Brigade E5 - a promising tactical game.

[Vault Dweller]

Please describe, why the system I described is RT?

Are you saying it's not? Are there clearly defined turns? You know what turns are, don't you? Not some time periods, but a sequential opportunity for your character(s) to act while everyone else don't. Anything else is not TB. Now, it's your turn to tell me "yes, this is exactly what we have", and we'll hug each other like brothers. Sadly, it's NOT what you have, at least according to Balor:

"SMP - is essentially realtime gameplay system, but each your action will be measured in seconds (up to one hundredth of a second), and each time there are enemies nearby, and you run out of orders - the game will be paused with a comment "out of actions" and a clickable icon of that idle char.
...
Time in SMP continuous for EVERY actor - and when game is paused, it is paused for everyone"

You may think that you've invented something here, but we saw a trruckload of "smart pause" systems and all of them were trying to pass themselves as some sort of TB. From Bioware "real-time turn-based combat" to something even more stupid like UFO Aftermath Simultaneous Action System:

"In UFO: Aftermath, we introduced our Simultaneous Action System (SAS) in which you plan out orders for your men (where to go, what to equip, whom to attack) while the game is paused. Then, you run the game, your men go carry out your orders and the game pauses when either one of them completes his plan or when something unforeseen happens like a new enemy is spotted, or a soldier comes under fire."
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? He even makes the same arguments as you do. Great mind thinks alike, don't they? :wink:

So, like I said, honesty would work much better here. If you also want to educate yourself, here is a good article on various combat systems. Also, while you are at it try to find time to look up "sequence".

It is very easy to say "bad design" without any explanation, usually it is a sign of bad education and poor knowledge

I thought that was clear: the "really small turns" that let you make only one step serve absolutely no purpose other than to introduce a RT system to run that show. So, from RT point of view, it may make sense, but as a TB element it's pointless. Basically it removes the best feature of TB: ability to execute tactical maneuvers during A turn.

Like many before you, you misunderstood what TB is all about, trying to fix what has NOT been broken: vulnerability during enemy's turns. As I've said to Balor, "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."

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

See the last paragraph above

Could you say that this system is less 'realistic' than classical 'well-balanced' TB?

Realism vs fun. Hmm, tough choice.

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.

Once again, I thought it was obvious. If nothing happens, combat is over. I don't believe I can't say it any simpler. Are you fighting with someone right now? No? Then you are not in combat. Of course, it doesn't really matter since it's a RT system.

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

Realistic? Why? Are you going to introduce eating, drinking, sleeping, and other bodily functions too? That would be very realistic, I think.

Anyway, here is a good post by Saint using The Magnificent Seven as an example:
http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=192

Here is a quote:
"So, the gunslinger gets angry, and tells the knife guy he wants to prove it by them dueling for real. When the gunslinger keeps on insisting, the knife fighter eventually stands up, and they duel again, standing about 20 to 30 feet apart. Long story short, as the gunslinger is drawing, he gets a knife hitting him and killing him.

The knife thrower was much faster than the gunslinger, capable of not only beating the gunslinger's weapon draw, but also having the knife travel accurately through the air in time to kill the gunslinger before he fired.

Turn based can do this situation flawlessly. Most turn based systems have a combat system based on how fast a character can act based on their agilty, or other attribute(s), the characters in combat are. Avernum does it. Geneforge does it. SPECIAL does it. I'm pretty sure GURPS does this as well. Because the knife thrower was more agile than the gunslinger, he won the fight. His "turn" came up first.

Now, consider this situation in real time. In real time, you have to deal with actions and animations also going on at the same time. You have three animation sequences for this fight. The knife flying through the air, the knife thrower drawing and throwing the knife, and the gun slinger drawing his weapon. Each of these animations will have a certain fixed frame count per second. "

Hey, dweller, why do you think no one real life battle resembles chess?

Not another HAEV U EVAR SEEN A TURN-BAESD BATTLE IN REAL LIFE!!!!! argument.

I can't believe you guys. I've always thought and hoped that Russians will deliver us from the RT evil, and here you are doing the same stuff and saying the same stupid things that your North American counterparts do.

Chess is a great ABSTRACT game

Picking your nose is a great abstract game, chess is a great tactical game first, and any other crap like abstract second.

and I'm a master of it

We are all very impressed.

...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.

Well, God bless then. I don't know the ratio of morons to smart people in Russia, but if it's anything like in North America, you game will be very successful.

 

[Vault Dweller]

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".

All it takes to handle that properly is to add a time limit like in timed chess. I'd rather wait a bit than lose tactical elements.

Btw, dunno about you, VD, but Exitium complained about SS having too long enemy turns.

Easy to fix - enemies move simultaneously during their turn. It has been done. Anyway, there are flawed implementations of TB, that doesn't mean that the system is broken and needs to be replaced with something. Having said that, SS was one of the best TB games I've seen in years. It gives me hope.

Quote:
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?

Yes, please. Address the point, especially the last sentence.

 

[Fez]

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

I asked no questions, so I'd do it all over again exactly the same way, you get no tears from me, sparky. I'll quite happily cut off my nose to spite my face.

Just make a decent, stable, game that doesn't vanish into vaporware land, is not a buggy mess with, tragically, a few good ideas buried underneath and then you'll have my respect. Until then you are just another evil commie that McCarthy warned us of.

P.S hope you enjoyed the "traditional" welcome. Don't forget to collect your free side-order of "YOUR MOM" from the buffet table.

That’s strange. They usually suck ours for free, or even bring a bottle of vodka with them to soften us up.

