Simultaneous moves

Simultaneous moves

Movement of units is divided into two separate phases: planning phase and movement phase. This is similar to the game called Combat Mission 2.

In the planning phase the player plans movement for all of his units. In a multiplayer game this could be done simultaneously. Planned moves would be indicated by arrows or lines showing the route from unit's current position into the desired position. Empire management would also take place in this planning phase. After movement for all units has been planned out, the movement phase follows.

In movement phase all units move simultaneously resulting as ordinary movement and battle, and battle again would result in advancing or drawing back. Players are able to watch moves and their outcome over and over again until are satisfied and have a clear picture of what has happened. Obviously in quiet times there wouldn't be as much action and need to watch moves again as for example in wartime.

In the earlier mentioned Combat Mission 2, which is a game of tactical level, this kind of system works incredibly well. I see no reason why it wouldn't also work in a game of strategical level such as Civilization.

This system would make the movement more unpredictable. Players wouldn't be able to react to moves made in the same gameturn. Planning of movement would have greater significance especially in a situation involving great amount of units fighting each other. Obviously this kind of system would require a bit more effort and thought from the player compared to the 'old system', but would increase tension and fun-factor of the game.

As a problem I see large armies. Planning movement for them would probably be a bit tedious. Of course stacking movement of some kind should be implemented and maybe the number of units also could be restricted or generally lowered. At times in Civilization III there are huge number of units, maybe even too much but that is a subject which isn't relevant here.

Also watching dozens of units move simultaneously might be a bit confusing. Players being able to see movement several times helps but there is some room for ideas here.

-Inkalu

I just thought that someone could get an idea from my previous post that what I meant goes like this: first player 1 moves and then player 2 and so on. This was not the case. What I mean is all players' units move simultaneously. There could occur some weird criss-crossing between units of different nationality but this could be solved by clearly defining rules of units' movement.

-Inkalu

this reminds me of Risk 2 and no it would just annoy me if i tried to attack they all moved which would be annoying

i don't like this idea at all, sometimes i have 1 unit move to amountain, and depending on what he sees i'll send my other units to a different place, or a may have 1 unit prpared to help defeat a battle , but if the battle goes well with the first unit, i'll send him to aother battle, i cannot do these things under your system

sometimes i have 1 unit move to amountain, and depending on what he sees i'll send my other units to a different place,

Click to expand...

Well, of course you do that because it is possible. My idea naturally would prevent this kind of exploring. But I'm strongly against this system where military units explore hidden territory. I think with my system, you'd just have to live with this minor setback. Exploring, as it is, is not realistic. Gameplaywise, ok, but I just don't agree with it.

or a may have 1 unit prpared to help defeat a battle , but if the battle goes well with the first unit, i'll send him to aother battle, i cannot do these things under your system

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I'm hoping to prevent. Every turn the player should come up with the best strategy he can, given the location of the units. Decisions should be made according to how the units hopefully or probably perform. Not how units have performed. This, I think, would make a war more unpredictable and thus more exciting.

I have to admit that given the timespan of Civ games, my system might be a bit wargamey.

-Inkalu

so your saying that it is unrealistic for me to say, attack x unit if y unit calls for reinforcements, but if y unit doesn't attack z unit? it seams preety realistic to me

One of the problems I see with that is that if two or more nations are at war, it would be very easy to have warring units sliding around the terrain constantly missing the other units and no combat taking place.

Another problem is units heading for the same terrain square. How would possession of the square be resolved between units that aren't at war with each other?

The statement about scouting makes absolutely no sense. Scouts were made specifically for checking out the lay of the land. Units were often held in reserve, heading to other locales if it was found that their presence wasn't needed in a battle.

This sort of system works fine for a RTS, or even a turn based RTS, but not for a strictly turn based game.

Although you might not like these kinds of actions, I think it's safe to say that most of us do. Exploring, holding units in reserve, and being able to move units one-by-one is both much easier and more simple. As it is, a single turn can take hours in the later game, and under your system, it could even take days.

