Sarudak

Join Date 12/2006

+23

Continuous turn based battles?

Q: Tactical battles, are they real-time?

A: They make use of continuous turns. This makes the battles play out much like a real time strategy game but without feeling a rush. The Corporate Machine was one of the early games to make use of continuous turns. Some have said that Sins of a Solar Empire plays like a continuous turn game.

The idea is that winning tactical battles has nothing to do with speed or reflexes but strictly strategy and tactics. Players can control the rate in which time units pass, pause while giving commands, etc.

So. What does this mean? I have seen alot of debate about turn based vs real time battles and grid based vs free movement. First it should be noted that these debates are largely one and the same. Personally I cannot imagine a realtime game based on a grid layout nor a turn game based on a free form layout (table top games have done this, think warhammer, but IMO only because the players could not play in real time). In every game I've seen this rule holds true. So then what is a continuous turn based system? I've never played corporate machine but from the comments made by Brad it looks like essentially real time. I think it IS real time but they are shying away from the term because so many RTS games are so fast and frantic that the S part is somewhat lost. One of the examples he uses is Sins which is definitely a real-time game but at a far more leisurely pace than your typical RTS.

I really like this idea but I think that people are confused. One of the reasons for confusion I believe is this screen that we keep getting shown.

Although It has also been stated that this is an extremely old screen and is not representative of what the battles will be like it keeps poping up and we don't really have any other battle screens. The screen clearly shows squares. And as I said before a grid system means turn based. So is this screen simply lying to us?

But this confusion has been with us for a long time. Look at this old journal post. Brad keeps referring to turns and real-time as if the two systems are interchangable.

Brad also says that one of the inspirations for tactical combat was x-com. Another very much turn based game.

If there is some kind of hybridization possible between turn-based and real-time, or between grid-based and free-form that people know of and have been made or potentially could be made into a decent game I would like to hear of it. Failing that the developers need to choose one. So what are the pros/cons? Here's how I see it if you feel differently about these points then tell me and I may edit the list here.

Turn-based & grid-based

++Fun for small tactical battles because it gives you fine control over each unit

++Battles are not affected by how fast you can move and click your mouse/remembering hotkeys/etc

+Time to think

++Good for controlling units where they have many abilities you may want to choose from (Imagine playing Final Fantasy tactics in real-time)

--Becomes terribly unwieldy and tedious when the number of units in the battle is large

---Large numbers of units make battles unacceptably long

-Battles can take an excessively long time if one person likes to meticulously think out every move in advance

-Not as visually impressive or appealing IMO

-Gives battles (especially large scale battles) a stilted unrealistic feel (a good example of this is if you have a line of units and on the opponents turn they break the line by destroying one because it is your opponents turn they have all the time in the world to funnel as many units as they want through the hole and attack your fragile back line units without your units having a chance to respond, realistically if the center is hit hard you would reinforce it and if the unit broke some enemies might slip through but you would plug the whole before 5 battalions moved through and attacked your archers. An attempt to counter this problem is ZOC)

Real-time & free-form field

+++Makes it possible to control large battles of many units reasonably

+++Makes it possible to complete large epic battles in a reasonable amount of time

+Battles feel more realistic and life-like

+Battles are more impressive and visually appealing

--'Micromanaging' (read actually being able to control your units) can be difficult depending on the speed and UI

--Managing abilities in large battles is a pain

--Strategy can be difficult to implement

So. Personally I strongly favor real-time with a free-form field for this game because it offers the potential for much larger scale epic battles. I also would like a slower that traditional speed like sins only maybe even a tad slower to allow for more managing of spell casters. I loved Battle For Middle Earth 2 and I imagine this game as being something like it only with all the units being customized and the powers being replaced by your channelers unique spell options. One of my concerns is keeping the modability of the game as high as possible which I think having real-time battles tends to make more difficult. However the in game modding engine is already supposed to be 3-D. Spore did it (although the game was junk) so maybe they can do it in elemental. If they do (and by this I well) this game will remake the gaming industry this is my hope and dream.

Thoughts?

elemental

Locked Post +1 Karma

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

OrzInvasion

This continuous turn thing sounds a bit like Final Fantasy, ie you have a limited time slot to issue an order to one unit after another that is carried out after a timer expires.

The string of unit icons at the bottom of the screen seems to corroborate this.

Successfully updated karma reason!

RonLugge

Join Date 05/2004

+50

Star Trek Birth of the Federation utilized a combat system that was both turn based (give orders to your ships on your 'turn') and real time (those orders are processed and played out in real time).

