TOS:WS a (CATS) game?

[rosary]

CATS Concurrent Action Tactical System.

Links

TOS:WS included as a sample of this 'young' gaming genre.

http://www.btinternet.com/~fulby/CA/tactical.html

The CATS Document

http://www.btinternet.com/~fulby/CA/CATS.html

[Sleeping_Dragon]

Excellent Read!

'Concurrent Action Tactical System', C.A.T.S., sounds like a good name to me for this style of game engine. It's IMO definately superior then the standard IGO-UGO style in terms of 'tactical realism'. I really hope it catchs on and more games adopt this! Will have to look into the 'Brigade E5' game that is also mentioned for release in Q4 of 2204.

[rosary]

Well, I have been told that 'brigade E5' might come out sooner than 2205. That is a long development cycle.

[Fulby]

Hi,

I wrote the CATS document (and thought up the name [:D]), I'm glad you enjoyed reading it.

Brigade E5 has a demo out but it might be a little hard to get. Here's a couple of links which should help:
Brigade E5 Demo Version 5
Bear's Pit Forum Thread

Fulby

[rosary]

Well, Brigade E5 is still in a beta testing phase. TOS:WS on the other hand is available right now here at Matrix Games, and elsewhere. But there is no doubt that this type of game is unique. Its my favorite genre. now that I can call it a genre. Before noone was really sure. Turn-based isn't quite right, Timed play is close. I think Concurrent Action Tactical System is a good name for this type of game. How about Tactically Incorporated Timing System?

[Thorgrim]

You mean TITS? [:D]

I'm not so sure ToS fits into the same "system" as those 2 other games.

[rosary]

Why doesn't TOS fit into the same game type? They all accomplish the same goals using influence from different genres.
UFO: Aftermath would be a CATS influenced by RTS while TOS:WS is influenced by Turn-based Strategy. But they are very similar when you play them.

[Thorgrim]

Why did you suggest a different name? [:D]
Yes, because first of all you realise that the keyword is time, not action. Concurrent action is like talking about most games in existence.
And I don't think linking games based on RTS, FPS and TBS to a genre because they have *some* features more or less in common is valid.

[Fulby]

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim
Yes, because first of all you realise that the keyword is time, not action. Concurrent action is like talking about most games in existence.

It's just a label for the ideas in the document. I didn't try to sum up the whole concept in two words [:)]

The "action" is in reference to unit actions (acting or "performing an action") not "action-movie" or similar. In my experience most people's idea of TB are games which use a sequential action game world (units act in sequence one after the other) like X-COM 1, JA2 or Fallout. One of the fundamentals of CATS is that the actions of the units are performed concurrently, and as the system is primarily an alternative to existing sequential TB systems in tactical games this name was appropriate.

Fulby

[rosary]

Well some things to consider.

1) Titans of Steel: Warring Suns plays like no other game. What kind of game is it?

2) Its neither RTS or Turn-based. Timed-play gives the wrong impression. Visually, I see two guys playing chess with
a clock that 'times' their turns. This is obviously the wrong idea.

3) Concurrent Action or Continuous Action are close. Tactically incorporated was just a bad joke. Sorry. [:(]
But the action is continuous second to second. Even though at almost any point in time the player can set up a break move and focus on a specific units commands.

4) In some reviews, critics have wondered why Titans of Steel: Warring suns did not use an IGOUGO or WE GO type system. Answer: to provide a new and unique tactical experience. I was happy to help develop a game that I saw pushing the gaming boundaries in its own way.

[Thorgrim]

Well, my point wasn't it doesn't sum up the whole concept, but that it might in a way extravazate (sp?) on the concept. RTS, in a way, is CA. So is FPS. You don't want to include those, do you? [;)]

In ToS, you can find sequencial action too, when units are queued to act on the same game sec. The larger the battle, the more common this will be. I'm not saying ToS is a sequencial type of game [:)]
The name is flashy alright, but that's not enough. Being an "opposite" to RTS as a principle isn't either, as I stated above. All IMO, of course.
Now, in keeping with Eric's TITS (hmmm), something along the lines of Time-Increment Tactical System would be more appropriate IMO.

[Fulby]

Well, my point wasn't it doesn't sum up the whole concept, but that it might in a way extravazate (sp?) on the concept. RTS, in a way, is CA. So is FPS. You don't want to include those, do you? [;)]

I know your post is only half-serious, but neither a typical RTS or FPS (don't ask me to define what "typical" is [:)]) meet the Criteria listed in the document. For some reason I haven't added one important criteria which is that the player can still interact with the game world when it is paused. It is implied by the Goals of the Interface though.

