Turn-based option

I won't down the genre, but I just can't wrap my head around turn-based systems. For me, the fun comes from the pressure of having to do everything in real-time. I love working under pressure. I can't get enough of it.

I can understand TBS players, where maybe the fun comes from analyzing the complex interactions in the game, or something like that. While I can appreciate that aspect of the game, and do in fact enjoy it myself, I still need the pressure.

Well, let's examine the consequences of your idea to see what would happen:

First, you'll notice that the way you described it, it isn't turn based yet. In order to be turn based on that kind of model it would have to pause your game, then unpause the other player's game, pause their game then unpause your game, and so on, alternating in this way so that you each get a set time to do your thing.

So let's assume that the above is how it works. Well, in normal turn based games you get to move each of your 'pieces' a bit, as well as decide on some other stuff, and when there's nothing left to move or do, there's nothing left but end turn. Under this new model of having a certain time to move stuff around, instead you will just have to do as much as you can during that time, which means if you don't happen to pay attention to one particular planet in time, it's already the other player's turn, and you've lost the chance. Instead of becoming more relaxed it actually becomes much more hectic, because you need to ensure that you've done as much as you need to before control is arbitrarily handed over to the other player, and you only have a certain amount of time to do it.

So I think your idea has problems. Maybe someone else can think of a better way to put turn based in Sins, but I don't see why it's necessary - it's not a turn based game, it's specifically designed NOT to be. People who want it to be turn based are looking for a different game to what it is.

Because RTS developers don't balance their games around the notion that only one player will be able to act at any given time.  RTS's are built on the real-time action/reaction model. 

Adding a little to the above, basically, your suggestion would completely bork combat in any but the most simplistic RTS's.  In a TBS, the combat works because the players themselves have no real involvement short of choosing who to attack.  You click a space, the dice is rolled, both units deal their appropriate damage, and a winner is determined.  In an RTS, battles rely much more on player interaction.  Positioning, ability usage, and so forth.  If only one person is able to act in a given battle, that person will invariably mop the floor with the other in all but the most overwhelming of circumstances. 

I also see no reason why Ironclad needs to turn this into a game that it isn't.  If you're not in the market for an RTS, there are plenty of TBS titles out there and Stardock for one would probably be glad to oblige you. 

I should have explained that I am talking about a single player game, not multiplayer. Your objections do not apply here. I cannot see any problems.

Come play the game online; you are invited.

Since single player is set up the same as multiplayer in this game, I fail to see how our 'objections' do not apply. Just replace the words 'other player' with 'AI player'. The thing, as you have stated it, simply does not work. The only way to easily make it work turn based that I can see, would be to completely overhaul the game rules. You'd basically be talking about a completely different game. 

But maybe we've misinterpreted you. Describe what a few 'turns' would look like under your idea, and then maybe we'll be able to look at that.

Unless you're playing a bugged version of the game that doesn't allow combat in the single-player modes, I fail to see how the situation is any different (beyond the computer opponent not caring what the arbitrary timer has done to the game). 

I suppose we could argue about how 'fun' it would be to cram some cross-genre mechanics into a game that doesn't support them but that's a conversation that's not going to go anywhere.  I'll just exit by saying that I wouldn't touch the gametype that you're suggesting if it were applied to Sins or any other RTS.

Edit:  Heh, always a little late to the punch...

While I don't support the idea, I can see it working easily, and done without completely overhauling the game.

Lets assume that, in the Turn-Based model, every turn represents exactly one minute of real-time. On the player's turn, he/she assigns an action to each unit or structure, which will be carried out when the player declares him/herself done. In turn, each unit or structure completes as much of said task as it is capable of doing in that alotted time.

Example:

Lets examine this idea with two different ships, a capital ship and a frigate scout (the real stats of which are irrelavent in this example). For the purposes of the example, we will assume that the player has assigned each unit to move from one end of a planet's gravity well to the other; a straight line of an equal distance for each ship. Because it is Turn-Based, rather than having a set speed, each ship is set to only travel a certain distance per turn. Thus, in one turn, the capital ship only moves 60% of the distance, while the lighter, faster frigate was able to get there with enough time to have tea.

Now, that may not have been the simplest way of explaining it, try this: The player controls the game during the pauses in action, and the computer plays out those decisions for a set period before allowing the player to intercede with new actions.

See, it can work. Extrapolate the same idea with the ships to other things in the game... Building things: smaller things take 1 or 2 turns to build and bigger things take 3, 4, or even 5 turns to build.