Naah, all the good looking ones have left your shit-hole of country to become "RUSSIAN BRIDES!!!11" and prostitutes. Just look at the spam on most forums and inboxes for evidence. As soon as they get a sniff of a foreign passport they are like limpets.

Any girl that needs to get a guy to drink a bottle of vodka before he'll let her near his cock must be a beast and barely human. You can keep them. Though that does explain why you have a declining population. Who wants to fuck those mutant Russians when your sober?

You should go to America(AKA The Promised Land), if you have some decent skills you've a chance of getting in. The place could do with some immigrants who know what the inside of a school looks like, rather than just make babies and crime. Or you could get your country to pull it's shit together and stop being such a pig sty. Start invading your neighbours again. Those assassinations you do now are just weak. Where's the spirit of the good old days of the cold war gone? It gave me a warm fuzzy feeling to know that there was a chance that Westwood's Red Alert might happen one day, and then you just let us all down by becoming pussies. North Korea is the last of the good old dictator madmen, that you can really rely on to push a cold war to the limit, but they are no replacement.

Tool up and start the sabre rattling again! We need some new inspiration for games and movies and a new cold war is ideal. :D

 

[Balor]

Naah, all the good looking ones have left your shit-hole of country to become "RUSSIAN BRIDES!!!11" and prostitutes. Just look at the spam on most forums and inboxes for evidence. As soon as they get a sniff of a foreign passport they are like limpets.

Heh, that's what YOU think.
Those are just pityful outcasts, too puny to find a partner in Russia. I cannot blame them - it's a good idea. In comparison to lard mounds and/or cold feminist bitches that women are in other countries, even the ugliest Russian woman is Miss Universe. (Hint-hint).

*snip*
Tool up and start the sabre rattling again! We need some new inspiration for games and movies and a new cold war is ideal.

Why you need an other boring cold war when US already has rather hot war with so-called International Terrorists and one in Iraq? There are games about it already, and nice ones - think Batllefield 2.
And besides, if Bush will continue his show of stupidity, US will be drawn into war with Iran too.
Now that would be MUCH more fun! At least , way funnier then war with USSR/Russia. What can be fun about nuclear missle exchange? Well, those nuclear mushrooms do look pretty, at first... provided one will not blow too close, burning your eyes out, or simple evaporating you.
But war with Iran - oh, it would be so fun!
Read here, share my mirth:
http://www.exile.ru/2005-January-27/war_nerd.html

 

[Balor]

2 VD
Ok, VD, now let's think - why TB sounds so magical for you? It's just one of the systems to control characters, that's all.
It must give you the most control of the situation by giving you unlimited thinking on you next move, as well as unlimited time to react.
Now, imagine the a system with turns like 0.01 seconds short, and the 'end turn' button get's pressed automatically each time nothing important happens. And by 'nothing important' we mean that there is nothing that might cause you to replan your current strategy.
Like, you have one character, it's running from a mob of angry bandits with knifes and guns.
While he has an active order, you don't need to touch controls - therefore, turns get skipped automatically. (You can stop this by pressing space button anytime, though).
But, as you run close to the door of the building you were trying to hide in, an other bandit walks out, carrying an SMG...
'New enemy sighted' trigger fires - the 'end turn' button does not get pressed.
You turn to think what to do:
You can try to sprint around the corner.
You can run up to the man and attempt to bash his face in before he’ll rise his gun.
You can, if you have a fast weapon, like a good pistol, go 'gunslinger'-style and shoot him.
You may start to run in a different direction, hoping that you'll be far enough for him to miss you when he'll open fire.
Ok.
Now imagine what how it will look like in, say, SS (or J2, for instance, for that matter).
You spend a few turns running up to this building, waiting for enemy turn each time. (and if there are a lot of bandits, you’ll have to wait a long time).
Then, you run to the door (and no ‘careful planning’ here, cause if you’ll save APs for a shot or runaway each turn (and not that it’ll help you much), you’ll be chased down and killed), and we return to the already mentioned situation:
You have 0 AP - so you are helpless, and enemy with enough APs for a few bursts is right in front of you. So, unless you’ll go save-load frenzy, you’re totally screwed.
What’s so tactical in that?
Now, that’s situation where you cannot interrupt.
Now, an other situation - right from Ja2.
You lying on the roof. There are enemies down below, lot’s of em. All of them wait for you to make your move - therefore, have full APs.
Now, you go from prone to crouch. Instantly, before you have a chance to do anything:
Interrupt, and you are riddled full of bullets, each enemy taking a few shots at you.
In SPM system, it will depend you their reaction time, your reaction time (ingame characters, not your reaction as a player), and how fast you’ll be able to shoot after getting up, and getting back down. If you are fast and don’t fire too much, you’ll be able to fire off a few rounds before someone would be able do anything. Of course, there is a feature that allow a shooter to ‘cover’ a certain area, and shoot the very instant someone appears... but it has rather narrow range, so appearing in different spots will make it harder to cover you (just like in RL). Also, it is tiring (unless you are using bipods).
And with no dumb hacks like: IF you are higher level, you cannot be interrupted, and vice versa.
And about the ‘survive the enemy turn’...
Well, if you don’t understand allegories, here is indepth explanation:
If someone (You, in this case) says: This way (logical one) is stupid, any fool can make it this way. Now, this way (illogical and perverted) require way more wits. Therefore, it’s the best way, or you are ass-dumb fools.
That’s EXACTLY what you were saying about ‘surviving next turn’.
You think that makes you a genius? It just makes you a hard-headed smartass.
You know what? That reminds me the arguments in ‘Playing AD&D wizards is too hard’ thread.
While I agree that playing it can be fun, it’s just illogical, interface-heavy(in CRPGs) and over-simplified (in terms of calculation) system, since it was made with PnP in mind. It rocks in PnP, on computer it sucks. Or you think that D20 tohit chance, d6 damage rolls or, heh, THAC0 is the best thing humans came up with, and should NEVAR be changed?
Same goes about your comparisons about chess and CRPGs.

