   Making Turn Based games less boring.
  This is building on a post I posted earlier with regard to a game idea I had. I have a Turn Based Strategy game that I am working on which mimics the style of Warhammer 40K. The problem as I see it is that when it is a player's turn to move their units, it takes time. This causes other players to wait until it is their turn. I want to eliminate this wait period and make the game more interactive and smoother. Here are some Ideas:Have everyone move at the same time:- PRO: It fixes the wait times to a point.- CON: If one player takes their time moving, the others have to wait until all players are finished. - CON: If units are being moved simultaneously, there may be a problem where two players want to move into the same space. Quantum Physics doesn't work here.Real Time system:- PRO: Eliminates wait times completely.- CON: Eliminates the Turn Based system.- CON: Requires the creation of creator units (ie. Factories to turn out tanks).- CON: Focuses the game more towards speed rather then strategy.Real Time Command Point Based System (Tick based):- PRO: Players use "action points" to move units. Action points are regenerated every few minutes.- PRO: Allows the user to do and undo moves before the Tick is up (some measurement of time).- PRO: Sub-RealTime system that still retains a turned based philosophy.- CON: Might take away from strategy and make the game focused on speed.- CON: Everyone moves at the same time which has the problem of moving two units into the same space.- REFERENCE: Here.This is all I could think of right now. I would greatly appreciate any comments or new suggestions that I can try. How do other games do it? My main goal is to get rid of boring wait times without resorting to realtime strategy.   
Quote:Original post by RealMarkPHave everyone move at the same time:- PRO: It fixes the wait times to a point.- CON: If one player takes their time moving, the others have to wait until all players are finished. That's not a con. That'd be true without simultaneous turns too.- CON: If units are being moved simultaneously, there may be a problem where two players want to move into the same space. Quantum Physics doesn't work here. so you make a design decision. For example the first person (in realtime) to make the move wins. That's what Civ4 does, and it works pretty well. And of course, it encourages you to hurry up a bitReal Time system:- PRO: Eliminates wait times completely. - CON: Eliminates the Turn Based system. yes, that's kind of the point, isn't it? So what will you put instead- CON: Requires the creation of creator units (ie. Factories to turn out tanks). why?- CON: Focuses the game more towards speed rather then strategy.Real Time Command Point Based System (Tick based):- PRO: Players use "action points" to move units. Action points are regenerated every few minutes.- PRO: Allows the user to do and undo moves before the Tick is up (some measurement of time).- PRO: Sub-RealTime system that still retains a turned based philosophy.- CON: Might take away from strategy and make the game focused on speed.- CON: Everyone moves at the same time which has the problem of moving two units into the same space.- REFERENCE: Here.Anyway, since you don't want realtime, why don't we remove that from the options?And of course, one simple improvement to the turnbased model could be a turn timer. Each turn may only take X seconds. So if you're not done by then, tough luck. (Civ4 adjusts this according to several parameters, I believe. Later in the game, when your civ is bigger, the timer is extended a lot, and I believe individual players might get a few seconds extra if they've played the last few turns quickly)   ;  Real-time combat depends on both speed and strategy.If you don't want it to depend on speed, either take a turn-based approach (the active time battle system is a fairly good one IMO) or automate it as much as possible by enqueuing tasks, allowing some other tasks to be triggered when some events occur, etc.In short, let the player code its own AI and fine tune as things turn out.   ;  Prefer "Real Time Command Point Based System". Seems like the best of the three choices.As for the CONs you listed...- It may be true that there is more of a focus on speed then true strategy, maybe you can incorporate this into a part of your game. Say two different armies, Army A is composed of fast units (costs less points for actions), while Army B is a defensive army with lots of heavy hitters that moves slower (costs more points for actions).A's player may move his units faster, but this is part of his strategy since his army is focused upon speed. Whereas player B may simply gave an order once every two or three orders after player A.In conclusion a slower player may not be at a disadvantage when compared to a faster player.- In the case of everyone moving at the same time and moving into same space. Simply do a orders queuing and displays it for all players to see and act out the orders one by one, so that players will see that their orders are gonna have conflicts and are able to cancel it, resolve it or simply allows it to go through.But, there is one problem I can foresee...- Players with paralysis analysis, will either lose badly or complain loudly, or both of that. Since they will keep wanting to change their orders trying to consider all angles of the latest order given by the other player.   ;  I agree with what Spoonbender said. Anyway, who says turn-based games are boring? All board games (monopoly, chess, risk, etc.) are turn based and waiting for the other player to finish his turn has never been a problem.   ;  About simultaneous turns:How will you deal with actual people shooting at each other? Will they shoot at where their target was last turn / where it is in real time? Will it also be a sort of who shoots first wins as a dead person can't shoot back?   ;Quote:Original post by captainfreedomAnyway, who says turn-based games are boring?That was my first reaction, but...Quote:All board games (monopoly, chess, risk, etc.) are turn based and waiting for the other player to finish his turn has never been a problem.These games have a social aspect where you're sitting right next to your opponents (plus there are snacks, and hopefully beer), and/or the ability to see the entire board and exactly what your opponent is doing. The former isn't really possible to recreate in an online computer game, and the latter is often hindered, say in a TBS like Warlords where fog of war obscures much of the map. But we can work on that second point. Give your player information to process while their opponent moves. If possible, let them add to the build queue or fiddle with other settings that will only take effect once their next turn begins.Simultaneous moving is a really bad idea. In an RTS when another player attacks my city, I have time to respond. In a TBS the battle is resolved instantly. The twitch factor would wind up being *worse* than an RTS.Well, it could be done in a manner where everyone issues commands, which are then processed only after every player has clicked End Turn. I don't see that working either, though. I try to attack your army, except woops, you've moved it. You might be able to make it work, but it'd be difficult.   ;Quote:Original post by drakostarThese games have a social aspect I remember playing dofus (which is turn based) you could chat with the other players while waiting, people would slag you off if you took to long to move. ;Quote:Players with paralysis analysis, will either lose badly or complain loudlyThis is why the Real Time strategy option doesn't work for my game. Or any other game with a large amount of complexity. The user has to manage so much data, it kills the fun of the game. But I do like applying automation to the game that can speed it up (ie. AI).Quote:Either take a turn-based approach (the active time battle system is a fairly good one IMO) or automate it as much as possible by enqueuing tasks.Good idea, but it has flaws:- What if the user wants to change a queue of actions?- What if a queue of actions reaches a block (ie. you moved your tank in front of a squad, nulling their queued moves).- What if the user does not realize that the queued actions just put his squad into danger (ie. not enough feedback).But I like the idea regardless, it just needs to be flushed out. Possibly with the help of adding AI. For example, you can tell the AI to stop if its in range of another unit or charge the other unit if one comes into range. Or even, have it run away. This would make some of the game a bit faster but on the other hand, might actually take away from the experience. If you have too much AI in the game, the user feels that he is watching a battle then controlling a battle.;  Maybe add a limit to how long you can take to take your turn?   