Brigade E5 - a promising tactical game.

[Avé]

It helps to know the proper terms, otherwise you're no better than the legions of idiotic reviewers who think KOTOR is turn-based.

How does it help me to know that turnbased with concurrent execution is phase based?

How does knowing what turnbased with concurrent execution is, but not knowing its called phase based, make you no better then idiotic reviewers who think KOTOR is TB?

Not knowing the name for something, but knowing how it functions, how does that make you stupid or an idiot?

Phase based doesnt sufficiently describe LSN's system, which as far as I know is fairly unique.

 

[Stark]

is it me or are you carefully laying out a proof that a RT system is perfect?

think he's just trying to prove his system is better (the smart pause system, whatever it is) in that it's combining the best of both worlds, or something like that.

posting in this way irritates the hell out of me though. Vi, please just go ahead and describe your system. the people here know what u're getting at already (since your first post).

 

[Stark]

It helps to know the proper terms, otherwise you're no better than the legions of idiotic reviewers who think KOTOR is turn-based.

How does it help me to know that turnbased with concurrent execution is phase based?

it helps us to know what you're going on about. knowing the proper term allow for easier communication.

 

[Avé]

It helps to know the proper terms, otherwise you're no better than the legions of idiotic reviewers who think KOTOR is turn-based.

How does it help me to know that turnbased with concurrent execution is phase based?

it helps us to know what you're going on about. knowing the proper term allow for easier communication.

/tangent
I'll use a little example,
"Julian Gollop pioneered tactical games"
"Julian Gollop was the first to develop tactical games"
Pioneered is easier to say, shorter, but how does it convey the meaning any better?

You are also free to tell me how "LSN conducts your moves in turn based, with the results in real time." is more difficult to understand then "phase based".
Indeed, it's probably easier to understand...
/tangent

Phase based doesnt adequately describe LSN, even it's creator doesnt describe it as phase based, he describes it as
"It is actually both(RT & TB). The game is played in a series of turns representing 10 seconds of real-time. The game engine calculates everything using a real-time system that accurately represents movement, collisions, laser beams and sighting. You can actually rewind a game and play it from the beginning using the built in video-style controls."

Considering the guy basically pioneered squad based tactical games, I think he knows how to describe his games a little bit better then Exitium.

 

[Fez]

Please do not try to pile up evidence to defend ignorance. It is the proverbial house on sand or castle on the swamp.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Ave, the term that defines that system is 'phase based'. You can beat around the bush all you like about how it is a 'combination' of turn-based and real time systems, but that is a completely innacurate description of the system. It's phase-based, plain and simple: it is played out in entire phases, rather than turns. Players don't take turns moving their units in groups, or one after the other (e.g. A > B > A > B) and they certainly don't play the game in real-time (e.g. Counterstrike). The game is played with both players moving simultaniously, ending the Movement/Decision/Action Phase and watching their decisions play out in a phase.

This system is no more turn-based or real time than Picasso is an "Old Master" artist. Calling it a combination of turn-based and real time would be a false dichotomy.

The "Smart Pause System" or "Smart Turn Based", "Automated Turn Based" isn't a turn-based system, either. It's simply Real Time with Pause.

 

[Avé]

Ave, the term that defines that system is 'phase based'. You can beat around the bush all you like about how it is a 'combination' of turn-based and real time systems, but that is a completely innacurate description of the system. It's phase-based, plain and simple: it is played out in entire phases, rather than turns. Players don't take turns moving their units in groups, or one after the other (e.g. A > B > A > B) and they certainly don't play the game in real-time (e.g. Counterstrike). The game is played with both players moving simultaniously, ending the Movement/Decision/Action Phase and watching their decisions play out in a phase.

I googled before posting, for every game with supposed "phase based" gameplay, there's a similar, but subtly different definition, and phase based is rarely used by developers & publishers.
ALFA Antiterror, which is turnbased with realtime execution, doesnt call it phase based, it calls it "turn based with realtime execution".

Other so-called "phase based" games, call it simultaneous turn based.
In fact, the only games I could find that described themselves as phase based, were action rpg's & hack'nd'slashers.

Now, when the creator of x-com and laser squad describes his game as a combination of real time and turn based, and it can be easilly verified to be as such, I think you're full of shit.


Julian Gollop > you.


btw, I think you need to look up the definition of false dichotomy, or else not use large words.

Please do not try to pile up evidence to defend ignorance. It is the proverbial house on sand or castle on the swamp.

I readily admitted I didnt know what phase based is, so what exactly are you talking about?