 

[Fez]

Why you need an other boring cold war when US already has rather hot war with so-called International Terrorists and one in Iraq? There are games about it already, and nice ones - think Batllefield 2.
And besides, if Bush will continue his show of stupidity, US will be drawn into war with Iran too.
Now that would be MUCH more fun! At least , way funnier then war with USSR/Russia. What can be fun about nuclear missle exchange? Well, those nuclear mushrooms do look pretty, at first... provided one will not blow too close, burning your eyes out, or simple evaporating you.
But war with Iran - oh, it would be so fun!l

But I want my PA wasteland. Russia was the only one who could help us get it.

I've read that article before. That site is not bad but the quality varies too much. The editor needs to get brutal.

 

[Balor]

2 Fez:
Oh, don't pout.
With invention of nanotech, anyone will be able to arrange a full-scale PA with one small vial, rest assured. I even have a setting ready .
However, Russia being USA's only hope does sound pleasing somehow :D.

 

[Fulby]

Anyway, here is a good post by Saint using The Magnificent Seven as an example:
http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=192

Here is a quote:
"So, the gunslinger gets angry, and tells the knife guy he wants to prove it by them dueling for real. When the gunslinger keeps on insisting, the knife fighter eventually stands up, and they duel again, standing about 20 to 30 feet apart. Long story short, as the gunslinger is drawing, he gets a knife hitting him and killing him.

The knife thrower was much faster than the gunslinger, capable of not only beating the gunslinger's weapon draw, but also having the knife travel accurately through the air in time to kill the gunslinger before he fired.

Turn based can do this situation flawlessly. Most turn based systems have a combat system based on how fast a character can act based on their agilty, or other attribute(s), the characters in combat are. Avernum does it. Geneforge does it. SPECIAL does it. I'm pretty sure GURPS does this as well. Because the knife thrower was more agile than the gunslinger, he won the fight. His "turn" came up first.

Now, consider this situation in real time. In real time, you have to deal with actions and animations also going on at the same time. You have three animation sequences for this fight. The knife flying through the air, the knife thrower drawing and throwing the knife, and the gun slinger drawing his weapon. Each of these animations will have a certain fixed frame count per second. "

Why not speed up the knife thrower's animation or slow down the gunslinger's? If the knife thrower is that fast you may just see a blur of his hands and a shimmer in the air - then the knife is sticking out of the gunslinger's chest and his half-drawn pistol slips from his grasp as he falls.

Fulby

 

[Vault Dweller]

Ok, VD, now let's think - why TB sounds so magical for you? It's just one of the systems to control characters, that's all.

And RPG is just one of the genres where you control a character. Not really all that different from Doom. Is that what you are saying? No? Then be more specific and cut on the generalization.

TB sounds so magical to me because all the great tactical games that I've enjoyed were ... surprise! ...TB. Civ, X-Com, Fallout, ToEE, JA2, Silent Storm, Realms of Arkania - just to name a few. Games where combat sucked, coincidentally, were RT. Speaking of X-Com, did you guys play X-Com: Apocalypse? You know, the one with that RT crap with teh pause mode? Did that game suck or what?

Now, imagine the a system with turns like 0.01 seconds short, and the 'end turn' button get's pressed automatically

The. Most. Idiotic. Thing. Evar. Please don't repeat that again. Turns that are 0.01 are pointless because you can NOT do ANYTHING in that time. By the same logic every RT game ever made is turn-based because 1 sec=1 turn. Think about it.

'New enemy sighted' trigger fires - the 'end turn' button does not get pressed.
You turn to think what to do:
You can try to sprint around the corner.
You can run up to the man and attempt to bash his face in before he’ll rise his gun.
You can, if you have a fast weapon, like a good pistol, go 'gunslinger'-style and shoot him.
You may start to run in a different direction, hoping that you'll be far enough for him to miss you when he'll open fire.

Wow! It's so tactical! I can't believe I couldn't see that before. 2 options: attack or run. I'm overwhelmed by the complexity.

Now imagine what how it will look like in, say, SS (or J2, for instance, for that matter).
You spend a few turns running up to this building, waiting for enemy turn each time. (and if there are a lot of bandits, you’ll have to wait a long time).
Then, you run to the door (and no ‘careful planning’ here, cause if you’ll save APs for a shot or runaway each turn (and not that it’ll help you much), you’ll be chased down and killed), and we return to the already mentioned situation:
You have 0 AP - so you are helpless, and enemy with enough APs for a few bursts is right in front of you. So, unless you’ll go save-load frenzy, you’re totally screwed.
What’s so tactical in that?

Nothing and that's why you are dead. After you reload you'll probably think of a better plan, and hopefully it would be actually based on some tactics instead of run-n-gun stuff.

And about the ‘survive the enemy turn’...
Well, if you don’t understand allegories, here is indepth explanation:
If someone (You, in this case) says: This way (logical one) is stupid, any fool can make it this way. Now, this way (illogical and perverted) require way more wits. Therefore, it’s the best way, or you are ass-dumb fools.
That’s EXACTLY what you were saying about ‘surviving next turn’.