Thanks for the idea, but I think the system is just fine as it is.

i like this idea as if civX is designed that way from the beginning, then it will work better in multiplayer (i think that simultaneous moves are pretty much a necessity in multiplayer)...

One of the problems I see with that is that if two or more nations are at war, it would be very easy to have warring units sliding around the terrain constantly missing the other units and no combat taking place.

Click to expand...

ideally, you would issue orders (like unit X attack this unit or improvement), if the target is capable of moving, it would follow it (obviously there would be some extra details, ie if a slower unit targets a faster unit, it would be possible for the faster one to retreat)... as for reinforcements, maybe there could be a "reinforce" move action, that would have multiple destinations, and would choose to go to the position most in need... but in general, i don't think this an insurmountable issue... i'd need to play test to see which i like more...

Another problem is units heading for the same terrain square. How would possession of the square be resolved between units that aren't at war with each other?

Click to expand...

if you're not at war, then both sides could fail (ie neither gets that square), or you could have some sort of priority system (but that might be too complex)... if you're allies, i would think that both units could share that square... you'd have some interesting situations when two civs tried to build a city in close proximity in the same turn...

The statement about scouting makes absolutely no sense. Scouts were made specifically for checking out the lay of the land.

Click to expand...

they can still check out the lay of the land, they just have to do it a turn earlier...

fractaled said:

The statement about scouting makes absolutely no sense. Scouts were made specifically for checking out the lay of the land.

Click to expand...

they can still check out the lay of the land, they just have to do it a turn earlier...

Click to expand...

Which cancels out most of the purpose behind scouts.

Running a scout up a mountain to see where the enemy is, and is going, so that you could decide where to send your units, would be almost completly pointless if you had to do it the turn before your units got to the mountains.

Being able to change direction when an enemy suddenly came into view would become an impossible task. It would also negate one of the key abilities of rapid moving units: the ability to run away when new units are spotted over the horizon, instead of being forced to engage in the battle that leaves you helpless against the unseen foes that are also on their way to the same square.

This seems to have too much potential for enhancing the drawbacks of turn based strategy.

In an RTS, if an enemy suddenly came into view while charging toward a battle, you could change the orders of your units to accomodate the change in situation.

If Civ used this method of movement, I would probably work with it, but if a future version of Civ adopted it, I would likely go back to the last version rather than deal with something I consider to be unnecessary added complexity.

It's too much like trying to hold a detailed debate by post. You can't change what you're going to do to allow for new information as it comes in.

normally scouts precede the unit they are scouting for... so at the point you say "i'm going to move my scout to this mountain", your following unit/army will be 1-2 moves away from the mountain, so you move it to where the scout was at the start of the turn... then the next turn your scout will be on the mountain and will see the opposing army and you can decide how you want to make your moves...

rapidly moving units do present a bigger obstacle, but unexpected engagements aren't that terrible, and certainly are avoidable...

as an added bonus, it makes "intra-turn undo" trivial because you haven't commited an action until you've ended your turn...

i think it would make warfare a more strategic thing, requiring a little more planning, which isn't a bad thing...

Say...you are your ally are two tiles apart. You move your unit into a tile. Your ally does the same thing.

Automatic war?

And, you have to realize that each turn is at least one year long. It does not make sense to rule a country, plan all your moves, and then every single country moves their units at the same time. They may move a battalion every month or every week. Heck, they even may put a scout ahead and then, a few months later, send battle troops.

Early game turns are even 50 years long.

Denarr said:

One of the problems I see with that is that if two or more nations are at war, it would be very easy to have warring units sliding around the terrain constantly missing the other units and no combat taking place.

Click to expand...

That was a fairly common situation before mechanized transport - armies wondering around the countryside for months at a time just trying to find each other and engage - until one or the other selects a battleground and prepares to defend itself, or finally succeeds in determining the direction of enemy movement and preparing an ambush. That was one of the big reasons for trench warfare - to stop mobile armies from wondering around your countryside, and establish a well-defended position where you could actually engage the enemy and receive his attack.

