but you might want a tactical battle when it’s two grand armies.
A lot of you, like me, have tried to play turn-based games multiplayer. And a lot of you, like me, found them very tedious and not fun because of the pacing.
I like playing mulitplayer RTS games and FPS’s but multiplayer turn based just has never made the cut. So, what do you think would make it something that would be compelling to a larger audience that you would enjoy?
I like all the posters suggestions. One thing I'll put forward as an idea for intiative is that order of turn should go FIFO, IE first in, first out. By that I mean the first player to hit end turn, will be the first player that moves durning the resolution phase. Each turn should be broken down into phases equal to the max unit movement for that turn.
EG you have 3 players Players A ,and B have a unit that can move 2, and C has a unit that can move 4. The players ended there turns in this order A,B,C so A would be first and the turn would have a max of 4 phases progressing like :
ABC
C
Going back to the poster suggestion for ZOC I'd still give the option of retreat or fight to players C units if a situation came up where the units were in conflict , since it's the fastest ubnit and would elimate a lot of the twitch fears people have.
One of the reasons I like FIFO is that generally in these games the people that take the longest are most likely also winning the game. So it will give a small benifit to the players that are behind or have a smaller number of units to control.
Auggie
I had an idea once, that was all about mixing the best of TBS and the best of RTS:
Partial Real-time.
It would be kinda similar to Europa Universalis or Star Wars : Rebellion (or even Mount & Blade's strategic map). You have micro-turns that pass at every 10 seconds, and these allow mini-movements on the map by your units or by the research. You can set the game to speed up until the next "event" strikes, which could very well be at time point 3.12446. What would be this event?
ex: research complete, spell ready to be cast, unit arrived at destination, unit engaged ennemy, city improvement complete, etc...
Then, after doing an overview of your kingdom or dealing with the situation, you simply press "continue", and the time will take up again, until the next even strikes, at Time Point 3.64352.
So you could effectively blockade a territory with a few quick units, as they would be able to interecept anything passing through, even if these were to move much quicker. You'd have to be at least 10 times as quick as the guards to outmanoeuver them in a confined location. No more "I move my unit 10 squares in the middle of your units".
Here is something that might join together a lot of what everyone is seems to be looking for.
First, The turns are not exactly At the Same time.. Let me explain! We'll go back to everyone takes their turns in order. (how it picks order can be fleshed out later.) On your turn while you have time left you can move units, research, cast spells ect. All pretty basic stuff. Now when you end your turn is where it get's different. All your cities do your research/production ect for YOUR kingdom. Now Player B's turn starts. While they are doing their turn you can still look at your units, See what research you finished, Change what you were doing. Look at your cities, Que up new buildings, units and In general do everything you normaly would do on "your turn" except cast most spells and move your armies as it's not your turn. (Though you could tell an army to move to spot A or City B and they will do so as an automove at the end of your NEXT turn.)
This way your only really having to spend time doing the fighting and exploring part per player. Just ordering the troops around (like say the ones just built when you ended your turn?) and All the rest can mostly be done while it's someone else's turn!
Of course you might have to do something if you have the option to control battles over (xpower) and you are attacked... But once your done with the fight you could go back to telling your main cities to build more army to replace what you just lost to my Bear Calvery... Or complain that Bear Calvery are overpowered in the chatbox! Also don't forget diplomacy! You could do that while it's not "your turn" and make treaties ect. This should give a lot of stuff to not do on your turn even when there are lots of humans playing.. (I assume the AI's will still be fairly quick)
Can't claim this as all my own idea as I put it together with what I'd want with a lot of the ideas that showed up in this thread.
Just allow people to continue their turn as normal (issue orders, ect) while other people enter tactical battles.
If person A is in a tactical battle, person B can attack another army of Person A, que up that tactical battle, and move the rest of his units in a flank. While person A and B are in tactical battle, person C can initiate further tactical battles against person A or B, continue the rest of their turn, and enter tactical battles once A or B are ready to fight.