Balor, I'm beginning to suspect that you are stupid and I'm wasting my time here with you. Btw, the so-called logical way is not all that logical because it assumes quite a lot (your ability to react instantly, for example) and removes quite a lot. Here is one example, my SS scout sneaks behind 2 enemies and quickly and silently kills them. Sounds very realistic too me. The same situation is impossible in RT because we all attack at the same time - there is no advantage, there is no element of surprise, there is no bonus for being faster initially.

Anyway, in regard to surviving the enemy's turn, take boxing for example. Any fool can throw a punch, but a skilled boxer is the one who can throw a punch AND survive a counter attack. Boxing is a turn-based sport 90% of the time because when one attacks one has to open up and thus becomes the most vulnerable for a split second which is the best moment to attack. So, when one attacks another often waits for an opening or attacks after he was attacked, before the opponent recovers completly. In other words, they take turns attacking each other. You don't see 2 opponents hitting each other as fast as they can very often, do you? So, surving "enemy's turn" is an important factor here, probably more important than your own ability to attack.

While I agree that playing it can be fun, it’s just illogical...

I stopped reading after you said it's fun. Whatever else you had to say was irrelevant.

It rocks in PnP, on computer it sucks. Or you think that D20 tohit chance, d6 damage rolls or, heh, THAC0 is the best thing humans came up with, and should NEVAR be changed?

lol. What a foolish thing to say. No, obviosuly the best thing humans came up with is REAL-TIEM WIHT TEH PAUSE!!!!!

Same goes about your comparisons about chess and CRPGs.

Your reading comprehension sucks. I didn't compare chess to CRPGs, I listed chess as one of the examples of tactical turn-based combat which is what it is. How's education system in Russia these days?

 

[Balor]

“Subject: VD post.

Applying sense and logic filter...

Filtering in progress...

Filtering complete. Results:

TB sounds so magical to me because all the great tactical games that I've enjoyed were ... surprise! ...TB. Civ, X-Com, Fallout, ToEE, JA2, Silent Storm, Realms of Arkania - just to name a few. Games where combat sucked, coincidentally, were RT. Speaking of X-Com, did you guys play X-Com: Apocalypse? You know, the one with that RT crap with teh pause mode? Did that game suck or what?

Subject is committing fallacy of Biased Sample and Hasty Generalization.

The. Most. Idiotic. Thing. Evar. Please don't repeat that again. Turns that are 0.01 are pointless because you can NOT do ANYTHING in that time. By the same logic every RT game ever made is turn-based because 1 sec=1 turn. Think about it.

Subject is missing the point and generally being stupid.

Wow! It's so tactical! I can't believe I couldn't see that before. 2 options: attack or run. I'm overwhelmed by the complexity.

Subject missed out the fact that there are multiple options of attack and retreat actions, not to mention missing the point again.

So, unless you’ll go save-load frenzy, you’re totally screwed.

Nothing and that's why you are dead. After you reload you'll probably think of a better plan, and hopefully it would be actually based on some tactics instead of run-n-gun stuff.

Funny level - 100%. (And what if I'm playing Iron man?)

Balor, I'm beginning to suspect that you are stupid and I'm wasting my time here with you. Btw, the so-called logical way is not all that logical because it assumes quite a lot (your ability to react instantly, for example) and removes quite a lot. Here is one example, my SS scout sneaks behind 2 enemies and quickly and silently kills them. Sounds very realistic too me. The same situation is impossible in RT because we all attack at the same time - there is no advantage, there is no element of surprise, there is no bonus for being faster initially.

Subject assumes that some flaws in TB system are, in fact, it's merits. Funny level - 100%.
Subject fails to comprehend that if something is physically impossible in real time, in cannot be "very realistic". Subject has a flaw in his logic.

I stopped reading after you said it's fun. Whatever else you had to say was irrelevant.

Subject fails to notice "can", that was inserted there due to a noticeable amount of people who like AD&D wizardy system notheless. Subject, therefore, has a flaw in his logic.

Same goes about your comparisons about chess and CRPGs.

There was a error in the source document. It should read "tactics".
Conclusion:

Subject is evading bridging up critical arguments against Turn-Based system, committing fallacies, extends personal feelings on everyone and treats them like facts, and is reduced to mockery instead of logical reasoning.
Analysis:

Subject IQ is around 90 and vaning.
Suggestion:

Rest and meditation to ensure calm and logical approach to discussion.”

Read and take heed, VD.

 

[Vi]

Please describe, why the system I described is RT?

Are you saying it's not? Are there clearly defined turns? You know what turns are, don't you? Not some time periods, but a sequential opportunity for your character(s) to act while everyone else don't.

Yes, there ARE clearly defined turns in the system I've described, a sequential opportunity for your character(s) to act while everyone else don't - these are those short turns. Yes, these turns are short, but they ARE turns

Sadly, it's NOT what you have, at least according to Balor:

Please do not mix system I've described with what Balor described, I'm talking about the first one.

You may think that you've invented something here, but we saw a trruckload of "smart pause" systems and all of them were trying to pass themselves as some sort of TB.

I know. But I still haven't heard why the system I described is not TB.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? He even makes the same arguments as you do. Great mind thinks alike, don't they? :wink:

SPM was prior to UFO:A, and it's developers recognized this fact

So, like I said, honesty would work much better here. If you also want to educate yourself, here is a good article on various combat systems.

Had a look
You know, Ivashkin had his masters degree on various combat systems and I was his scientific advisor
There are just nothing new for me there, but it's interesting overall, thanks for the link.