 

[Sol Invictus]

A false dichotomy is a false comparison, and that is what you made when you compared phase-based gameplay (LSN & Combat Mission) with turn-based gameplay just because it isn't played out in real time, you fucking idiot.

The proper term is 'phase based' and an argumentum ad verecundiam isn't going to help your case, or change the fact that you are wrong. Now, if Bill Roper called Diablo a turn-based game with real-time initiative because of the attack speed/spell timer, he'd still be wrong about it, just as Julian is wrong by calling LSN a turn-based game played out in real-time.

Julian and the developers of ALFA Antiterror are obviously throwing terms most easily understood by the more easily confused, and simpler minded denizens of the gaming community.

So, when the developers of UFO:Aftermath decided to call their real time with pause system "turn based", did you agree with them an argue that people who said otherwise were wrong because "OMG THE DEVELOPERS SAID SO?"

 

[Vi]

Re: RTwP?

Let us imagine the ideal TB game.
...
Now we have the most realistic TB game - the game with very small turns and actions that could cost more than one turn to perform. The only one problem here is a number of turns required to move from one point to another.
...
The obvious idea is to allow planning of your turns. So in the same situation you just give a command "move ten steps forward" and game remembers this, so during next ten turns if nothing happens you will just press 'end turn' button.
...
The only problem remaining is this 'end turn' button you are to press ten times to move ten metres. And also long actions, that cost more than one turn - you are to press 'end turn' button several times to perform single action - not good.

Well, to solve the problem we should analyze and find out all situations we will defenitly press 'end turn' button. Actually there is only one such situation - nothing changed in game world gor us, i.e. no new information - all our soldiers perform their multi-turn actions, no new enemies, no new sounds, no new items visible, nothing new.
So, to remove 'end turn button' problem we should just allow the game to press it automatically if nothing happend during opponent's turn. But if one of our soldiers finished his movement or performed any other order or saw an enemy or heard a sound, etc. - then 'end turn' can only be pressed manually.

Now we have an ideal TB system.

1. Very small turns (each turn has enough APs to make one step or to press fire trigger, say, twice) remove 'unrealistic' gameplay tricks.
2. You can issue multi-turn orders, so the small turn is not an issue.
3. 'End turn' button being pressed automatically if nothing happens - thus there are no need to confirm each single step.
4. We never lose control and have a lot of time to think every moment we need to think - actually, player need to think only when he is to issue new order or to react on some event.

Well, this is roughly the system implemented in E5.

You may not call it TB (why not, BTW? well, we call it SPM because we are to call it somehow), but with this system _nothing_ depends on your reaction and mouse-clicking mastery.

As Otaku_Hanzo said,

Unless you have all the training and skills that the character you are playing does, there is NO WAY you can emulate what that character would do in any given situation during real time play. Turn based is required to allow you to be able to sift through the options available to you and choose the right course.

But with this system, you always (at each character step) could sift through the options available to you and choose the right course.

Now you can beat me
Or just say 'crap'. It's your decision what to do
But try to think first if you feel I am wrong and describe exactly what is wrong here

 

[Claw-UA]

2 Fez&Exitium

I`ve never seen someone talking in such touching way without any subject knowledge .
U`r worst fre@ky b@d@sses ever seen.And most funny. :twisted:
GFY.

 

[Fez]

OMG, we've been taken to school, by the flame master! That post is gold. It should be preserved for all time as an example to everyone.

I know it made me feel it was worth while logging on today. Shame I forgot to enable my Idiot to English translator, I guess the contents will just have to remain a mystery.

It's great that the Down syndrome community have decided to join in too.

 

[Balor]

Claw, it's Codex. It doesn't adhere to usual rules.
But if you just want to have a flame war, why don't you post in a different thread?
You'll get this topic into Retardo land this way.

 

[Balor]

Vi - that was a good one .
I wonder if anyone will be able to say anything against it. At least, on such level.

 

[ivashkin]

Hello to everybody!

I see here a number of people arguing about what game mode is better - Real-Time or Turn-Based. Such a kind of discussion won't have any valuable results, since it seems to
be only a sort of opinion exchanging. Unless there are some precise criteria established what does it really mean "better".

Do you have any?

I'm sure yes, you do, but you'd probably try to explain them in terms of "realism" and "playability". But none of these two is strictly formalized or at least there's no common definition.

Nevertheless, there are two other game mode characteristics - how interactive it is, and how easy it is to play, that is "Interactivity" and "Controlability" - and they can be strictly defined and measured!

There is some special mathematical theory, where there are strict definitions of a game mode systems ("Game-Time management systems" as they are referred to). Real-Time, Turn-Based, SPM, Phase-Based are just particular cases of such a system.

