Questions on Si-Move (for Firaxians)

[cgannon64]

One of the things Firaxians said was their "biggest challenge" in making si-move was two different enemy units moving into the same square. So, I ask, for Firaxis, or anyone who knows the answer, how will this be handled?

Second question: war in Civ3 is all about reaction. You move, your enemy reacts, you react to their reaction, and so forth. So, I ask, how will war be handled in si-move? What will happen when you are attacked? It is hard to respond to an attack when you move at the same time.

Thanks in advance. I think si-move has the potential to be one of the best or the worst modes, depending on your answers to those two questions.

CG

 

[SirJethro]

Originally posted by cgannon64
One of the things Firaxians said was their "biggest challenge" in making si-move was two different enemy units moving into the same square. So, I ask, for Firaxis, or anyone who knows the answer, how will this be handled?

Second question: war in Civ3 is all about reaction. You move, your enemy reacts, you react to their reaction, and so forth. So, I ask, how will war be handled in si-move? What will happen when you are attacked? It is hard to respond to an attack when you move at the same time.

Thanks in advance. I think si-move has the potential to be one of the best or the worst modes, depending on your answers to those two questions.

CG

This has been bugging me as well. I'm interested to know the answer. War seems almost impossible. Imagine having two offensive units of opposing sides face to face. Who gets to attack? There has to be some concept of "going first" to decide that.

 

[sabo]

what is an si-move?

 

[Yzman]

Similtaneous(sp?) movement which is one of the multiplayer features.

 

[DaDoo]

si-move = simultaneous movement mode in PTW...

basically all human will take their turn at the same time and then AI etc etc

 

[cgannon64]

This will be my multiplayer of choice if these questions are answered well. I wonder how they solved it, if it all. It is a very hard problem to crack, which is why I respect them for even trying si-move. Even though I am skeptical, the proposition of everyone going at once draws me back...

I would have asked this question in the chat, but I didn't think of it.

CG

 

[warpstorm]

Having seen similar schemes in other games I'm guessing it will work sort of like this. Say that two units are side by side. The one whose owner moves first is the attacker. These times will be measured in milliseconds. My only question is how it will decide who moves first for units on extended orders.

 

[sabo]

Originally posted by Yzman
Similtaneous(sp?) movement which is one of the multiplayer features.

Oh ok, so now I can see where that would be a problem. Basically they will try to make a turn based game into real time?

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by sabo10


Oh ok, so now I can see where that would be a problem. Basically they will try to make a turn based game into real time?

Sort of. Let me explain: Every person does their turn, like normally. I move my units, blah blah blah. Then, when everyone is done, the AIs move. Then the turn is officially over. The problems arise b/c it is not sequentially turn-based: you move, I move, next person moves. It is not sequential: we all move, then we all hit enter. The problems come because when everyone is moving at the same time, people can move in the same spot, people can capture your city while you are still moving, and other things like that. I am sure you can see where this can go wrong. It can potentially be amazing though, if it isn't buggy. Imagine: a turn-based game where everyone moves at the same time, where instead of 5 people taking 5 minutes each (25 minutes/turn!) it is 5 people taking 5 minutes each, but only adding up to 5 minutes/turn. This good be great and terrible, but Firaxians don't seem to be showing up.

CG

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by warpstorm
Having seen similar schemes in other games I'm guessing it will work sort of like this. Say that two units are side by side. The one whose owner moves first is the attacker. These times will be measured in milliseconds. My only question is how it will decide who moves first for units on extended orders.

(Sorry, missed this post) That may be the system, warpstorm, but there is one problem with it: you won't be able to react to the attack until the next turn. You are happily moving troops and building things, then you hit enter and suddenly discover you are missing a few cities, some of your units are dead, and you are at war with someone. See where this could get really annoying? You can plan a build queue for city x, only to find that city x was captured. You can send unit y to somewhere, only to find that unit y is dead. Could be very bad.

CG

 

[etj4Eagle]

I am guessing that the game will work somewhat along the lines of Diplomacy. That is a turn based board game where everyone writes down their moves and then when everyone is down they are revealed and the board updated. Here you also have the effect of making plans only to discover something vital vanishing as everything being resolved.

It is going to make for some interesting tactics and strategies. The only thing I hope is that there is also a timer feature as well, which will end the turn after x many minutes. That way you don't have someone waiting for everyone else to make their moves and then moving in on the undefended flanks.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by DaDoo
basically all human will take their turn at the same time and then AI etc etc

So the AI doesn't go at the same time? Why not?

Originally posted by etj4Eagle
It is going to make for some interesting tactics and strategies. The only thing I hope is that there is also a timer feature as well, which will end the turn after x many minutes. That way you don't have someone waiting for everyone else to make their moves and then moving in on the undefended flanks.