Of course, alternatively, All people could issue move/fight orders at the same time, and then while the Warring people complete tactical battles, other people can continue issuing city orders, cast over-land spells, and quest. (as well as unit editor, and such).
I suggest turn time limits that are in the background rather than foreground. Transistion from one turn to the next should be subtle. Turns would control unit movement, unit production, resources, and city development. When you give units orders they should continue to move toward their destination each turn; including intercepting hostle forces. You'll have to work out the math on that one. However, time should never stop for the player (i.e. no end turn button). Provide notification when units have reached their destination or build queues are empty.
An option during setup could determine the pace of play. A stratified pace would be beneficial. 30 sec for Turn 1-50, 1 min for turn 51-100, 2 min 100+. I'm not suggesting hard coded numbers as much as give the players the option to speed the early part of the game. Over time players will gravitate toward a pace of play that is comfortable for them.
I think the biggest decisions will be When various players will be giving what orders/functionality. As well as movement interception, simultaneous turns, and tactical battles.
Personally, I think if you want to fight more than one battle in one turn, you will have to autocalculate, move, attack, and autocalculate again. Otherwise, you attack, que up the Tac battle, the first Tac battles start, other people attack and que up their Tac battles, Multiple Tac battles can happen at the same time, and when the people that enter Tac battles FIRST return to the map, they can finish the rest of their turn's movement, ect, while the others are doing a tactical battle.
If the first people que up another tactical battle(with the same army), then that battle will be que'd till the next turn. They can choose to undergo the battle then, or later in the turn.
The only negative I could see is if two people are fighting many Tac battles vs Each other, and the other players aren't participating in any Tactical Battles.
In these cases, this is why I think an adventuring party, or quest, could make more progress during a Tac Battle heavy turn than a normal turn. What I mean is that Tac Battles will probably artificially extend the time for a turn to take place. This "artificial time" is when questing parties can move, say every 30 seconds, until they run into a battle, which THEY can in turn Tac Battle.
For the person that Doesnt War, Doesnt Quest, and Doesn't explore at all ... Merely Turtles in a rather confined area ... to that person, I am not certain what I can do to appease them, other than loud music and books
Simultaneous turns is the only real option for online multiplayer with more than two players. Duels may be played in a traditional turn-based mode if necessary, but it's better to be consistent and set it to simultaneous turns. That's how CivPlayers Civ 3 / Civ 4 league does it, and it works fine.
It's important that nothing will impede unit movement. So, there should be no tech research popups, no tactical battles during the turn phase when unit movement is allowed (or it may be exploited by locking a main enemy stack in permanent tactical combat by throwaway sacrifical units), no diplomacy popups etc. Unit that moved at the very end of a previous turn shouldn't be able to move at the start of the next turn to prevent "double moves" (effectively, unit moves twice in several seconds - one at the end of a previous turn and another one at the very start of the next turn, before the enemy can react to it).
Interception of enemy is tricky, after all an enemy can split a stack by moving all by one throwaway unit to a new stack, and enemy will intercept it instead of the main enemy force. Also, there is a twitch element to it. So, maybe a good solution is to make it so when an army moves, it leaves a "trace" behind it for, say, 10-15 seconds, or maybe more (to be tested in the real game). And that "trace" can be "intercepted", even if enemy already moved away. Interception adds a tactical battle to a tactical battle queue.
That gives an advantage to a chaser (running army in range will be always intercepted), so probably an additional mechanics is needed - small stacks of skirmishers has a chance not to be intercepted - say, a small group of cavalry should be able to outrun a big army, even if said army can intercept the "trace" (however, a player being chased may choose to fight instead).
"That gives an advantage to a chaser (running army in range will be always intercepted), so probably an additional mechanics is needed - small stacks of skirmishers has a chance not to be intercepted - say, a small group of cavalry should be able to outrun a big army, even if said army can intercept the "trace" (however, a player being chased may choose to fight instead)."
