
Fixing the Turn-based Strategy genre - bpierre
http://www.lostgarden.com/2005/06/space-crack-fixing-turn-based-strategy.html
======
wuest
There's not a lot in the way of new ideas here, but it's a nice distillation
of bits and pieces that I've seen incorporated into other games.

The web-based half RTS/half TBS genre has incorporated the idea of X command
points per Y time period as part of the norm for a long while (Travian, et.
al.) Turns in such games are generally not immediately exposed as mechanics
(if they, in fact, exist at all). I recall an old space based RTS (the name
escapes me, sorry) which exposed the amount of time left until the next tick,
at which point all players would get more command points, while Travian
appears to have a tick per second, with long waiting periods (relative to tick
length) between updating command resources.

One thing which might be useful as a thought experiment to further this
article is to look at TBS games which aren't dying--why is Civ V still
popular? Or, to get even more basic, why is baduk still widely popular? Some
thoughts regarding the latter: each move is very granular, which keeps the
game moving foreward. Each move has an immediate impact on the game state
(this relates to your point that "nothing happens in the first move.") There
is a deep element of strategy, which is augmented by a need for strict time
management. It's easy to review games and find mistakes, as well as to review
games of higher level players to find new ideas and strategies.

~~~
Retric
I think the next round of TBS games needs to let all sides make plans at the
same time and watch what happens. The trick is giving the units enough AI to
be reasonably effective and letting people set up priorities. Naturally this
lends it's self to a game clock, but IMO it better simulates the chaos of war
and let's you have significantly larger battles.

PS: Frozen Synapse is part way there, but IMO units should be a little more
capable when not told what to do.

~~~
muraiki
Mechwarrior Tactics does this to some degree: there is an attack phase where
both players declare all their attacks, which are then resolved
simultaneously. Likewise for movement. Not quite what you describe, but it
still creates a situation where you have to think about what your opponent is
thinking. <https://mwtactics.com/>

------
sesqu
This post doesn't seem to be very concerned with turn-based games beyond
multiplayer.

I'll concede that turn-based has never been a good fit for multiplayer, but I
was hoping for some analysis on single-player failings. There are reasons why
turn-based single player games have at times been very popular, but many newer
entrants seem to have forgotten what those are. The turn-based system gets rid
of skillshots at the cost of respondability, which can both improve and
degrade approachability.

I also wouldn't consider the two offered solutions to both be turn-based. I
feel the Travian system of ticks is realtime, whereas the Age of Wonders
system is mostly turn-based (though exploitable). I'm on the fence about a
Planetarion style system, with sparser ticks - it retains some good parts of
turn-based, but adds some bad parts from realtime.

I'm pretty sure there has been a multiplayer game like Frozen Synapse, which
is the third simultaneous option. I feel like this is the only truly turn-
based variant, though a very different system from traditional turn-based
games.

Of course, there is the final, popular method of simply setting time limits on
turns and simplifying the game until turns are fast. I dislike this approach
as well - maybe turn-based games are better left in single-player mode.

------
jsnell
Note that this is from 2005.

~~~
bpierre
Yeah, I found interesting to discuss this 8 years later.

I think a good example could be Frozen Synapse. Not the first [1], but he has
fixed some of the listed flaws [2].

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turns,_rounds_and_time-
keeping_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turns,_rounds_and_time-
keeping_systems_in_games#Simultaneously_executed_and_clock-based_turns)

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_Synapse#Gameplay>

------
Sumaso
This just seems like a variation on the "energy" system. Wait 2 minutes get
another point of energy, make some moves.

I still think a Hero Academy type system is probably best. It doesn't give you
the complexity of building up multiple cities Civ 5 style, but it does give
you a multiplier final fantasy tactics, which is awesome!

~~~
whileonebegin
I'm also a fan of the "energy" system in TBS. A recent game that used this
method is Legend of Grimrock (really great game if you like old school). Also,
the author mentioned Age of Wonders. That's another great game with a good
turn-based system. AOW2 is coming out this year!

------
dsugarman
I would look at board games for a reference. I think almost every board game
is essentially a turn-based strategy game, but there are some that involve a
turn in which everyone moves at the same time.

One that comes to mind is Diplomacy. TBH I think Diplomacy is a great game,
but it actually takes way longer than a normal board game (probably because
everyone spends a long time negotiating during every turn to optimize each
move) and usually ends with some group of winners rather than playing the game
out.

I think designing a strong game of this type is extremely hard.

~~~
saraid216
> I think almost every board game is essentially a turn-based strategy game

The distinction between "turn-based" and "real-time" is largely perceptual
rather than actual. "Real-time" simply does two things: it slices the turns
down to an extremely fine grain (such that they're more "frames" than
"turns"), and it forcibly makes "do nothing" or "continue previous action" the
default action.

Thus, the real distinction for a designer is, "How much time do you want your
player to have to make a given decision?" The more time you're willing to
give, the more likely you should make it turn-based, and vice versa. This is
how chess starts to resemble an RTS when you add a clock. If you pared the
"time to move" down to, say, 10 seconds... it becomes hard (but not
impossible, since you're still right) to argue that chess is really turn-
based.

