Thoughts on future game designs

[pyrhic]

Just wanted to say thanks again to the guys at 2by3. I think it's great that you're still working on patches/improvements for this game (which was already pretty well done to begin with).

I know you're working on a tcp/ip version of the game and had some thoughts on it, hopefully you're of a mind to respond

IMO, turn-based games are not well suited to internet play. The nature of the game demands downtime for the player(s) that isnt currently playing. As turns can take a long time to do, this translates into boredom for the player hanging around to do his turn. Again, imo, this means a less successful venture since not everyone cares to wait idle(or do something else in the meantime) while their opponent moves.

As an alternative, phase-based games seem well-suited to internet play. For those that are unaware of phase-based games, basically all opponents plan their moves at the same time and when all moves are marked finished, the computer then calculates the outcome of all movements. The obsolescent (lol) V4V series were an excellent(imo) adoption of this type of rule set. In the fashion, player A and B would be making their moves simultaneously and (we could hope) would finish their move turns about the same time: actual player downtime would be minimal (actually, if planned properly, after your move was marked finished, the player could still view territories/information while waiting for his opponent to move. This 'strategic planning' period could be viewed as a reward for quick players in any kind of timed event). My question, is whether 2by3 would ever develop a game like WaW with this type of ruleset(phase-based) in mind? Also i'd be interested in knowing whether others have any thoughts or preferences on this ruleset..

cheers!

[JanSorensen]

Turn based games are extremely well suited for pbem play though - and personally I love playing this game pbem as I can take 5 mins for an easy turn and consider a hard turn for hours sometimes seeing it in the morning and considering it at work till I get home.

So, I dont terribly agree that phase based games are universially a better concept.

[mcaryf]

I have to agree with both of you - there is a lot to be said for spending some time on the move as is permitted by PBEM. After all did Hitler decide to invade Russia on a quick whim or Mussolini Greece (oh well bad examples!)?

However, unless you introduce a phase based game, the only point I can see to TCP/IP is for both players to watch the turn resolution at the same time.

Phased based play is in many ways more realistic, after all the Allies were not going to wait for the Germans to move before they decided their options irl. It is also very artificial that the Japanese can wait to see how well the Germans have done before implementing their own actions. I think there is a possibility that Pearl Harbour would not have happened if the Japanese had already known that the Germans were defeated in front of Moscow.

Coming back to Jan's point about the considered move, it would still be quite possible for phase play to be done without artificial time limits. Thus Phase play is probably a superior concept but I guess very much harder for the AI to play as it has lots more "what ifs" to consider. This is probably the issue that makes it less frequently successfully implemented.

Mike

[JanSorensen]

Phase based tend to get more "decision-luck" based as you have to guess what your opponent might do. In many cases he can do A or B and it may degenerate into a game of rock/paper/scissors as you have to pick either to react to. With a turn based game that is much less often the case.

Both types have their pros and cons - but by no means can you say that phase based is superior in concept. Its just different.

[aletoledo]

excellent point pyrhic, I couldn't agree any more.

While Jan has a point, I don't think its necessarily addressing the original intent of the post. which was that a "phased turn" approach for tcp/ip is likely to be better than the current turn based model for tcp/ip.

I think we all agree that the turn based approach is probably superior for many reason. However with so much effort going into a tcp/ip mode, it may be better applied to a phased approach.

of course everything would likely have to be redesigned and recoded in its entirety to actually accomplish a phased turn approach. this is probably best for a W@W2 (which I really hope comes out).

[mcaryf]

Perhaps I should have qualified my "superior in concept" statement about phase play. What I meant was that it would more closely approximate to reality. That of course does not necessarily mean that it provides a better game, after all chess players operate in sequence and that has resulted in a fairly enduring game but not one that people would regard as approximating to reality.

In the real world of course Generals and Admirals do have to deal with "what ifs" but, as I said in my previous post, I guess a phase based game is very much harder for an AI to be effective so a phased version of GGWAW might be more realistic and challenging for humans but would probably result in a poorer AI. Since I am currently just learning it and still playing the AI, I guess I would prefer it as it is.

Mike

[pyrhic]

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

Turn based games are extremely well suited for pbem play though - and personally I love playing this game pbem as I can take 5 mins for an easy turn and consider a hard turn for hours sometimes seeing it in the morning and considering it at work till I get home.

So, I dont terribly agree that phase based games are universially a better concept.

For PBEM, i agree and i don't think phase based suits that type of game very well. Phase-based also handles hotseat rather poorly. What phase does very well though is to allow various opponents to play at the same time. There doesn't have to be any kind of time limit(so you could take hours or longer to make your move), but a time limit on turns might be a practical limitation when playing with others online.

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
Phase based tend to get more "decision-luck" based as you have to guess what your opponent might do. In many cases he can do A or B and it may degenerate into a game of rock/paper/scissors as you have to pick either to react to. With a turn based game that is much less often the case.

I couldn't disagree with you more on this. Phase based gives you a much more complex environment to consider, with many more options available: I wouldnt discount it all as luck. Lets take a simple engagement on a hex grid where one unit is opposed by 3 units on the front of its hex face. For our turn based comparison lets say that it's the attackers turn(the side with the 3 units). The attacker chooses to hit the lone defender. He attacks with the first unit and inflicts 50% damage, he then attacks with a second unit, eliminates the defender, and occupies the square. Really the choices are quite basic - attack/not attack and how long to continue the attack. There is little, if any, 'unknowns' to consider. For the defenders part, there are no decisions. His unit is gone but its now his turn to do the same.

Now take a phase based game. The attacker can choose to attack with 1, 2 or 3 units, with full assaults or probes and has to consider the effects of their moving on his front. Will moving the units create a breach in the front line? Will the defender stay or retreat? Is a 3 unit attack overkill? For the defenders part there are different considerations. Stay or withdraw? Reinfoce? An attack might even be prudent (at least then the odds would be even).

But we're getting a little off topic

ORIGINAL: aletoledo
While Jan has a point, I don't think its necessarily addressing the original intent of the post. which was that a "phased turn" approach for tcp/ip is likely to be better than the current turn based model for tcp/ip.

I think we all agree that the turn based approach is probably superior for many reason. However with so much effort going into a tcp/ip mode, it may be better applied to a phased approach.

Precisely. Except the part about probably superior

This would definately be something you'd have to plan from the start of the project. It's a pity wargames are such a small niche that you couldnt just forget about a SP version and AI and spend that time working on a solid net code. FPS are certainly a strong enough genre for multi-player only(AA has no Single player; BF2 and others, only a neglible one). I think we all can agree that even a moderately skilled human player is far more entertaining and rewarding experience than even the best AI.