That could be accomplished by allowing a "Chaser" who wants to intercept, but can't quite get into immediate proximity (say 2 squares short), to hold the chased force in place (must be within striking distance of the lowest move unit) until then next FULL turn for both stacks.
Then at the start of the next turn, the "Chased" get the initiative and can either Flee (unit movement points dictate who gets away unscathed or left behind), or prepare for the incoming attack, or do nothing thus losing the initative altogethor.
That would help alleviate the whole "Chase" a Stack around senselessly. It usually occurs when force compliments are unequal and the "chased" wants to keep your stack occupied without the threat of losing any units at all. That can be very fustratinging indeed.
The game that got multiplayer turn based the most right in my opinion was Battle Isles, back when Ubisoft were awesome.
It worked that basically while 1 player moved all his units the other saw the opponents units how they were before the move and set all the shooting up, who shoots who. Once both were done the shooting was resolved then the units moved. Brilliantly done.
PC turn based is just like a board game, the biggest problem with board games is 'down time'. You are absolutely right that waiting for other players can be tedious, "brb phone". What you need is deffinately a reasonable time limit on turns, something like 4 mins, not 40 seconds But the best way is to make it so that you may do activities outside of moving while the opponent is doing his movement. So you can set economic options, perhaps you are given quest/story like options in the opponents move or you can set research.
The problem with simultaneous movement is how do you catch up with someone? You aim to move next to someone, so does the opponent, you both click end turn and you end up not next to each other. Very few ways to solve this.
One other idea that may not be popular with all but I think would be quite cool. How about a mini game, think bejeweled or something that lasts about the time of the average turn that will reward units of magic or varying attacking rewards for your next turn. Obviously theme it around tapping magic and make it so it has varying difficulty based on the sovereign's status or perhaps there is a counter system (think Puzzle Fighter II) so that after time people don't always just get the max reward and are going through the motions. This puzzle idea would just be an option that I imagine would be very popular with some players if the result of doing well was a mild reward and not game changing.
Think if I go for a wee this time instead of playing the mini game have I just thrown the game?
Timout yes, but not after first person ends. I've played a number of board-games where a timer starts when the second to last person ends. That works pretty well, but they are only games up to 6 players.
To make that more generally useful, I would suggest starting the timer when log2 of players are left. In 2-3 players game starts at 1 player left; 4-7 player when 2 players are left; 8-15 when 3 players are left.
In the Total War games, if two opposing armies got near each other (even if neutral) both sides lose all movement points for the turn. The only options are to wait for next turn, or to fight.
So even if one decides to fight, the other has to, unless he wants to attempt a retreat at that time (or during the battle) in which case he would run backwards towards the capital at 1.5x movement if successful.
Haree78:
...The problem with simultaneous movement is how do you catch up with someone?
Haree78, the above is very well written, basically the same idea I've suggested; but you've indeed describe it in a more livily way.
I've skim thru all these posts and I don't find any post so far has got a good solution to the catch-up and/or deal with an unexpected encounter. So far, I still think my Reply #145 suggestion is very good.
Climber:
Phase 2: the AI execute the marching order by moving each unit step by steps. No player involvement here, the game displays the marching.
During this phase, your unit may discover enemy units coming into its Line of Sight (LOS). This unit halts marching immediately. Player will be given the an opportunity to choose whether it attacks or evades in this Phase 2.
The enemy being seen (usually having a lower "Sight" statistic, at low elevation) does not receive an opportunity to react. Only the one that has better LOS will be given such opportunity.
Phase 3: Queuing of Tactical Combat
Inevitably, there will be encounters that requires TC. The game will sort the TC queue by placing the biggest battle at the top of the list. Players will fight the TCs starting from the top of the list, simultaneously. After the first is done, the 2nd battle follows.
Sorry if I've miss any of your suggestion that may help this issue. My intention here is to see if there are some one here knows a good way to handle unexpected encounters smoothly (in terms to reducing downtime & seems reasonable).
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