~~~
jacques_chester
Turn based games let you block other players from taking actions while you
decide what to do. Realtime games do not.

That's the distinction, IMO, not turn length.

~~~
saraid216
You're not really disagreeing with me. You get to block other players for the
length of your turn; if that length is infinitesimally small, that's still
true. It just becomes meaningless; that's the entire point of blitzkrieg
chess.

~~~
jacques_chester
By which logic timesharing and batch computing are the same.

What matters is the player experience, not the implementation.

------
scotty79
I think <http://www.banghowdy.com/> is great example of making turn based game
fun to play online.

I also had lots of fun playing
<http://www.kongregate.com/games/Kongregate/kongai> that is also turn based
and example of great game design.

------
m_myers
I've never been able to get into TBS because of the issues he mentions at the
start. Risk II [1] had a mode with simultaneous turns, which was fun for a bit
but lost its luster because it was still basically Risk.

What I've come to prefer is RTS with a live pause: that is, you can pause at
any time to give orders, line up production queues, etc. It works best for
single player games, which is what I prefer anyway. Paradox Interactive's
games (Crusader Kings series, Hearts of Iron series, Europa Universalis
series) are prime examples of this method.

(Disclaimer: I worked on a spin-off of Europa Universalis II; see my profile
for a link. I started on the project after having played the game for six
years.)

[1]: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_II>

------
Lexarius
This idea is good, but pretty old. I know it's used in at least Wolfpack's
version of the venerable Empire family:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_Classic_(video_game)>

------
networked
They don't seem to be reachable from the main page any more but _My Name is
Daniel and I am a Genre Addict_ [1] and _Evolutionary Design_ [2] are two
older Lost Garden essays very much worth reading. Especially the first one
since it offers both possible psychological insight into how gaming was shaped
into what it is today and a good direction for a small game developer to
explore (i.e., business advice).

[1] <http://lunar.lostgarden.com/essay_genreaddict.htm>

[2] <http://lunar.lostgarden.com/evolutionary_game_design.htm>

------
algorias
One TBS game that solves this problem in an interesting way is Ultracorps [1]
(very oldschool, browser based). Turns are simultaneous - you give commands,
then when all players are done (or the timer expires) commands are executed
simultaneously. When fleets clash, a battle happens which is resolved
according to a fixed set of rules. The results of previous turns are
accessible via logs.

For me, the downfall of that game was the excessive need to write down
information outside the game, e.g. plausible enemy fleet positions based on
where you last saw them.

[1]: <http://ultracorps.sjgames.com/>

~~~
buerkle
I haven't played Ultracorps, but the game Diplomacy works in a similar
fashion. All moves occur simultaneously. Makes for a great war game, much
better than Risk.

------
yareally
I always thought the paradox interactive strategy games do things well. Games
like Hearts of Iron 3 and Victoria 2 are technically RTS, but play with
traditional turn based strategy micromanagement. They accomplish this by
allowing you to slow, pause or speed up time, depending on how much a
situation requires. It was a little weird at first from being used to how turn
based games traditionally work, but I quite like it now and stops the down
time you would experience in between turns.

------
darkmarmot
All of these ideas were implemented in TradeWars and other BBS games during
the 1980s.... even concurrent play with live updates (if they had multiple
phone lines :)

------
Tyrannosaurs
I wonder what he'd think if you told him that 8 years later a turn based
strategy game would be a strong contender for game of the year?

Yes XCOM is trading in large part on nostalgia, but I know plenty of people
who never played it the first time round picking it up and enjoying it.

Not to mention the slew of TBS games on iOS (and I'm guessing Android) where
the stop start nature of the play ties in well to how and where we use those
devices.

------
gosu
To add to the list, I recall MAX featuring a similar kind of simultaneous
turn-based thing. Players could both move during the same turn, but only had
so many action points per turn, so you couldn't really get too far ahead just
with good micro or quick thinking.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanized_Assault_%26_Explorat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanized_Assault_%26_Exploration)

------
dlhavema
Black Nova Traders was an old school "TBS" with turns granted over time (
their version of command points.. ). it was a pretty fun game back in the
early 2000's and at best i saw ~100 active players per game with 100 other's
that provided extra targets...

------
snake_plissken
I always felt Alpha Centauri did things well. You had as much time as it took
you to move all of your units that still had movement points. When you had no
more units with free movement points, your turn ended.

And for the record the AI in that game could be brutal.

------
Egregore
It's time to remember PBEM (Play by e-mail games) where all players made their
turns at the same time, I think these concepts can be used in concurrent turn
based strategy games.

------
vq
It would have been nice to see some case studies with games that already
implement simultaneous turns, what makes them great or what other problems
hold them back.

------
rbkillea
I'm of the opinion that MtG (magic the gathering) disproves the basic premise
of this post.

~~~
john_b
For those of us who are largely unfamiliar with MtG, would you mind
elaborating?

------
nwzpaperman
XCOM UFO Defense is still the greatest game ever, IMO. The sequels didn't fix
anything.

------
yyttrr
Zynga solved this long ago.