I thought that was clear: the "really small turns" that let you make only one step serve absolutely no purpose other than to introduce a RT system to run that show. So, from RT point of view, it may make sense, but as a TB element it's pointless. Basically it removes the best feature of TB: ability to execute tactical maneuvers during A turn.

Well, now I at least understand why we do not understand each other
You just do not think 'non-realistic' nature of classical TB is disadvantage. Your point is that it is actually a great advantage.
Here I can say nothing. I must agree that with such understanding the described system is not good for you because its main idea was to eliminate this 'advantage'.

Like many before you, you misunderstood what TB is all about ...

Let's change this to 'what TB is all about for VD' and I agree with you

Realism vs fun. Hmm, tough choice.

Once again, 'realism vs fun in VD's understanding' and I agree with you. Not all people are the same
For me more realism without sacrificing controllability is more fun.

Realistic? Why? Are you going to introduce eating, drinking, sleeping, and other bodily functions too? That would be very realistic, I think.

How implementation of eating is related to RT or TB system? Both allows to do this.
Ok, if a game without all these is not 'realistic' for you, it's your right to call it non-realistic. For me, as I've said before, more realistic game means absence of long turns when one side can do anything they want while others just stand like dolls

Anyway, here is a good post by Saint using The Magnificent Seven as an example:
http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=192

Here is a quote:
"So, the gunslinger gets angry, and tells the knife guy he wants to prove it by them dueling for real. When the gunslinger keeps on insisting, the knife fighter eventually stands up, and they duel again, standing about 20 to 30 feet apart. Long story short, as the gunslinger is drawing, he gets a knife hitting him and killing him.

The knife thrower was much faster than the gunslinger, capable of not only beating the gunslinger's weapon draw, but also having the knife travel accurately through the air in time to kill the gunslinger before he fired.

Turn based can do this situation flawlessly.

SPM as well.

Most turn based systems have a combat system based on how fast a character can act based on their agilty, or other attribute(s), the characters in combat are.

SPM as well.

Because the knife thrower was more agile than the gunslinger, he won the fight. His "turn" came up first.

With SPM he will also win, but not because his 'turn' will come up
first, but because he'll finish his action (knife throwing) first. Isn't is closer to real life?

Now, consider this situation in real time. In real time, you have to deal with actions and animations also going on at the same time. You have three animation sequences for this fight. The knife flying through the air, the knife thrower drawing and throwing the knife, and the gun slinger drawing his weapon. Each of these animations will have a certain fixed frame count per second.

Does the author know every animation could be played slower or faster?
Does the author know that besides animations there are in-game mechanismes that control things like 'aiming', without predefined time and animations? Or he thinks only classical TBs could have anything else besides animations? I mean in-game mechanismes.

SPM handles this situation flawlessly. Not worse than any classical TB. Even better, because in classical TB poor gunslinger will not even have a chance to start drawing his weapon but with SPM he will be killed while doing this

But imagine the slightly modified situation. It may happen that knife thrower was just as agile as the gunslinger and according to game logic there are no advantage to any side. Who will have his 'turn' first in TB? Who will win? Why?
In SPM they will kill each other simultaneously. Is it possible in any classical TB system?

Well, God bless then. I don't know the ratio of morons to smart people in Russia, but if it's anything like in North America, you game will be very successful.

Please do not be so stupid to say 'if somebody thinks not like I do, then he is a moron' However, looks like this is in blood of most americans

I understand and respect your attitude to TB system and will not try to convince SPM is better for YOU, but please do not try to explain me that SPM is crap just because you really like the 'non-realistic' nature of classical TB. Agreed?

 

[Balor]

Great mind thinks alike, don't they?

Subject assumes that some flaws in TB system are, in fact, it's merits.

You just do not think 'non-realistic' nature of classical TB is disadvantage. Your point is that it is actually a great advantage.

In fact, they do. ;D

 

[Vault Dweller]

“Subject: VD post.
Applying sense and logic filter...
Filtering in progress...
Filtering complete. Results:

What a wonderful robot impression. Do you have any other talents? Btw, did you notice that you didn't really reply to any of my points in 2 posts?

Subject is committing fallacy of Biased Sample and Hasty Generalization.

Coming from a guy who said that TB is just another way to control your character.

The. Most. Idiotic. Thing. Evar. Please don't repeat that again. Turns that are 0.01 are pointless because you can NOT do ANYTHING in that time. By the same logic every RT game ever made is turn-based because 1 sec=1 turn. Think about it.

Subject is missing the point and generally being stupid.

I'll try that again in simpler terms. Turns have a certain functionality, other than measuring time. When turns that are reduced to 0.01 seconds this functionality is destroyed. Do you get it now?

Anyway, if you want to have a conversation, present your arguments and address my points in a manner other than "Subject assumes that some flaws in TB system are, in fact, it's merits."

Subject is evading bridging up critical arguments against Turn-Based system, committing fallacies, extends personal feelings on everyone and treats them like facts, and is reduced to mockery instead of logical reasoning.

You were the one who started "extending personal feelings and mocking" so don't blame me for giving you a taste.

 

[Vault Dweller]

In fact, they do. ;D

Shush, Balor, let the grown ups talk.

Vi, I don't have time now to consider your points and reply properly, but I'll do that tonight.

 

[Balor]

Btw, did you notice that you didn't really reply to any of my points in 2 posts?

