Good examples of Simultaneous Turn systems?
Author
I am trying to make a small 1v1 turn based strategy game where players control a small army of around 8 to 10 soldiers on a 20 by 20 square grid map.
Was thinking of using a simultaneous turn system where both players input their command for each soldier and then all these commands get executed at the same time. Then I ran into a lot of issues like "what if both players tries to move a soldier onto the same square" etc.
I hope someone here can help me out by suggesting good examples of games with simultaneous turn system that I can examine. Or give some advice on making such a system. Thanks!
Try playing Vandal Hearts 2.
in that game, the stronger char bumps the weaker chars back (iirc)
in that game, the stronger char bumps the weaker chars back (iirc)
In "Diplomacy", armies which are ordered to the same territory both bounce back. One of the strategic elements is in ordering an army to "support" a move -- which enables it to win the move. (Unless the opponent is also supported).
You could make the soldiers "shove" each other, so a soldier might effectively be "supported" if the friendly soldier behind him is trying to move into his space. Allowing chains of "shoving" to form would mean that blocks of soldiers would have more strength. This would result in deep formations being able to penetrate shallow formations. This is both a realistic result and also tactically interesting because players must choose between having narrow/deep formations which have a lot of penetrating power or wide/shallow formations which can occupy a lot of the battlefront, but are more vulnerable.
The long spears and pikes which were the primary weapons of heavy infantry from ancient times (the 'phalanx') through until the late 1600s (the "pike-and-shot" units of the 30 years war/ECW) were built upon the idea of ranks and ranks of soldiers "pushing" their way through other units.[4] The length of the weapons allowed soldiers behind the front rank to fight, but needed to be weighed against making the units unwieldy. The soldiers at the very rear of the files were expected to simply be pushing their comrades forwards...
When ranged weapons are included, the strategic considerations become even more complicated; a wide frontage unit can bring more weapons to bear although it remains exposed to more risk of penetration in close combat. The argument as to the superiority of columns of attack[3] vs lines occupied military thinking through the late 1700s through the Napoleonic era[1] until around the time of the ACW[2].
[1] The French favoured attacking in columns, hoping that local force superiority would break opposition lines. The British favoured defending in long thin lines, in order to use more of a unit's muskets.
[2] Because improvements in weapons were bringing the age of "linear warfare" to end by that point.
[3] as opposed to columns of march, which are much narrower.
[4] the "shot" were originally seen as a way of harassing the enemy before getting to the actual fighting with pikes. As the TYW/ECW era ended musketry had improved to the point that it was finally becoming more important than pike combat.
You could make the soldiers "shove" each other, so a soldier might effectively be "supported" if the friendly soldier behind him is trying to move into his space. Allowing chains of "shoving" to form would mean that blocks of soldiers would have more strength. This would result in deep formations being able to penetrate shallow formations. This is both a realistic result and also tactically interesting because players must choose between having narrow/deep formations which have a lot of penetrating power or wide/shallow formations which can occupy a lot of the battlefront, but are more vulnerable.
The long spears and pikes which were the primary weapons of heavy infantry from ancient times (the 'phalanx') through until the late 1600s (the "pike-and-shot" units of the 30 years war/ECW) were built upon the idea of ranks and ranks of soldiers "pushing" their way through other units.[4] The length of the weapons allowed soldiers behind the front rank to fight, but needed to be weighed against making the units unwieldy. The soldiers at the very rear of the files were expected to simply be pushing their comrades forwards...
When ranged weapons are included, the strategic considerations become even more complicated; a wide frontage unit can bring more weapons to bear although it remains exposed to more risk of penetration in close combat. The argument as to the superiority of columns of attack[3] vs lines occupied military thinking through the late 1700s through the Napoleonic era[1] until around the time of the ACW[2].
[1] The French favoured attacking in columns, hoping that local force superiority would break opposition lines. The British favoured defending in long thin lines, in order to use more of a unit's muskets.
[2] Because improvements in weapons were bringing the age of "linear warfare" to end by that point.
