OT) Best Turn Based Game: Fantasy or Space or War

[Phoenix-D]

"IMO its not only not hard its fully impossible. The spirit of tactical SE4 combat lies in that what you call "stupid quirk". What you dont like -the "disjointed movement and firing phases" are very important and nice to play (at least for turnbased fans) This kind of sequence is not a quirk, it a achievement of long standing gaming traditions. (computer and board)"

What Fyron's refering to as a "stupid quirk" is the way an -entire side- moves and fires at once. All your ships can be destroyed before they even do anything. Even turn-based systems can get rid of this, through initiative and not letting one side move all its units at once, and/or having phases of "Player 1 moves, Player 2 moves, both fire".

I'd prefer a system like Combat Mission's myself; give orders, clcik go, watch them play out.

Phoenix-D

[QuarianRex]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
What Fyron's refering to as a "stupid quirk" is the way an -entire side- moves and fires at once. All your ships can be destroyed before they even do anything. Even turn-based systems can get rid of this, through initiative and not letting one side move all its units at once, and/or having phases of "Player 1 moves, Player 2 moves, both fire".

This problem isn't really present in SEIV. You tend to start far enough away that niether player can get the "jump" on the other. By the time you close into combat distance your fleeet is broken up enough due to varying ship speeds and different ship strategies that the benefits of your fleet acting in unison tend to be minimized. At least it's not like in MOO2 where your fleet was often wiped out before it could break battle formation.

The only situation where this isn't the case is with something like warp-point defense. In this case the fleets begin in combat range and the defender gets to open the gates of Hell upon the attacker. As it should be. If it was switched to an initiative based system you wouldn't be able to pull that same thing off, at leadt not without giving the attacker some kind of "surprise" penalty, but that just wouldn't be the same.

Besides, without the quirks of turn-based satellites would be virtually useless.

[Chronon]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
I'd prefer a system like Combat Mission's myself; give orders, click go, watch them play out.

I agree - that's exactly what I would like to see (especially for simultaneous games). Including, as Dogscoff suggested, the 3D camera that can be moved around and a playback option (I'm not sure about the ultimate gloat idea, though ) It might be even more fun if there were Admirals for each fleet - perhaps with special bonuses for movement, combat, capture, or experience.

Alternatetively, something like Homeworld's combat system would also work well (but not for simultaneous games).

[Fyron]

KlausD:

IMO its not only not hard its fully impossible. The spirit of tactical SE4 combat lies in that what you call "stupid quirk". What you dont like -the "disjointed movement and firing phases" are very important and nice to play (at least for turnbased fans) This kind of sequence is not a quirk, it a achievement of long standing gaming traditions. (computer and board)

No, it is not an achievement, it is an old limitation. I am a turn based fan; I do not like how se4 handles movement and firing phases.

Then I dont understand why you are for a real time engine in SEV ship combat. If I hate something I am not for it.
BTW - RT games could be both strategic and tactical in scope. As TB games could be. The mode of play has nothing to do with the scale of game.

As I have said repeatedly, real time combat for se5 has no correlation with RTS games. There are no similarities at all.

Maybe you have a different approach what "balanced" and " realistic" mean than I. Maybe you an explain when a game is for you realistic and balanced.

The "quirks" of turn-based combat are what makes it unbalanced and unrealistic.

Secondly there are no problems at all with "all turn based combat systems". They are fine as they are. (at least if they are good designed)

No, they are not fine. The disjointedness of them causes absurd possibilities like a ship being able to move within range (and range of the enemy too), fire its weapons, then run away, with absolutely no possibility for the defender to do anything (assuming the attacker is faster, same range of weapons). Please tell me how situations like this are balanced or realistic. Real-time processing of orders eliminates these sorts of "quirks" of turn-based combat.

P-D:

What Fyron's refering to as a "stupid quirk" is the way an -entire side- moves and fires at once. All your ships can be destroyed before they even do anything. Even turn-based systems can get rid of this, through initiative and not letting one side move all its units at once, and/or having phases of "Player 1 moves, Player 2 moves, both fire".

Even phased systems are imperfect. They can often create needlessly-complex rules systems, and still have many of the "quirks" of "normal" turn-based combat. What real-time combat is is a phased movement/firing system, but with continuous phases instead of segmented phases.

I'd prefer a system like Combat Mission's myself; give orders, click go, watch them play out.

That is exactly what pausable real time combat is.

QuarianRex:

This problem isn't really present in SEIV. You tend to start far enough away that niether player can get the "jump" on the other.

It has happened in every se4 combat I have ever seen.

Dogscoff:

For combat, a real-time system might be made to work, but I'd prefer to see this done entirely by the AI with indirect human guidance, ie like strategic combat from se4 (although the strategic combat Ai=I would have to be improved considerably). Even with a "pause" mode in realtime tactical combat, you'd still miss opportunities if you weren't quick enough on the pause button, and the whole thing would be a horrifically slow mess with multiple humans anyway.

Most MP games of SE4 are done with strategic combat. Only hot-seat games can use tactical anyways. Real-time execution of strategic combat would not pose any problems. Hot-seat games already take a long time as it is. Real-time tactical combat would not be much slower, as long as you limit the number of pauses each player can make (so you don't get the combat paused every 2 seconds- which defeats the purpose of real-time anyways).

[Phoenix-D]

"That is exactly what pausable real time combat is"

No Fyron, it's not. In combat mission you give your orders, hit go..and then wait for one minute. No matter what happens in that minute, there is -nothing- you can do. Pauseable real time you can adjust your orders at any time, combat mission only at the begining of each turn.

Phoenix-D

[Fyron]

Ok. So you get to pick how long you wait instead of it being forced at 1 minute intervals. This is bad how?

[alchemy]

I would also love to have a combat resolution system similar to Combat Mission's!

If Aaron called it Gold Plus and charged money for it, I would gladly purchase it, in a heartbeat.