There is no point to reply anymore.
We will never understand each other, and for the very “Subject assumes that some flaws in TB system are, in fact, it's merits.” reason.
We dwell in different dimensions. I and developers of E5 think that combat system must be as realistic as possible, and find that realism == fun.
You think it must be at first fun, and then controllable, and then realistic. In fact, it looks like you cherish the ‘unrealism’ of TB, therefore, realism != fun.
I agree, not everything that’s realistic can be fun - talking about ‘other bodily functions’... but hey, SIMs has them, and no one complains. :D
So, ‘letting the grown-ups talk’. While I’ll not be able to influence you - I’m not knowledgeable and smart enough, I admit - perhaps Vi and ivashkin will smack you down after all.
But I fear, just like many times before, both sides will not convince each other in anything... not gonna happen when subjective feelings are involved.
It can go on forever, just like a discussion what’s tastier - apples or oranges.
But realism - is an absolute value, am I right?

 

[Vault Dweller]

There is no point to reply anymore.

As you wish.

We will never understand each other, and for the very “Subject assumes that some flaws in TB system are, in fact, it's merits.” reason.

Another silly thing to say. Try to stay objective and consider what I've said. I perfectly understood you and your position, although I disagreed. Every medal has two sides, try to see both, and then jump to conclusions.

I and developers of E5 think that combat system must be as realistic as possible

No combat system is flawless in the realism department. There are some situations that real time mode presents more realistically. There are some sitiations that turn-based mode presents more realistically (2 examples above). Simple as that.

...perhaps Vi and ivashkin will smack you down after all.

Vi sounds like he's more interested in a discussion than in smacking someone down. Once again, not everything is about right and wrong. Sometimes simple exchange of positions is fun. I don't expect Vi to agree with everything I say and to scrap his precious real time mode just because we've had a conversation.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yes, there ARE clearly defined turns in the system I've described, a sequential opportunity for your character(s) to act while everyone else don't - these are those short turns. Yes, these turns are short, but they ARE turns
...

Please do not mix system I've described with what Balor described, I'm talking about the first one.

My mistake. Disregard the comments that were directed at your SPM system instead of your proposed TB system then.

You just do not think 'non-realistic' nature of classical TB is disadvantage. Your point is that it is actually a great advantage.

Yep.

Here I can say nothing. I must agree that with such understanding the described system is not good for you because its main idea was to eliminate this 'advantage'.

The proposed TB system brings the system closer to RT, so the way I see it, you don't evolve TB but reinvent RT. One can argue that RT is TB with split seconds turns.

Let's change this to 'what TB is all about for VD' and I agree with you

I think it's time to ask an important question: what's TB for you?

Realism vs fun. Hmm, tough choice.

Once again, 'realism vs fun in VD's understanding' and I agree with you.

And yet I don't see "fun" on your banner. You are putting realism first, and that's how you are trying to sell the concept, are you not?

How implementation of eating is related to RT or TB system? Both allows to do this.

That was a jab at "realism is cool" position. :wink:

For me, as I've said before, more realistic game means absence of long turns when one side can do anything they want while others just stand like dolls

One of the tactical elements in TB is thinking ahead, planning not only your attacks, but also your ability to withstand attacks against you after. Just like chess that you are a master of. Of course, implementation may suck and reduce a game to exchanging blows and "standing like dolls", but that's not a flaw of the system.

Anyway, here is a good post by Saint using The Magnificent Seven as an example:
..

Turn based can do this situation flawlessly.

SPM as well.

Can you paint me a picture?

Most turn based systems have a combat system based on how fast a character can act based on their agilty, or other attribute(s), the characters in combat are.

SPM as well.

Same as above

Because the knife thrower was more agile than the gunslinger, he won the fight. His "turn" came up first.

With SPM he will also win, but not because his 'turn' will come up
first, but because he'll finish his action (knife throwing) first. Isn't is closer to real life?

But won't the other guy start shooting when the knife is thrown or shortly after, and thus would have a chance to hit (and kill) the knife expert regardless of the speed of the thrown knife?

Even better, because in classical TB poor gunslinger will not even have a chance to start drawing his weapon but with SPM he will be killed while doing this

Can you explain that too? I understand what you are saying, but I want to see some numbers, if you don't mind.

But imagine the slightly modified situation. It may happen that knife thrower was just as agile as the gunslinger and according to game logic there are no advantage to any side. Who will have his 'turn' first in TB? Who will win? Why?
In SPM they will kill each other simultaneously. Is it possible in any classical TB system?

No, of course not. There are situations that work better in RT, there are situations that work better in TB. Some are more fun and rewarding to players than others though.

I understand and respect your attitude to TB system and will not try to convince SPM is better for YOU, but please do not try to explain me that SPM is crap just because you really like the 'non-realistic' nature of classical TB. Agreed?

I don't believe I tried to convince you that what you are doing is stupid. If I did, my apologies. The remarks about the moron ratio is based on market statistics and pseudo-scientfic observations and was an equivalent of a "wish you luck" comment.

Agreed.

Now, in regard to your TB system:

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.

The way I see it, trying to deal with a disadvantage, you've killed the biggest advantage of the system, thus taking away the main and only reason to have TB in the first place.

No more stupid tactics like "fast approach-knife hit-run away" N times against machinegunner. Because it will cost you a lot of turns to approach this machinegunner and much less for him to shoot you.

Flawed implementation, not a flawed system. Fallout had a good balance of movements & attacks in a single turn. Silent Storm was way to generous there, coming close to breaking the 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.

Now we have basically a RT system, and we already have that.

 

[Vi]

Yes, there ARE clearly defined turns in the system I've described, a sequential opportunity for your character(s) to act while everyone else don't - these are those short turns. Yes, these turns are short, but they ARE turns
...
Please do not mix system I've described with what Balor described, I'm talking about the first one.

