SE IV The End Of An Era.

[Fyron]

But if you compare a SE4 ship with a Starfury ship there are some differences. Of course the ship-design prob is not that what matters.

The only difference is that for a SE4 ship, you provide a screenshot, for a SF ship, you provide the model file + texture file. Making the ships is identical in either case.

I think this is our traditional dispute about the "advantages" of realtime games, isnt it?

Indeed.

Hey come on, I am THE strategy fan. But I see a realtime game not as a strategy game. I see it as mouse clicking party. Each realtime game I have played (and I played alot) benefitted the guy which had the better mouse skills. Maybe you are one of those with good clicking skills, Iam not. A real strategy game is turnbased. (and 2D) Thats it for me. (and I am sure I am not the only one who likes it this way)

There have been many real time games that were not click fests. It is very easy to conceive of a real time engine that has no click festing what so ever. The ability to have the game autopause after a predefined (by the user) number of seconds, plus the ability to pause whenever regardless of the timer, and the ability to issue orders while paused would eliminate EVERY single possible click festing complaint you (or anyone) could possibly have. You could pause the game whenever you want to in SP tactical combat. No need to ever click fest, unless you really want to. Multiplayer combat would still be executed strategically, so again, it would not in any way involve any measure of click festing, as it would still have no player intervention, just like strategic SE4 combat. The only issue is hotseat combat, which is problematic on the same computer. So, a solution could be to have "turns" where each player gets a chance to issue orders, then combat is resolved for X seconds, then they get another "turn". This would play just like SE4 combat, except that it would be superior in every way because there would never be any lame situations in which any ship gets to move and fire first unnaturally, just because it is using a turn based system.

How can it play like SE4, if there is no "end turn" button - the most important button in the tactical combat game.

See above. Instead of "end turn", you have "run for X seconds". Combat would be executed more in a simultaneous turn fashion, rather than the poor system that is the sequential turn fashion. Simultaneous movement eliminates many of the lame idiosyncracies of turn based movement. Real time (for combat) just takes it a step further and eliminates all of the idiosyncracies of turn based simultaneous movement. With the above system, it becomes turn based real time combat. Instead of the simultaneous turns having a set phase, they have an infintesimal phase, so you never have ships that get to move first, just because of turn based combat.

quote: Only if it is made to be Starcraft-like real time.

God help us.

Fortunately, there is 0 possibility of this.

Oh, for me one of the most negative aspects of MOO3 was its realtime combat.

ONLY because MOO3 was done EXTREMELY poorly. DO NOT take it as an example of a good real time combat system! It is a very, very good example of how NOT to do a real time combat system.

Thats a possibility, but maybe if there would be more opposition against realtime elements in SE5 BEFORE the design status of SE5 has ended, the train has a small chance to go to another direction, I guess.

Hopefully you will decide to accept my proposed system as perfectly valid and equivalent to the best turn based combat system this time, so that would become unnecessary.

There is no possible purely turn based combat system that can approach the level of balance acheiveable by having real time execution of combat. Even just having turns where you issue orders, and then watch them executed for X seconds in real time with no intervention (no possible way to click fest there!), is vastly superior to any more traditonal turn based system possible.

[Captain Kwok]

I think my Posts are invisible.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by klausD:

quote:

---

However there are also clever turn-based mechanics to avoid such problems (which Malfador hasn't found yet by Version SE4 Gold 1.91), and it's of course possible to still have dumb problems with a real-time system (see collisions and point defense in Star Fury, for examples).

Yes, this is an old problem. Sometimes I think the designers of computer wargames do never take a look to board wargames. The most problems arising with computer game rule design are already solved by SPI, Avalanche or AH years and decades before.

So the problem of the ship initiative in SE4 could be solved with formation activation as beautiful depicted in the panzergrenadier series of Avalanche Press.

bye
KlausD

---

Ah, but those wargames _still_ have clunkiness in their turn based models that is eliminated by real time execution. Stop thinking of computer games as being the same as board games; they are not, at all. There is a huge amount of stuff possible with computers that is simply impossible with board games.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Captain Kwok:
Aside from 'real-time' combat resolution, another idea I see viable for SE:V that can eliminate most of the quirks with the current SE:IV system is some sort of 'staggered' turn-based movement. Rather than Player 1 moves all his ships and fires, then player 2 moves all his ships and fires - have movement alternate between them like this:

Player 1 - Ships A,B,C
Player 2 - Ships X,Y,Z

Order of Movement/Fire
A-X-B-Y-C-Z

This is more like 'real-time' in its execution and will go a long way in improving combat, and from a programming aspect much easier to do.