In this theory we can formally distinguish Turn-Based from Phase-Based, for instance.
Furthermore, terms "Interactivity" and "Controlability" are strictly defined, and there's even a way to estimate them for any particular game.

Generally, Interactivity is an average speed of game world compared to physical time.
Controlability is a metrics, which represents player's ability to control his soldiers, units or whatever.

Interactivity tends to be higher ("better") for Real-Time mode, while controlability is higher ("better" again) for Turn-Based mode.
So, Real-Time is better than Turn-Based in terms of Interactivity, however, Turn-Based is better than Real-Time in terms of Controlability.

That is what you were talking about, but slightly formalized.

SPM is a particular case of Real-Time, but it's much better in respect to Controlability.
Also, SPM is better than Turn-Based with relation to Interactivity.

It doesn't mean SPM is better than both Real-Time and Turn-Based in all cases, though.

Does it seem clear, or should I get across my ideas?

 

[Fez]

What is with all the fucking Russians crawling out of the woodwork suddenly? Go back to pinko land and worshipping vodka and poverty, or whatever it is you do.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Generally, Interactivity is an average speed of game world compared to physical time.
...
Interactivity tends to be higher ("better") for Real-Time mode, while controlability is higher ("better" again) for Turn-Based mode.

A few things:

a) you have a fucked up understanding of what interactivity is.
b) nobody gives a fuck about an "average speed of game world"

 

[Balor]

2 Fez
Hey, easy, it's not just some 'fucking Russians' - it's E5 developers, namely Vi and Ivashkin, you bad bully boy.
And Claw is, in fact, from Ukraine. I doubt he'll be very pleased to be labeled Russian :D.
Oh, and can I, instead of

Go back to pinko land and worshipping vodka and poverty, or whatever it is you do.

- advice you to chill down a bit and contemplate meaning of life while sucking on your own cock? I hope that’ll relax you a bit.
2 ivashikin
Heh, welcome to the Codex!
I see that Fez already give you a typical greeting already?
But to the point - looks like you got a error in translation or something, cause even I hadn't understood anything what you supposed to say... so, VD is kinda right.
I understand Interactivity as amount of things you can do. If you can just hack&slash - it's low interactivity.
If you can utilize terrain to your advantage, use special skills, perform tactical maneuvers - that's high interactivity.
So, your saying

Interactivity tends to be higher ("better") for Real-Time mode

does sound to be a bit fucked up, allright. Perhaps you meant something else?
And what is 'average speed of the game' anyway?
C'mon, not everyone here is Major in Math like you are. Be closer to people .
2 VD
Any comments about what Vi stated?
That’s what I was trying to explain in the beginning of the thread anyway.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Hey, welcome to the Codex E5 Developers! Try to ignore Fez's cultural ignorance and have a pleasant stay (as pleasant as the Codex would allow, with all the debate and flamethrowing )

 

[Fez]

Why would I need to suck my own cock, Balor? For roughly $1 I can get a Russian girl to do it for me, and that includes a generous tip.

They'd probably be happy to get something inside them that wasn't radioactive or alcoholic.

 

[Vault Dweller]

2 VD
Any comments about what Vi stated?

Eh, nothing special, silly things, more attempts to present RT as improved TB. Why not state openly "we saw some limitations in TB, so we did something that we like more" instead of trying to convince everyone that this is a new and improved TB mode? (reference to the "You may not call it TB (why not, BTW?...", "it's an ideal TB", and other comments.)

1. Very small turns (each turn has enough APs to make one step or to press fire trigger, say, twice) remove 'unrealistic' gameplay tricks.

What tricks would that be? Small "enough for one step" turns are bad design, btw.

2. You can issue multi-turn orders, so the small turn is not an issue.

So, now instead of reasonable, balanced turns we have multi-turns consisting of very small turns. Doesn't make much sense to me.

3. 'End turn' button being pressed automatically if nothing happens - thus there are no need to confirm each single step.

Nothing happens - combat is over, simple as that. Anything else would be bad design.

4. We never lose control and have a lot of time to think every moment we need to think - actually, player need to think only when he is to issue new order or to react on some event.

What was wrong with TB again?

Let us imagine the ideal TB game. The game that has minimal or no disadvantage of TB system - I mean the effect of time quantization, when you can do nothing while another side move.

To achieve this, we need to minimize the turn duration...

That's fucking hilarious. Hey, Vi, why do you think chess, a great tactical game, is turn-based? Do you think they couldn't figure out how to move pieces simultaneously?