Actually, to be techinical, the name of this system is WE-GO. The system Civilization uses is I-GO-U-GO. I like WE-GO systems, but would require a couple key changes.

(1) Military units and armies hsould have a different ZOC then they do now. This means that as a unit moves, they have a ZOC that extends 2-3 squres. Whenever two opposing units ZOC overlap, they can engage in MORTAL COMBAT. Well not actually mortal combat, but then you are prompted to how to deal with the situation.
(2) Scoutng would be an earlier part of the turn, before other units moved. Making it very important as your units would move away, based on their SOP.
(3) Unit SOPs, your units coudl now have orders to move aggressively or defenisvely based on enemy forces in defined areas.

This all sounds complicate,d but if effective unit numbers were reduced(battlegroups), it would flow much smoothe.r

The statement about scouting makes absolutely no sense. Scouts were made specifically for checking out the lay of the land.

Click to expand...

Scouts for military purposes were very important indeed and my system doesn't really support them as they are. But as I said: there is room for ideas.

The statement about exploring hidden, (unepxlored) territory with military units (a scout not being one) is still in my opinion not realistic. Armies always know where they're going. Even scouts are unrealistic since they can go through wilderness for hundreds of years and basically explore the whole world. Most of neighboring countries' territory should get known via trade or diplomacy. Cultures had been isolated from each other for a long long time and their territory unknown to each other until the age of explorers. This again is a bit offtopic and I apologize.

(2) Scoutng would be an earlier part of the turn, before other units moved. Making it very important as your units would move away, based on their SOP.

Click to expand...

In the planning phase maybe.

As for the problems in units moving to a same square (hex), or dancing around trying to find the enemy. There should be a set of rules based on units movement, zocvalue... sir_schwick has already presented some ideas on how to deal with the problems.

-Inkalu

When do barbs move? How do you protect workers and settlers early in the game if everyone moves simultaneously?

I think when one player is playing, other players can do planning in his empire, such as change the building queue, or giving order to the unit. So when the 2nd player's turn comes, he only needs to press the 'go' button.

How about THREE movement phases

1) Planning phase.

2) Execution and attack phase.

3) 'Reactionary' phase, where you bring up reinforcements and/or otherwise move in response to something that happened during phases 1 or 2!


In addition to this, units should be able to be given instructions like 'avoid unit' or 'intercept unit'. During phase 1, if you click avoid then a unit, the unit will actually adjust its planned movement to avoid said unit if it comes too close. Similarly, a unit on 'intercept' will adjust its planned movement in response to the movement of the unit it has been tasked to intercept!

Just a thought!

I do like the idea of simultaneous movement-as it woud force players to give more thought to their movement!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

A further thought: How much more memory would any of these suggestions require?

When do barbs move? How do you protect workers and settlers early in the game if everyone moves simultaneously?

Click to expand...

Barbarians would move at the same time as everyone else. As for protecting workers and settlers, I don't see the difference between current civ and my systems. Placing a unit in the same tile with a worker or a settler would protect them.

3) 'Reactionary' phase, where you bring up reinforcements and/or otherwise move in response to something that happened during phases 1 or 2!

Click to expand...

A bit time consuming, but I wouldn't have a problem with that. This opens up new possibilities for units. For example: Unit's command is to 'defend' the tile it's is in. It's defence value is not reduced but it couldn't move in the Reactinoary phase. Or. Unit's command is 'pass', it's defence value would be lowered significantly but it could move in the Reactinoary phase.

In addition to this, units should be able to be given instructions like 'avoid unit' or 'intercept unit'. ... will adjust its planned movement in response to the movement of the unit it has been tasked to intercept!

Click to expand...

I like this. These kinds of things I meant by rules of movement that I hadn't come up with. In addition, these 'avoid' and 'intercept' commands wouldn't always succeed. There would always be a slight chance to fail depending on unit's movement value, organization&supply value, and luck. And of course if a unit to be intercepted or avoided moves to another direction, this command would be useless, and intercepting/avoiding unit could move in 'Reactionary' phase.

-Inkalu