I think this is easily applied to SINS. All youhave to do is tell the game to pause at a given interval, prevent the player from giving commands until the pause comes along, and teach it how to interpret commands based on that system.

In fact, it would make an easy mod and I would love to try it if anyone wanted to have a go.

I would like people to stop trying to turn Sins into something it never was designed to be, nor should ever become. If you want turn based games, play MOO or something else...

Here's a question for you - "Have you ever played RISK?". The last person to get their turn in a round has already lost a number of their starting territories. So being the last to have their turn sucks. Remeber that Sins allows up to 10 players in a game....

Another point - you are talking about this for SP only - as stated, Sins is designed for MP with a SP version that mimics MP via various levels of AI. But here's the thing about an AI - if you have a limited amount of time to make a decision, the AI can make EVERY decision in that time because computers perform operations quicker then humans. It's why they were invented...

And as previously stated - combat would suck. Total War gets around it by having real time tactical combat for a turn based strategy game.

Nobody is insulting SINS or downing it in any way, we're just trying to have a discussion about the possibility of having a turn-based version of it. If you don't enjoy the conversation, then don't get involved. Your opinion is welcome, but just downing us for having a conversation about something that interests us is rude.

Have you ever played Warhammer 40,000? Guess what: Its turn-based, and it works. Nobody is suggesting we make SINS into RISK. I would just go play RISK.

In my explanation, you don't have a limited amount of time to make decisions, you can take as long as you need to do so.

Combat would certainly not be what you expect, but it could still be fun. In a turn-based version, combat would likely be focused on the best apportionment of resources. Some people enjoy in-depth analysis to real-time chug-away-at-the-enemy-as-much-as-possible combat.

I think that's more or less the heart of the counterargument here but anyway...

So if one person doesn't click next and walks away to get a drink, the game waits?

What do the other 9 people do if you have a 10 person game???

It was originally claimed the option is a no brainer and will sell more games - I disagree. I think it will hurt the game as then you have arguments about what game mode to start in. Also, the loss of combat options would suck - that is what MAKES this game. The fact that it is in real time means reinforcements arrive etc...

Of course not, give the option to set a time limit. Did you really need me to tell you that this is an option?

In my mind, this was all a mod anyway...

So which is is horneraa??? The timer is fixed, or it isn't???

So I wait until you are ready?

Don't wait wait until you are ready?

So yes - you DO need to tell me as you contradict yourself.

P.S.

I wasn't aware that Sins was THAT modable...

The short answer is: both.

The long answer is: Whether or not there is a set time limit can be determined before the beginning of the game and agreed upon by all players participating.

Nothing has to be concrete and unchangeable. Have some imagination. I realize that a TBS SINS will never come to fruition, I am just having fun thinking about it.

Horneraa is the only commentator on this thread that has understood my proposal correctly. Most comments are referring to  multiplayer issues, even after I explained that this is on OPTION FOR SINGLE PLAYER. How can an option for single player ruin anything? Just ignore it if you don't like it. All I am saying is that a lot of peole are like me and only play SP. I don't care for multiplayer, but I like this game and would like it much more with the mentioned option built in.

As for mechanics, combat, etc, there is NO DIFFERENCE. My option simply corresponds to pausing at discrete intervals rather than at arbitrary intervals. I am assuming that nothing else changes. There is no need to reprogram anything other than a fixed interval pause (user-determined). The player can continue to give orders while the clock is running , as well as when it stops, just like now. This is whý I call it a "no-brainer". So simple and yet so attractive for people that prefer turn-based. or at least a tbs-rts hybrid, which it would be in practice, since you can make changes anytime, on the run or during the pause.  What's the problem with introducing this simple option for people like me? I truly believe it would attract more players,but of a different type than the multiplayer fans currently dominating the forum.

An rts-tbs hybrid is a new concept in computer games as far as I know. So don't knock it too quickly! By the way, are there any other games out there that allow this? I would like to see it in AOK and Rise of Nations too. I would go back to those ganes if they introduced such an option. A lot of other SP fans would buy those games with a fixed interval pause built in, believe me. So now that you all understand, are there still issues left that need debate?

Is this not something that I can get backing for for the next patch? If not, why not? After all, if the game was only intended for multiplayer, there wouldn't be an SP option.

So... if nothing changes, what you're suggesting is that the game simply grind to a halt every X minutes during a single-player game regardless of the context.  Why?  Why would this be better than simply hitting Pause Break and issuing orders (which you can already do) when you actually need to?