E. G. both players give orders, hit 'end turn', watch as those orders are played out, then give new orders.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Baldur's Gate combat comes to mind. Or Laser Squad Nemesis could be another way to do it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Seboss,

reply 1

This continuous turn thing sounds a bit like Final Fantasy, ie you have a limited time slot to issue an order to one unit after another that is carried out after a timer expires.

The string of unit icons at the bottom of the screen seems to corroborate this.

That pic is obselete.

Successfully updated karma reason!

BFME battles were terrible and arcade-y. However, something like total war or the infinity engine games' combat systems is pretty good. Pause and issue orders, or just twitch through the whole thing for a truly intense experience.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Sarudak,

reply 4

That pic is obselete.

All right. So before throwing assumptions, I'd like to have some more information about battles. Will they use a grid? what is the scale? should we expect ~10 units like (MoM) or thousands of units (Total War)? Will it be possible to 'script' orders or battle stances (Dominion)?
Until then, it's difficult to form an opinion. While TB could work with a handful of 'abstracted' units, it seems out of the question on large scale battles, whereas realtime battles with only a few units on the battlefield would feel too gamey.

One thing is certain though, it's that most people won't have the patience to wait for several minutes between turns while other players carry out their battles.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Not the same kind of game but Space Rangers 2 was turn based but ran in a way that made it feel more like like real time.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Indeed, simultaneous turns (Space Rangers 2 as Nesrie mentionned, or Civ4) help reducing downtime between turns and keeping the game flow more natural. Add a timer in top of that and MoM-like battles could be over fairly fast, if they don't turn to Benny Hill-like chases that is.

Successfully updated karma reason!

RonLugge

Join Date 05/2004

+50

Until then, it's difficult to form an opinion.

QFT

We're speculating in an absence of information here.

what is the scale? should we expect ~10 units like (MoM) or thousands of units (Total War)?

Supposedly, we're talking about armies in the tens of thousands end-game -- by people count.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm expecting this is going to be one of the parts we give the most testing and will see the most changes made during beta. If the tactical battles aren't done well the entire game will get a black eye over it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Seboss,

reply 1

That's not really what continuous-turn based means. I think the comparison they used was The Corporate Machine and another game like that would be Victoria.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Alstein

Join Date 07/2004

+55

This model works well in EU3.

Just allow for pausing in battles (with a time limit in MP) and you're set

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Netaddict45,

reply 11

Quoting Seboss, reply 1This continuous turn thing sounds a bit like Final Fantasy [...]

That's not really what continuous-turn based means. I think the comparison they used was The Corporate Machine and another game like that would be Victoria.

Yes, I was mentionning Hearts of Iron as another example on IRC earlier, close enough
I'm really not sure what to expect with battles.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Real-time & free-form field

+++Makes it possible to control large battles of many units reasonably

+++Makes it possible to complete large epic battles in a reasonable amount of time

+Battles feel more realistic and life-like

+Battles are more impressive and visually appealing

--'Micromanaging' (read actually being able to control your units) can be difficult depending on the speed and UI

--Managing abilities in large battles is a pain

--Strategy can be difficult to implement

I disagree on two points.

The first point in particular: I think real time makes it impossible to control large battles of many units because you must click fast to be able to give orders to all, whereas turn based allows you to give orders to all of them, then press new turn and the orders are resolved (real time with pause, aka continuous, allows this to).

More realistic is very subjective. Battles are fought over several hours in reality.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting LDiCesare,

reply 14

I'm not a big fan of realtime myself, but with grouping and formations, it's failry easy to control large groups of units (Total War).
About realism, I'd rather play a fun game than a realistic one. But while we pretty much all have the same definition of realistic, fun is largely subjective. The TB vs RT issue is really a matter of preference, and preserving game flow in MP.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"Continuous turn-based" is an oxymoron. The definition of turn-based is that each entity or player may act only when it is his turn, all others must wait. If multiple players can act simultaneously in real-time, it is not turn-based.

Successfully updated karma reason!

RonLugge

Join Date 05/2004

+50

Quoting ChongLi,

reply 16

Oxymoron or not, I can't think of a better way to describe BOTF's combat system, or SEIV with turns set to 'simultaneous'.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Oxymoron or not, I can't think of a better way to describe BOTF's combat system, or SEIV with turns set to 'simultaneous'.