My mistake. Disregard the comments that were directed at your SPM system instead of your proposed TB system then.

Actually, I did the mistake first when typed "we call it SPM", as actually SPM is not exactly the system I've described, but the modifyed one, when the turn is not very short, but absent at all So SPM is clearly RTwP, all my posts about 'ideal TB' were written to describe how and why we came to SPM from classical TB

I think as with TBs, implementation matters a lot when creating RT game. You know, I hate classical RTs like C&C, Warcraft, etc. My favorites are JA2 and X-COM. In these games I like the possibility to think and to plan. But I do not like it's 'unrealism' mostly not because I cannot predict what will happen during enemy turn (you are right, it's one of things that makes TBs more fun), but because there are standard 'tricks' I may use to kill any enemy without need to think Like 'turn round a corner - fire - turn back' tactics

So my goal was to create a gaming system that has all I like in good old games like JA2 (ability to think, to plan, total control of your soldiers, game system that makes skills of your soldiers very important, no need to have a good reaction, etc), but without (or at least less) things that allow me to win without thinking.

The proposed TB system brings the system closer to RT, so the way I see it, you don't evolve TB but reinvent RT. One can argue that RT is TB with split seconds turns.

Basically you are right. From the formal point of view RT is a TB with micro turns. Actually, what differs TBs is a 'long enough' turns that makes it 'feel' like TB

Let's change this to 'what TB is all about for VD' and I agree with you
I think it's time to ask an important question: what's TB for you?

I guess I've just aswered several lines above

For me, as I've said before, more realistic game means absence of long turns when one side can do anything they want while others just stand like dolls

One of the tactical elements in TB is thinking ahead, planning not only your attacks, but also your ability to withstand attacks against you after. Just like chess that you are a master of. Of course, implementation may suck and reduce a game to exchanging blows and "standing like dolls", but that's not a flaw of the system.

Agreed. But my point of view that for, say, RTwP implementation may suck and reduce a game to mouse hunting and constant exchange of fire, but that's not a flaw of the system

Anyway, here is a good post by Saint using The Magnificent Seven as an example:
..

Turn based can do this situation flawlessly.

SPM as well.

Can you paint me a picture?

Sure. Just a picture from E5
Mercs at E5 have a lot of attributes. For this example we need the following ones:
- speed, experience, agility, gunfighting, shooting, adoptation to current weapon, distance and weapon characteristics for gunslinger
- speed, experience, agility, strength, throwing and distance for knifemaster
Also things like HP, Energy, Vision, wounds make their influence.
Reaction skill also may influence in some cases.

Now, start fighting. Players give 'kill enemy' order for both of them (let's assume we are in Multiplayer , or one player is actually AI no difference).
For gunslinger this order means the folliwing sequence of actions:
- turn (n1 milliseconds, where n1 is defined mostly by 'speed' and 'agility' attributes)
- prepare weapon (n2 - calculated from experience, agility, gunfighting, adoptation)
- aim (n3 - caclulated from experience, shooting, gunfighting, distance, weapon)
- fire (n4 - weapon)
+ add a very small n5 for bullet flight time

For knifemaster:
- turn (k1 - speed, agility)
- aim and throw knife (k2 - experience, throwing)
+ not very small k3 for knife flight time (came from distance and strength).

If we consider 100% chances to hit for each, then:
For knife master to kill gunslinger and survive we need k1+k2+k3 < n1+n2+n3+n4
For gunslinger to kill knife master and survive we need k1+k2 > n1+n2+n3+n3+n4+n5
They will kill each other in other cases.

So, the more agile and experienced knifethrower is, the less k1 and k2 are, strength reduces k3. Note also, that k3 and n5 times are not included in actions, knifethrower may start for example laying or running away right after k1+k2.

If talk in numbers, for thrower to kill gunslinger in ten metres and survive we need for example such skills combination (out of 100 max):
gunslinger knifemaster
speed 50 60
agility 50 70
experience 50 60
throwing - 40
gunfighting 40 -
adoptation 50 -
shooting 50 -

Sure there are a lot of such combinations
But basically it is more difficult to become a knife master

And only after all calculations we get the necessary speed for all animations, etc. to visualize this.

So the idea is that game mathematics is a primary thing, all animations, etc. are based on it.

With SPM he will also win, but not because his 'turn' will come up
first, but because he'll finish his action (knife throwing) first. Isn't is closer to real life?

But won't the other guy start shooting when the knife is thrown or shortly after, and thus would have a chance to hit (and kill) the knife expert regardless of the speed of the thrown knife?

If the other guy is gunfighter expert, he will certainly have such chance.
The difference between classical TB and SPM is that in TB there are two clearly defined possibilities:
1. Gunslinger's stats are any higher, so he will 'move' first and kill knifemaster
2. Gunslinger's stats are any lower, so he should 'move' second and will killed by knifemaster who 'moves' first

With SPM there are three possibilities:
1. Gunslinger's stats are noticeble higher, so he will shoot first and kill knifemaster
2. Gunslinger's stats are noticeble lower, so he will killed by knifemaster because knifemaster will manage to throw knife even before gunslinger starts firing
3. Skills of both are nearly equal, they will kill each other.

No, of course not. There are situations that work better in RT, there are situations that work better in TB. Some are more fun and rewarding to players than others though.

Sure, totaly agree
Also there is a personal taste of player, something is more fun for one and something for others

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.