In ToS, you can find sequencial action too, when units are queued to act on the same game sec. The larger the battle, the more common this will be. I'm not saying ToS is a sequencial type of game [:)]

I don't understand what you're saying here [:(]. If the units act at the same time then surely those are simultaneous/concurrent/overlapping/parallel actions, not sequential.

Now, in keeping with Eric's TITS (hmmm), something along the lines of Time-Increment Tactical System would be more appropriate IMO.

You're not the first to try and agree on a name [:)]:
http://www.chatbear.com/board.plm?a=vie ... 927&b=2453

Fulby

[rosary]

Time-incremental Tactical System is more accurate. It should be easy to grasp this concept and make learning the game a little simpler. It also provides foreknowledge that this is a different type of game.

[Sleeping_Dragon]

ORIGINAL: rosary
Well, I have been told that 'brigade E5' might come out sooner than 2205. That is a long development cycle.

hehe.. that is a little long for development[;)] I hope something using this 'style' of turn system comes out before then[:D] Silly fingers don't type the keys I tell them too[;)]



As for CATS, call it what you will, I think this system is the best thing since sliced bread.


'Concurrent Action' is definately a good start since it rules out IGO-UGO.

'Tactical' is a good discriptor, as it implies stradagy over clickfest and it also implies a 'small' number of controled units. This is something I don't think that I've seen directly mentioned on these boards, but is covered in Fulby's article. That this type of 'action system' appears to be limited to a small number of controled 'units', 8 titans, 30 units from E5. More then this and I don't think the system would be very good. The player needs to remember (usually[:D]) what ALL thier units are currently doing in order to have thier units act coheisively. Running this system in something like Korsun Pocket where there are 100's of units would be a nightmare.

Maybe just call it the OBS... 'Other Better System'[:D]

@Fulby Thanks for the links... will give it a try!

[Fulby]

'Tactical' is a good discriptor, as it implies stradagy over clickfest and it also implies a 'small' number of controled units. This is something I don't think that I've seen directly mentioned on these boards, but is covered in Fulby's article. That this type of 'action system' appears to be limited to a small number of controled 'units', 8 titans, 30 units from E5. More then this and I don't think the system would be very good. The player needs to remember (usually[:D]) what ALL thier units are currently doing in order to have thier units act coheisively. Running this system in something like Korsun Pocket where there are 100's of units would be a nightmare.

This is one of the reasons for order queuing IMO. When playing the E5 demo version 4 I would want to order a soldier to do something like the following:

Walk/Run to corner
Turn 90 degrees
Sidestep out

Version 4 doesn't have order queuing (I don't know about version 5) so I'd place the first order, unpause the game world, then go and consider other soldiers as they requested orders. I didn't need to watch this soldier because the game would automatically pause if an enemy was spotted or similar. Then the first order would complete and I'd go back to viewing the soldier, enter the second order, then go back to watching/commanding another soldier and so on. Moving from one soldier to another is disruptive and takes up player time, as it does in any game where you control multiple units.

With order queuing the player could issue all these orders at once, then not have to worry about that soldier unless it reported a change of situation (enemy spotted, orders complete etc) or the player decides the global situation has changed enough to warrant changing that soldier's orders. The benefit of order queuing is that the player considers the plan for that soldier (advance round that corner), instead of having to remember the individual orders while working with other units and their orders. The system will never be perfect but order queuing could free up a lot of the player's short term memory making the game easier to play and/or allowing the player to handle more units.

One last thing (for now [:)]): You might want to consider CATS as a WEGO system but with a dynamic turn length. A WEGO system such as Combat Mission has a fixed turn length of 60 seconds, but in CATS each player's turn ends/starts when a change of situation occurs. The length of each turn is dynamic, and all the players' turns don't have to start and end at the same moment of game time. I'm not saying that's how CATS should be thought of, just that this may be a useful paradigm or analogy.

Fulby

[Voidhawk]

Dang, I thought this thread was going to be something about the infamous villain from Zero Wing (hello gentlemen!! all your TOS are belong to us!!). Nevertheless, good job on the analysis, Fulby! Required reading for serious strategy fans.

Let's call it Phase Allocated Non-Timed Strategy! That way we could invent nifty genre catchphrases like "Time to get your PANTS on!" and "If you're playing games without PANTS, you should probably see a therapist!"

Or maybe not. [:D]

[Coyote27]

- changed my mind, nvm -