To pose a scenario: What if I'm at a stage in the early-game where I'm satisfied with the orders I've given and I'm just waiting for some ships to get from point A to point B.  Along comes the end of the X minute timer and the game pauses.  Now I'm just stuck waiting even longer.  Without some sort of game-related context to base these pauses on, they can just as easily be an annoyance as a help.  Why would this be preferred to the user pausing and unpausing whenever he/she likes?

In a TBS game, things are played out in 'turns' for a reason.  There's a functional difference between the waiting and active phases of each turn.  There's a major difference in the handling of real, actual time versus in-game time.  It's difficult to bridge the gap in these genres as Turn-based and Real-time are fundamentally opposed concepts.  Hitting pause every 5 minutes during a game of Starcraft isn't going to magically turn it into a turn-based game. 

If all you're really suggesting is adding a user-defined pause timer... the question then becomes "why?"  What do you feel is wrong with the single-player pacing that the provided pause feature doesn't address?  If the function you're suggesting doesn't change what the player is already capable of doing, why include it? 

Now, one change I 'would' support is for the orders made during a pause showing up properly in the build queues and resource meters while still paused rather than after the pause is lifted.  The feature already works but the information doesn't always update properly during the pause (and it lets you go into negative resources, cancelling some orders when the pause is lifted) so it can be a little tricky to manage.

Well actually Rise of Nations had this option, it was because Rise of Nations was a blend of Age of Empires and The Civ series and I believe they wanted to please Civ players as well. I think it would make TBS players feel more at home, but it does not make it a TBS game even though it does give these TBS gamers time to study the map. Another problem is the game itself is advertised as an RTS game, pure TBS players may not go out to pick up RTS games. Mind you this is an RT4X so some TBS players will go out and buy it, but what I'm saying is, the option is nothing big and amazing, it won't influence more people to buy the game.

We get that you want it for SP only. But SP Sins is the SAME as MP Sins - I can host a MP game with 9 AI in it. The game SHOULD play the same, or you are playing a DIFFERENT game. I read your reply and went "well, why not just pause the game then???" - looks likeSakhari had the same idea.

You know, I was thinking. Someone should make Total War games real time like Sins. Oh wait. No, you can't becuase one is TURN BASED STRATEGY and the other is REAL TIME strategy...

If you want a less hectic pace, Sins is not the game for you...

What a friendly post!

I bet the Developers Love to see that. They are "Trying " to sell games not run potential players/customers away.

What has been proposed is not going to hurt "your" style of play in anyway. But May enhance "other" play styles so that they may Enjoy the Game more.

Back off and go play the game, let those that wish to disscuss this idea do so. All you are really doing is Trolling and being combative in nature. Please stop.

Have Nice day.

JosEPh

I use the pause button a lot because I like things to go slowly and have all the bases covered. For me, there is a BIG difference between panically hitting the pause hotkey when something goes wrong and having an automatic stop as in TBS, and with a BUTTON to start up again (not a Hotkey, which is clumsy). It is a question of the "feel" of the gane.

Nightwraith40K, thanks for the tip on Rise of Nations. Actually it is Rise of Legends, not RON (which I have), according to what I have found on the net. But as I understand it, it is not a general option like I am proposing, but is restricted to the Conquer the World campaign. Anyway, I will buy that game now and check it out for myself. For me, it does make a big difference. How about that: more sales for BHG!

Incidentally, I don't think the variant that Horneraa mentioned (where you cannot do anything between pauses) is a viable path to follow. For one thing, there would be a problem with pirates where you have to react within a split second sometimes (you would get murdered). Secondly, it would be more complicated to change, requiring additional software modifications, which may not be trivial. You have to be able to take action at any time in this game as it is set up.

it is a good indea on its own.. but brings to many problems.... i doubt it could be "simply"implemented as you cannot turn a RTS into a TBS that works  100

the game is about constant thinking, if you had 1 turn to do certain moves for your empire your turn would last around 10 min (late game) ... whilst the game is about doing as much as possible in the least possible time.... not doing everything 100%

Yes but unless this timed automatic stop just happens to coincide with your emergency that needs fixing (which is going to be a longshot unless the game is pausing something like every 5-10 seconds), how is this going to solve your problem?

Perhaps it would help to simply allow the existing Pause to be mapped to a mouse button (assuming this isn't already possible).  To me, 'that' would be a much easier and more appropriate fix.

Yeah - except if the person isn't happy with the game as is, then are they really a player???

SoaSE to be turne based NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!