I've never played those games but I've played other games with simultaneous "turns" if they could be called that. Baldur's Gate and Master of Orion 2 tactical combat are both like that, with the former being described as "real-time with pause" and the latter a "phase-based game".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-keeping_systems_in_games

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting ChongLi,

reply 16

Well Civ IV is clearly simultaneously turn-based. Yes, you are all acting at the same time, but there is a turn and you have to wait until everyone is done for the next turn. I don't think tha simultaneous and continuous are the same thing though which I think is why we're discussing this. The best thing I can think of for what continuous could be would be Space Rangers 2 (never did 1 so that might be the same too). Where basically as long as you are doing something, clicking commands if you will, it feels like real time but what it really is is a bunch of turns and as soon as the commands from you end, the game sort of pauses, but its not so much a pause as waiting for you to begin your next turn.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Nesrie,

reply 19

The best thing I can think of for what continuous could be would be Space Rangers 2 (never did 1 so that might be the same too). Where basically as long as you are doing something, clicking commands if you will, it feels like real time but what it really is is a bunch of turns and as soon as the commands from you end, the game sort of pauses, but its not so much a pause as waiting for you to begin your next turn.

What would be the difference between Space Rangers 2 and Civ 4 in a MP game? The real-time feeling of Space Rangers 2 comes from the instantaneous resolution of the turn. That would not be true in MP, you'd still have to wait for your opponent to submit his turn.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well I am not sure how Space Rangers type turns could work in MP. In Civ IV, sometimes your turns really feel instant because everyone is going quick and there is not much of a wait time between when you end your turn and when everyone else does. Other times though, when someone is at War for example and the other human players are not at war, the one person's turn will take a very long time.

I don't know how you could avoid that for battles in Elemental, not sure you necessarily have to if you can look through information, make plans and that sort of thing. I mean, Simul. Turns makes Civ IV a lot more fun to play than HOMM3 where you are always waiting. I don't know that Elemental needs to pretend to be RTS.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting ,

quoting post

But this confusion has been with us for a long time. Look at this old journal post. Brad keeps referring to turns and real-time as if the two systems are interchangable.

I've been reading that journal and thinking - you know, Brad may be right in that they can be interchangeable. Look at this line in particular:

The idea is that you zoom in to a given battle and you see all your units there. From there, you can set the speed you want the action to take place (from “turns” to real time).

Real-time combat with a pause button (specifically, real-time combat that can be set to automatically pause every x seconds) IS simultaneous turn-based, no difference whatsoever. Think about it; your units are standing there, paused, and you select them one by one to queue up orders. Having finished, you hit your play (read: "end turn") button, and both your and enemy units spring to life, attempting to carry out their orders simultaneously - moving, attacking, whatever for a given period, let's say 10 seconds. After 10 seconds, the battle pauses - the "turn" ends - and you're free to give out new orders to your units, one by one, until you're ready to hit the play/end turn button again.

Now add in a "speed" slider, and you can have anything from "turns" that last 3 seconds each, allowing you to frequently change orders - to slow real-time combat with an automatic pause every 30 seconds - to slow, but continuous real-time combat with no automatic pauses (you might still have the option to manually pause, though I have difficulty imagining how that'd work for multiplayer) - to a fast, real-time clickfest that'd make any Command & Conquer fan feel at home. It can all be done with a single engine, all you need is that slider to determine how fast the action plays out/how often it pauses. Now, I don't know if this is the system Elemental will use, but for me, that's what that journal seems to suggest.

Successfully updated karma reason!

That makes a lot of sense. It's a pretty good deduction, and I would actually like that.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yeah I like the explanation too. I think for multiplayer thought it would have to have a set speed for any combat involving human players... and I am wondering if this is going to be just a 1 vs 1 type battle setup or something like Age of Wonders. I think the Age of Wonders series actually allowed your allies to join the battle, sometimes even after the start of it... if memory serves me right. Anyway, i guess that's a different topic all together.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well Civ IV is clearly simultaneously turn-based. Yes, you are all acting at the same time, but there is a turn and you have to wait until everyone is done for the next turn.

I've never played Civ IV multiplayer, so that may be different. Civ IV single player is strictly turn-based, with each player having the exclusive right to move during his turn. This opens the door to abuse of the system, by using tricks such as technology brokering (trading the same tech to each AI in exchange for many different techs), which would be impossible if the AIs had the ability to make trades with each other during your turn.

No, real-time is real-time, it is the opposite of turn-based.

Regardless of all that, I would caution the devs against using a real-time with pause model. Such a model does not work very well in multiplayer due to the interruption of game flow that comes with all of the pausing (this is amplified by the number of players in the game).

Successfully updated karma reason!