[3] as opposed to columns of march, which are much narrower.
[4] the "shot" were originally seen as a way of harassing the enemy before getting to the actual fighting with pikes. As the TYW/ECW era ended musketry had improved to the point that it was finally becoming more important than pike combat.
Another vote for Laser Squad Nemesis here, it's full of great inspirations, and some of its quirks highlight the challenges you may face if you set out to design a similar engine.
Author
I tried the demo of Laser squad Nemesis. The simultaneous turn system is very well done.
But it is not really what I am looking for. I am more looking for something like "simultaneous turn chess". Rather than inputting orders for the next 10 seconds like in Laser Squad Nemesis, players simply input the next one move for each unit he controls.
But it is not really what I am looking for. I am more looking for something like "simultaneous turn chess". Rather than inputting orders for the next 10 seconds like in Laser Squad Nemesis, players simply input the next one move for each unit he controls.
Move soldier to square already occupied by enemy soldier = combat ensues, slight advantage to defending soldier
Move soldier to square at same time enemy soldier is moved to square = combat ensues, no advantage to either soldier
Move soldier to square at same time enemy soldier is moved to square = combat ensues, no advantage to either soldier
Author
Quote:Original post by Silvermyst
Move soldier to square already occupied by enemy soldier = combat ensues, slight advantage to defending soldier
Move soldier to square at same time enemy soldier is moved to square = combat ensues, no advantage to either soldier
In the game I am designing, each soldier only occupies one square. Currently thinking of having both units ending their movement 1 square away if they both happen to move onto the same square.
Also, should I allow soldiers to run pass each other? Suppose their sight is blocked by trees for example, but their are right next to each other. Should they be allowed to walk pass each other?
Maybe the Laser Squad Nemesis 10 second turn system is the best way to solve all these problems. It is basically real time but with pause to input orders. Rather than discrete turn based like Chess.
Soluim Infernum, an indie turn based strategy game, used simultaneous turns as a key mechanic.
The way it worked was each turn one person would be elected to be the Leader on a turn by turn basis (I think it just goes round each of the players one at a time). Anyway, so you would choose all your moves, specifying the order that you want them executed. All players send in their orders. Then, starting with the leader and working its way around it would choose each players first order on at a time then their second order and so on.
You can check it out here
The way it worked was each turn one person would be elected to be the Leader on a turn by turn basis (I think it just goes round each of the players one at a time). Anyway, so you would choose all your moves, specifying the order that you want them executed. All players send in their orders. Then, starting with the leader and working its way around it would choose each players first order on at a time then their second order and so on.
You can check it out here
Look at Robo Rally, Diplomacy, A Game of Thrones.
Robo Rally executes moves on a priority system. Unit push each other when they attempt to occupy the same spot. Each move card has a number and higher ones happen first. So if there is a unit at A and one at C, A is moving to the right and C is moving to the left, it happens like this:
_A_C_ Initial state
__AC_ A moves to the right
_AC__ C moves to the left, pushing A
You can see how this would change if C had priority over A.
A Game of Thrones has all players setting down command tokens simultaneously, similarly to Diplomacy, but then players take turns resolving one token at a time. This doesn't sound like what you are looking for though.
Without more knowledge of the type of game, and how you want combat to work, I can't give a better suggestion, but something like Robo Rally looks like your best bet.
Robo Rally executes moves on a priority system. Unit push each other when they attempt to occupy the same spot. Each move card has a number and higher ones happen first. So if there is a unit at A and one at C, A is moving to the right and C is moving to the left, it happens like this:
_A_C_ Initial state
__AC_ A moves to the right
_AC__ C moves to the left, pushing A
You can see how this would change if C had priority over A.
A Game of Thrones has all players setting down command tokens simultaneously, similarly to Diplomacy, but then players take turns resolving one token at a time. This doesn't sound like what you are looking for though.
Without more knowledge of the type of game, and how you want combat to work, I can't give a better suggestion, but something like Robo Rally looks like your best bet.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement