Alternative for Turns

[MAHRana]

I was thinking, turns sometimes take up a lot of time and takes away a bit of realism from the game, and I was wondering about a new system without turns.

I came up with an idea that instead of "turns", there could be "periods" so that what one unit would usually do in one turn would take one period. A period could be a minute or a few minutes (depending on settings) and the year would slowly pass by as one period progresses. You shouldn't need to press enter or a button that ends the turn for you.

It would be nice as well, if, suppose you move a unit to a space which would take one period, halfway through the period, the unit would be halfway to it's destination. It might be a radical change, but could be possible.

 

[Tigernose]

Could be possible, but it should be a scaleable turn instead. So instead of Epic, Normal and Fast, you have a time scale.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

You are suggesting that Civ become RTS?

 

[GhostWriter16]

I was thinking, turns sometimes take up a lot of time and takes away a bit of realism from the game, and I was wondering about a new system without turns.

I came up with an idea that instead of "turns", there could be "periods" so that what one unit would usually do in one turn would take one period. A period could be a minute or a few minutes (depending on settings) and the year would slowly pass by as one period progresses. You shouldn't need to press enter or a button that ends the turn for you.

It would be nice as well, if, suppose you move a unit to a space which would take one period, halfway through the period, the unit would be halfway to it's destination. It might be a radical change, but could be possible.

Please no.

 

[Aesir Rising]

I wouldn't care if it were an option - but I wouldn't use it for this game.

Sometimes I take a long time to figure out what I want to do and the introduction of a stop watch mechanic detracts from the experience. Sometimes I like to leave the chair and get a beer. Especially when playing a civ from the Mesopotamian region of the world.

I've played games that implemented such features (Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights were both turn-based at the lowest level, but had features or settings that made this transparent to the player).

Phases:
Some table-top wargames had a 'phase' feature replacing the turn by turn mechanic. In typical turn-by-turn implementations, one player moves and attacks and what-not all during his/her turn. Then the next player goes. In the phase implementation, the opposing player may act and react at different points of your turn. The illustrative example being during my movement phase, if my unit enters line-of-sight of opposition units, the opposing player has an option for defensive fire. This helped keep both players engaged during each other's turn.

I don't think any of this necessarily translates well to Civ, though it already has a simultaneous turn option (iirc, I've never used it) which is somewhat similar to phase play.

 

[MAHRana]

I basically want the "turn" styled design to change a bit

 

[GhostWriter16]

I wouldn't care if it were an option - but I wouldn't use it for this game.

Sometimes I take a long time to figure out what I want to do and the introduction of a stop watch mechanic detracts from the experience. Sometimes I like to leave the chair and get a beer. Especially when playing a civ from the Mesopotamian region of the world.

I've played games that implemented such features (Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights were both turn-based at the lowest level, but had features or settings that made this transparent to the player).

Phases:
Some table-top wargames had a 'phase' feature replacing the turn by turn mechanic. In typical turn-by-turn implementations, one player moves and attacks and what-not all during his/her turn. Then the next player goes. In the phase implementation, the opposing player may act and react at different points of your turn. The illustrative example being during my movement phase, if my unit enters line-of-sight of opposition units, the opposing player has an option for defensive fire. This helped keep both players engaged during each other's turn.

I don't think any of this necessarily translates well to Civ, though it already has a simultaneous turn option (iirc, I've never used it) which is somewhat similar to phase play.

You can't just make everything an option. For small gimmicks, this works. For instance, at least for the first 4 Civs, we would be able to make tech trading an option (I don't think we did until at least Civ 3, but it wouldn't kill balance.)

However, something as big as this would kill balance and be like making two different games...

 

[Tylerryan79]

Civ is the ONLY turn based game i play, and i do not play any realtime strategy games either. If we went down this road, then what next?

 

[CanuckSoldier]

You are suggesting that Civ become RTS?

Yes that is exactly what he is describing wether he knows it or not, and there is enough RTS games already, lets keep Civ a TBS, simutaneous turns is the best compromise for MP Civers, which still keeps it a TBS while giving MPers a faster game than sequential turns would be.

CS

 

[DonQuigleone]

The real time system in Europa Universalis, and other Paradox games work quite well. They're very different games from Civ though, and a real time Civ would basically end out like your normal RTS, which they're already plenty of.

 

[_random_]

Domination, I think we've found some common ground.

 

[tom2050]

If Civ ever went RTS, it would cease to be Civ and become yet another forgetable RTS title.

 

[Rebel44]

It works pretty well in Hearts of Iron series.

 

[aziantuntija]

No thanks.

I like playing civ games because you dont have to act quick in any situations, i mean i have all the time in the world to really think my next move.

 

[LDiCesare]

No. You're describing a RTS. I wouldn't play that without a pause available, and a pause in RTS is actually more cumbersome and less practical than a turn counter when you've got lots of things to manage. Civ should never go this way or it would cease to be civ.

 

[MAHRana]

What I basically meant was that there could be turns, but the turns wouldn't end when you press a button, it would end when all actions are completed.

And suppose there are 30 actions that need to be done, and the first one you decide to move your settler, by the 15th action, the settler would already be halfway through to it's destination.

 

[eireksten]

Yes that is exactly what he is describing wether he knows it or not, and there is enough RTS games already, lets keep Civ a TBS, simutaneous turns is the best compromise for MP Civers, which still keeps it a TBS while giving MPers a faster game than sequential turns would be.

No. He's describing the simultaneous turns used in MP games. Basically turn-based with a timer, only all players do their moves at the same time.

 

[MAHRana]

I just want to change the way a turn works kind of, I don't like the way as soon as you begin a new turn, loads of changes happen with other civs, I want a system where, a bit like simultaneous turns, the changes happen during the turn, so maybe you can see an enemy civ preparing for an attack but not actually attacking you so that the next turn you can counter it.

 

[LDiCesare]

What I basically meant was that there could be turns, but the turns wouldn't end when you press a button, it would end when all actions are completed.

And suppose there are 30 actions that need to be done, and the first one you decide to move your settler, by the 15th action, the settler would already be halfway through to it's destination.

There's already an auto end turn if I'm not mistaken. However, the second part, the settler being halfway through, is something I don't want. It's a bit like simultaneous MP turns, but this is also something I dislike. It helps speed MP, but I'd rather have true simultaneus turns with planning and all moves happening after everyone has planned their move, which is I believe the exact opposite of what you would like.

I just want to change the way a turn works kind of, I don't like the way as soon as you begin a new turn, loads of changes happen with other civs, I want a system where, a bit like simultaneous turns, the changes happen during the turn, so maybe you can see an enemy civ preparing for an attack but not actually attacking you so that the next turn you can counter it.

Simultaneous turns as in civ IV where bits of turns are all played at the same time, which means inside one turn, civ IV MP is a real time game (with issues like waiting for the other player to move first so you can adapt according to his move if you're patient enough, or clicking first when you have a bonus on attack). Simultaneous turns in, say, Diplomacy, are all resolved at the same time after orders have been given.

 

[Suho1004]

What I basically meant was that there could be turns, but the turns wouldn't end when you press a button, it would end when all actions are completed.

And suppose there are 30 actions that need to be done, and the first one you decide to move your settler, by the 15th action, the settler would already be halfway through to it's destination.

But how exactly would this work? If I understand you correctly, rather than units moving at more or less the same speed, the speed they moved at would be determined by how many actions were left in that turn. So a settler who moved as the first of thirty actions would creep along really slowly, but a cavalry who attacked in the last of those thirty actions would move really fast?

I just can't wrap my head around how this would work.