While such hack as interrupts deals with most severe of problems with such system, imagine situation: You spend all your APs running towards to door of the building. Enemy turn. A soldier comes out from the door, and unloads his clip into you. Finita la comedia - and you don't even have any CHANCE to react. In SPM system, you can - since you can always interrupt your current orders and assign new."

Uh, how about using tactics and moving toward the door slowly ALWAYS leaving enough time AND enough cover in case someone comes out? Just a thought.

And SPM allows you to instantly react to any threatening change in situation AND "thoughtfully sift through tactical options avalable" at any given moment... which is a trademark of TB... but without any 'side-effects' of TB like having to wait for enemy turn, or situations like I described above.

Part of the tactics in TB (including chess) is to prepare for the "side-effects" when you can't do anything. Any moron can pause a game and order his characters to shoot, that's not tactics. Ensuring that your characters will live through the enemy's turn is.

Btw, what are the "tactical options available"?

 

[Vi]

Eh, nothing special, silly things, more attempts to present RT as improved TB.

Please describe, why the system I described is RT?

What tricks would that be? Small "enough for one step" turns are bad design, btw.

Why? Please give me any reason why.
It is very easy to say "bad design" without any explanation, usually it is a sign of bad education and poor knowledge
Please do not get it wrong, but it's classics, read any book on management

So, now instead of reasonable, balanced turns we have multi-turns consisting of very small turns. Doesn't make much sense to me.

I understand it can make no sense for you, the idea was a bit different - to describe a TB system with minimal 'TB side-effect' that affects game realism
Could you say that this system is less 'realistic' than classical 'well-balanced' TB?

Nothing happens - combat is over, simple as that. Anything else would be bad design.

Please explain why?
'Bad design' is not an explanation, it's an attempt to hide without giving any explanation.

4. We never lose control and have a lot of time to think every moment we need to think - actually, player need to think only when he is to issue new order or to react on some event.
What was wrong with TB again?

Nothing wrong with TB in this area. But the idea was to make TB more 'realistic' without sacrificing controllability, that was this sentence about.

That's fucking hilarious. Hey, Vi, why do you think chess, a great tactical game, is turn-based? Do you think they couldn't figure out how to move pieces simultaneously?

Hey, dweller, why do you think no one real life battle resembles chess?
Chess is a great ABSTRACT game (and I'm a master of it), but our goal was not to create another one ABSTRACT game (there are enough of good them already), but a game that is closer to reality. And a game with all other attributes (like weapon, ranges, etc) except turn system being realistic is as far from reality as the game with all attributes being abstract

 

[ivashkin]

2 Fez:
Hadn't you been so ridiculously rude, I'd have answered you something...

2 VD:

nobody gives a fuck about an "average speed of game world"

Are you sure?

Suppose, you're playing some Turn-Based multiplayer game. Would you care about amount of time you have to wait each time until you can make your turn again? If so, it means you really "give a fuck" about an "average speed of game world".

 

[Balor]

2 VD:
Ok, about interactivity - I guess 'continuity' fits this better, IMHO.
So, RT is fully continous - nothing interrupts your gameplay, like pauses or turns... but control suffers.
Btw, dunno about you, VD, but Exitium complained about SS having too long enemy turns.
I guess that's because he forgot already how long were turns in Ja2, expecially when you fight alongside militia.

Part of the tactics in TB (including chess) is to prepare for the "side-effects" when you can't do anything. Any moron can pause a game and order his characters to shoot, that's not tactics. Ensuring that your characters will live through the enemy's turn is."

To quote you again: "That's fucking hilarious!".
It's like: "Any fool can walk using his legs, but it takes a smart guy to bounce on your ass!".
No, it just takes a fat ass, if you understand what I mean. Do I need to elaborate?

 

[Sol Invictus]

You're right, JA2 had some pretty awfully long turns if you tried to command your militia. Usually I just skipped those and let the AI fight amongst themselves. A way to disable viewing enemy/allied turns would have been the best.

 

[Balor]

2 Fez

Why would I need to suck my own cock, Balor?

Why, that’ll be ‘killing two hares with one shot’:
1. You prove your unsurpassed manliness, like : “My balls are so large that I have to cart them in front of me, and my dick is so long that I can suck it without bending my back!”
2. Are you familiar with the custom of giving babies a soother to keep them happy and quiet? Well, in this case, you’ll be happy and quiet, and we’ll enjoy polite and productive conversation without your rants. Paradise!

For roughly $1 I can get a Russian girl to do it for me, and that includes a generous tip.

That’s strange. They usually suck ours for free, or even bring a bottle of vodka with them to soften us up. You must be really ugly or something, I guess.