Battles between fleets of unequal size can still be handled rather easily, if a player is outnumbered 3:1, then the player moves only 1 of his ships for 3 of his opponents etc.

This is another turn based system that is covered by my previous statements of all purely turn based systems having problems. It still has the problem of ships getting to move and fire before others artificially, with no realistic reason for it at all, only because it has to be turn based.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by PvK:

Combat Mission is an excellent example of that stye of play. I like it, but there are weaknesses even in such a well-done rendition. One is it relies on an extremely good tactical AI, which Combat Mission has but SE and SF don't.

So? SE5 would suffer the same from lack of a good combat AI with any combat model, other than the Starcraft-style RTS model, which noone wants.

[Captain Kwok]

Actually, I'd imagine a real-time system is really executed in a similar manner that I proposed for a "staggered" turn-based model in my post below - it'd be some sort of continuous loop that cycles through each ship on both sides deciding firing targets, movement, etc. Except, in a true real-time system, the cycle is too fast for us to notice and it looks like all ships are moving concurrently.

I suppose the advantage of the "staggered" turn is that it should be less taxing on a computer system. This may not be an issue for real-time combat with small fleets, but I'd imagine it would be much more with the kind of fleet sizes we are used to in SE:IV.

Again, this is not a problem in simultaneous turns, because there are no graphics to generate. But in some sort of Combat Reply Mode or Tactical Combat this can be a major issue unless some sort of restrictions were placed on zoom levels etc.

Overall, it is a very viable option to consider. You eliminate almost 95% of the quirks of strict turn based movement and keep performance at a high level. I cannot honestly provide a real drawback to this type of system, except maybe with fleets of vastly different sizes.

[tesco samoa]

kwok were on the same boat...

That way when things get in the range of a weapon it fires... Steel Panthers had that. Very effective. needed to be tweaked.

I think that for RTS to be effective for a turn based game. Players will have to be able to script what ships do and when they do it. --- And make it moddable and make it so they can save their scipts to files.

And you should be able to script fleet movements as well.

Could be simple as texts or using the simuator to script the ships

All I know is that I want a game where the DF ships are moving to engage.... I tell my ships to hold off on releasing fighters until the enemy comes in range of the missle ships. As a ship comes in range of a missle ship it fires its missles... IF that ship happens to have a weapon that can hit my ship.... Then it should happen at the same time. Not my ship disappears becausae it is that ships movement or something.

[tesco samoa]

or make it like d&d... all actions for 1 second happen at the same time... Then the next actions for the next second.

[bearclaw]

I would think that the simplest method would be to combine aspects of the existing tactical and Stratigic combat methods into a system where each ship is issued ordered and when the End Turn button is clicked, then all the ships execute their orders. End result: combat situations that function exactly like the rest of the game in Simultanious play.

Further, this method, while not practical for PBW, would allow essensially tactial combat for Hotseat and TCP/IP games between players.

I, for one, would be so against SEV becoming realtime combat that I would not play the game. I have never liked real-time combat games. I like to think through my moves like a chess game, not an arcade shoot-out.

[ March 01, 2004, 18:33: Message edited by: bearclaw ]

[PvK]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
... Ah, but those wargames _still_ have clunkiness in their turn based models that is eliminated by real time execution.

The "clunkiness" can often be replaced by other problems, though (e.g. Star Fury).

Stop thinking of computer games as being the same as board games; they are not, at all. There is a huge amount of stuff possible with computers that is simply impossible with board games.

It's possible to needlessly overlook strengths in both ways. Yes computers can do things board games can't. But that doesn't mean computer game designers can't take advantage of many solutions and concepts from interesting board games. The point was that it's frustrating to see games with lots of potential that suffer from some needlessly limited game mechanics.

PvK