Turning to Turn-Based for Stealth and Other Types of Gameplay

[Veylon]

The Last Alliance's combat system works similar to what he's describing. You pick how you want your ship to fly for the next little bit, pick out what you want your weapons shooting at, and then it simulates ahead.

 

[Piorn]

Isn't Toribash technically a turn-based competitive fighting game?
Though I suppose it's also a turn-based qwop.

 

[Kahani]

Quite a few strategy games use ideas along these lines. Birth of the Federation (a surprisingly not terrible Star Trek 4X) is the first one I can think of that had orders lined up for fights which then played out for a few seconds in real time, then paused to give orders again. Endless Space did it again more recently, although with only 3 turns per battle and a fairly limited card-based system for control. And there are quite a few games that allow simultaneous turns as an option in games that look like they should be normal turn-based strategy - Age of Wonders 3 for example(I think, I have a few fantasy 4X games I haven't played much and may be confusing them).

Plus most Paradox grand strategy-type games technically do this. Although described as "real time with pause", they're actually turn based games with short turns that don't wait for you to hit the "end turn" button. For the most part it would be incredibly boring (and take years) to actually play them in entirely a turn-based manner, but it's not at all uncommon to do so for short periods when there's lots of complicated manoeuvring required.

 

[warmachine]

There's a wide range of turn-based, non-combat gameplay styles out there. It's just most designers with a talent for such styles are designing board games. Those that aren't are mostly designing mobile games. And nowadays, such board games that are ported to video games are mostly only ported to mobile.

It sounds like the author was playing Formula De. Alas, as far as I can tell, there's no official video game port.

 

[thanatos388]

For Real-time conversations, Alpha Protocol tried something like this. I liked it, but it got slammed in reviews...

Seriously? Why? That was probably the best conversation mechanic I've seen in a game. You have to pay attention and think quickly in response. Walking Dead did the same thing and people liked it there.

 

[Covarr]

Each turn lasts 5 seconds; if you give a command to one of your guys that will take 15 seconds, you'll have the opportunity to change it at the end of every turn, or you can just let them keep going. Within that 5 seconds though, once you commit to your moves for the turn you can't redo any of that.

One thing I really like about this game is the ability to "preview" the turn. You can place your units, then place your opponent's units, and see how the turn will play out. By doing this you might be able to subtly change your moves so that a nearly-guaranteed win for your opponent goes the other way, simply by moving one of your units a few pixels. Then when you think your units are in the best possible position, commit your turn and see what happens.

The game is entirely deterministic, with no RNG giving your opponent a lucky hit. All else being equal, a unit standing still will kill a unit that's moving, a unit behind cover will kill a unit in the open, etc. The tough part is that a unit standing still in the open versus a unit moving behind cover may be more of a crapshoot; that kind of scenario is where the exact positioning could make all the difference.

Thanks, I suspected my description wasn't quite right. I only played this game for about two hours. Loved the hell out of those two hours, but new games came out and my short attention span--also, I never played multiplayer.

P.S. Thanks

 

[UNHchabo]

Thanks, I suspected my description wasn't quite right. I only played this game for about two hours. Loved the hell out of those two hours, but new games came out and my short attention span--also, I never played multiplayer.

P.S. Thanks

I haven't played in a while, but you should try it out -- one of the nice things about the multiplayer is that you can essentially do it like chess-by-mail; if you're waiting for your opponent to take their turn, you can log off, and it will send you mail when your opponent finishes, and is waiting on you.

 

[StatusNil]

For Real-time conversations, Alpha Protocol tried something like this. I liked it, but it got slammed in reviews...

Seriously? Why? That was probably the best conversation mechanic I've seen in a game. You have to pay attention and think quickly in response. Walking Dead did the same thing and people liked it there.

I don't think the poster meant the mechanic was slammed, but that Alpha Protocol as a whole got slammed for its various minor issues. If anything, the conversation mechanic got singled out for praise in reviews I saw. At least that's the impression I was left with at the time. Great game, IMO.

 

[Olas]

Making v-games turn based seems like a waste of the medium's potential to me, and... at the end of the day, don't all strategic games have to have some sort of time limit? Since otherwise it would be advantageous to take a nearly infinite amount of time to decide on each move?

 

[MackDaddyVelli]

Making v-games turn based seems like a waste of the medium's potential to me,

Only insofar as making 2D sprite games on a modern day console or PC are a waste of the platform's potential. Some systems work better when performed in specific ways. X-COM: Enemy Unknown is, I think, an example of an absolutely fantastic game from the past few years that would likely have been brought down majorly if it had real-time combat. Civilization is the same way. Those mechanics could certainly be tuned to be real-time, but I don't see why it would be considered wasteful to do so. Just because you can format a system in a certain way doesn't mean you should, or that it would be necessarily better when made more complex.

and... at the end of the day, don't all strategic games have to have some sort of time limit? Since otherwise it would be advantageous to take a nearly infinite amount of time to decide on each move?

I don't see how that could be called advantageous. If you take an infinite amount of time (or even just a really long time) to make a move in a strategy game, you aren't actually playing. You're just sitting around looking at a game board. I can understand implementing a move timer in a multiplayer environment where abusing an infinite move clock could break the game in several ways, but in a single-player experience I don't see a need for it.

 

[Olas]

Making v-games turn based seems like a waste of the medium's potential to me,

Only insofar as making 2D sprite games on a modern day console or PC are a waste of the platform's potential. Some systems work better when performed in specific ways. X-COM: Enemy Unknown is, I think, an example of an absolutely fantastic game from the past few years that would likely have been brought down majorly if it had real-time combat. Civilization is the same way. Those mechanics could certainly be tuned to be real-time, but I don't see why it would be considered wasteful to do so. Just because you can format a system in a certain way doesn't mean you should, or that it would be necessarily better when made more complex.

Eh... I guess. I think for me it's just a bit jarring to see a bunch of characters standing there attacking each other one at a time in a realistic fully animated world. In board games it's easier for me to accept the metaphor because I know it's impossible, or at least unrealistic to try and simulate combat in real time, and all the pieces are static. The more realistic a game looks the worse the effect is.

and... at the end of the day, don't all strategic games have to have some sort of time limit? Since otherwise it would be advantageous to take a nearly infinite amount of time to decide on each move?

I don't see how that could be called advantageous. If you take an infinite amount of time (or even just a really long time) to make a move in a strategy game, you aren't actually playing. You're just sitting around looking at a game board.

You're strategizing. There's a big difference between analyzing thousands of move trees and just staring at a board. Relying on a players impatience to move the game along, in a game that directly rewards patience, seems like a flawed system to me. This is why in almost all professional environments chess is played with a timer.

I can understand implementing a move timer in a multiplayer environment where abusing an infinite move clock could break the game in several ways, but in a single-player experience I don't see a need for it.

What's the difference?

 

[Magerama]

Laser Squad Nemesis executed this "all the actions of your characters and enemies are queued up in a single moment, and are all executed simultaneously when everyone's ready" system quite fine. Too bad that they went for this stupid e-mail multiplayer nonsense and therefore failed to attract any audience. I would love to see this one rebooted properly.