Yeah, probably, or hopefully, they will make a time limit for each turn. And hopefully the time limit will be editable, to suit the players' opinions of what it should be. And also I imagine the time limit will, or should, be increased as the game goes on, since the time it takes for a turn later in the game is longer than early in the game, since you have more things to do.

 

[warpstorm]

Originally posted by cgannon64

You are happily moving troops and building things, then you hit enter and suddenly discover you are missing a few cities, some of your units are dead, and you are at war with someone.

This is exactly how the other si-move games worked. You have to have a handle on what could happen within the next urn everywhere in your empire and be at the crisis spots.

I'm thinking it was one of the Warlords, but I could be mistaken. Sucks getting old and having played hundreds of games. They sort of blur together. As I'm writing this, I think it was Age of Wonders. I'm pretty sure of it. I think.

There are optional timers (a great idea in my opinion, keeps one player from bogging the entire game).

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

*bump*

no Firaxians here yesterday - maybe today? This is what has been bugging me since Civ2 MP, trying to think of a way how it could be pulled off......

 

[TheNiceOne]

Warpstorm, it was Age of Wonders, a quite good turn-based fantasy game btw.

I don't see much of a problem. Si-move doesn't mean that every unit moves at once, but that all players move their units without waiting for each other. So if two enemy units are adjacent, the first one moving will be the attacker.

cgannon64 wrote: The problems come because when everyone is moving at the same time, people can move in the same spot, people can capture your city while you are still moving, and other things like that. I am sure you can see where this can go wrong.

I think you're seeing problems that don't exist: Two units aren't moving at the same time. The one who sends a movement message to the server first moves first, simple as that. So what if another civ captures one of your cities while you still are moving. If you have a few units nearby, you can even recapture it the same turn.

This type of game makes timing very important though. Some turns you will want to move last so that you can react to other players' moves. The next turn, if you're fast, you can move first and attack the enemy units, so that your units get to move twice between the enemy units' movement.

This can be real tense if one turns with an enemy unit and your defender both adjacent to your undefended city. If you manage to click first, you'll get to move the defender in and save the city. If the opponent get to click first, then he'll take the city without opposition. This looks like great fun to me, but I can see that some people will favour good ol' turn based games.

If I understand correctly, turnless mode is exactly the same as si-move, with the addition of a timer. When the timer ticks, a turn is considered finished regardless of whether all units have moved or not. So it's simply si-move with a time limit for each turn.

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne
Warpstorm, it was Age of Wonders, a quite good turn-based fantasy game btw.

I don't see much of a problem. Si-move doesn't mean that every unit moves at once, but that all players move their units without waiting for each other. So if two enemy units are adjacent, the first one moving will be the attacker.

I don't think you understand si-move. You seem to imply that there are no turns. Instead, everyone moves at the same time, but you have to wait until everyone has moved before you can move again.

I am sure Firaxis will make an optional time limit. That is only rational.

CG

 

[Mike B.]

In Si-Move, everyone moves at the same time but you have to wait until everyone moves before you can move again. The turn ends when all players have finished moving or when the turn timer completes. At that point, all upkeep and AI turns take place. Thus, you can potentially lose and re-capture a city on the same turn, depending on when you move your units.

You can set a turn time limit for Si-Move, Turn-Based, and Turnless but it is optional. The turn timer is configurable (slow, normal, fast) but is based on the number of units and cities on the map (so you will get more time for your turn as the game progresses).

Turnless is much closer to (though not quite) real-time. There are no turns. All players move at the same time. When a unit is moved, it cannot be moved again for a short period of time. Once a city is built, it begins to produce and performs upkeep every few seconds. Thus you will get cities producing at different times and units moving at different times.

 

[cheese burn]

The answer to your question is something Microsoft would call a Fatal Exception

 

[Alpine Trooper]

SI-Movement will be a first come first serve sort of operation. If you want to invade someone, you better skip everything else and move right to that unit or else it may end up getting attacked, instead of attacking. What you'll find it players moving units first, then tending to cities wheras traditionally you always attend to cities first.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by cgannon64
I don't think you understand si-move. You seem to imply that there are no turns. Instead, everyone moves at the same time, but you have to wait until everyone has moved before you can move again.

I am sure Firaxis will make an optional time limit. That is only rational.CG

I think I do understand it. I have played Age of Wonders, one of the very few (only?) turned-based si-move game so far. I don't understand your point. Is the above anything different from what I wrote?

My emphasis is the there is really no "same time". Even if two players try to move at the same time, one move message will reach the server a few milliseconds before the other, and thus be the one who actually moves first.


If, on the other hand you think it functions like the Total War games, where everyone gives their movement orders, but noone actually moves until all finish their turns, then I think you're wrong. This is also a kind of si-move, but I'm quite sure that this is not the kind used in PTW.