The way I see it, trying to deal with a disadvantage, you've killed the biggest advantage of the system, thus taking away the main and only reason to have TB in the first place.

Well, you are right from your point of view, but I connot totally agree, as for me the biggest advantage of TB is not a necessity to think how to survive enemy turn, but a feeling of total control of your characters and no reason to rush. This was kept.

Personally I think that it is more important to think about general battle flow than to care how to survive enemy turn. And this applies to chess as well I think this is an artificial restriction because this never happens in real life. BTW in chess you also have really short turns compared to classical TB games - just one step turns as in system I've described
For me tactics is the art of using all your advantages at any given moment

 

[Sooner]

Something that strikes me here

Personally I think the major flaw with all real time systems is not being able to see the entire battle field. At any one time you are only seeing a small portion of it, and when a fight is occuring, you essentially leave it up to the AI to decided what to do for the first few seconds, while you focus your screen on that area.

What Vi has laid out so painstakingly here is in my opinion, a pretty decent balance between true turn based systems, and the real time chaos that I experience in most RTS games.

I honestly don't think you can understand how well it works without first trying the demo and seeing it in action. If you are interested in the considerably old version it is available at
http://ja2mods.de/downscript/index.php?action=showonekat&id=55.

While this version is quite old, 6-8 months at least if I am correct, it will illustrate better than any post could, how this individual system works. Calling it Smart Pause or any other name tends to get it confused with other systems that share the same name but differ in their implementation. I guess what I am getting at is this, try the system and judge it on the advantages or disadvantages you perceive before blasting it.

 

[space captain]

Realtime is always more realistic than turn based because Turn Based games are based on Chess and other board games where YOU TAKE TURNS ... where as realtime means everything occurs IN REAL TIME

so its obvious which is more akin to REAL LIFE... the question is does it make the game better or more immersive? Sometimes TBS is the only way to accurately convey the real life experience of the game - since the game interface is so much less sophisticated than a real life scenario itself.

The best system IMO for squad level strategy is turn-based with full interupt abilities and non-linear initiatives for the characters.

But the current excuse is that real-time is the market darling, and TBS games dont get funding.

 

[Sooner]

Well in the specific system described in this thread, I would have to say yes, it does make the gameplay more immersive and immensely more tactical.

My only gripe with turn based, and mind you this is coming from someone who is still playing Jagged Alliance regularly, is that a lot of things just did not make sense. For instance lets take the following scenario: I am creeping down the street slowly and quietly when I come to an open door. I stand up, and turn towards the door and slowly sidestep into the opening, trying to cover each new angle of the room as I move. Suddely I spot an enemy, with his back to me, but fairly close. At this point he gets an interrupt, turns and point blank delivers some 00 buck directly into my forehead.

Not sure how many of you are gun users in real life but while a shotgun is pretty much a point and shoot weapon, there are not many people who could spin, aim and fire the shotgun against someone with a pistol without them even getting a shot off.

Likewise you can run around the corner, shove a knife in the enemies ribs and then run back while he stands there looking like a moron. Turn based also generally fails to factor in movement. Have you ever tried shoot something from 200 meters that is at a dead sprint? It really is not as easy as line the scope up and fire, nor is it a shot that is even taken most of the time if the person is really serious about hitting their target.

I do totally agree that the market seems to be in love with real time and online games, and I think this is due to several factors. Most MMORPG's ship with very little that works like they said it would but, with your continuing payment of 15 dollars a month they continue to work on it. In six months or a year, often the game is pretty close to what was described on the box when you bought it, but you have now paid $300+ for something that was promised to you when it was released. This means that a company now has much more time to "test" the game and they also solve the issue of having no cashflow from the game while doing it.

Mainly I miss the games that took a chance, and tried a new idea. Some of them fell flat on their face but lets face it, there have been some really good single player games over the last decade. As the gaming population ages, I think single player games will develop more of a market as our time to play decreases. I know I surely don't have the 8 hour gaming sessions that I once did, but family will tend to do that.

 

[Seven]

You what I find ironic, it's the lawyering that's gone on in this thread. Basically, you're taking a definition of TB (disregarding the definition of RT), and then saying that RT is TB. At a certain point some one has to say, enough. You want to create an RT experience that feels like TB, hey sure, whatever floats your boat. Why bother trying to pretend that it's any thing else? I don't get it, seems like much ado about nothing.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Realtime is always more realistic than turn based because Turn Based games are based on Chess and other board games where YOU TAKE TURNS

Okay. I've said it a bazillion times and I'll say it again. There is no way realtime can be more realistic than turn-based unless you, the person behind the computer, have all the training that the unit you are controlling in realtime has. It's just not going to happen. Why? Because you cannot think like that unit is supposed to in a realtime environment. You don't have all the training that unit has in whatever field they are endeavouring in. With turn-based, you have the option of going over every detail of your units abilities and choosing the right one for the situation. Something they WOULD be able to do in realtime because they are trained for it. That is more realistic to me.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

You what I find ironic, it's the lawyering that's gone on in this thread. Basically, you're taking a definition of TB (disregarding the definition of RT), and then saying that RT is TB. At a certain point some one has to say, enough. You want to create an RT experience that feels like TB, hey sure, whatever floats your boat. Why bother trying to pretend that it's any thing else? I don't get it, seems like much ado about nothing.

Kind of like what MS and Big Game did with Rise Of Nations?

 

[Balor]

With turn-based, you have the option of going over every detail of your units abilities and choosing the right one for the situation.

And I will say again - it stands true for SPM, while it does not have flaws (they are merits for VD, for some reason) of TB.