Semi-Real Time

Sat, 03/05/2016 - 23:02

#1

Gabe

Offline

Joined: 09/11/2014

One way to do it is to have

One way to do it is to have players select actions secretly and then reveal them simoultaneously. Things would then play out based on the actions players chose. It's still not quite real-time like a video game but would provide the tension of not knowing what your opponents are doing and trying to predict what's coming.

Sun, 03/06/2016 - 08:43

#2

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Great to see you back.

I still remember your topics. And I hope that I am not the cause for your absence with my complex explanations. (I felt that way and somehow regret)

If there is one thing that I have learned from that, is that one cannot think of a mechanic in detail for another. Without knowing the rest of their game.
We mostly can only supply "what ifs" in most cases.

So the following is an example and experience. In a tldr size.

***

A lesson learned:

I too was in search of a way to get real time done. However, a board game is slow, compared to video games. You have to stop at some point trying to get real time. And realize that the game mechanics might not allow real time at all for the bigger part.

That action/reaction that you have mentioned. That is where I stopped searching for a "close to RTS" feeling.
Because I realized that my game mechanics will not allow me to go deeper in the real time aspect.

Now, where can you get real time? Where players have to decide things.
Where can we not have real time? All resolutions that the game needs.
What if a player fails to decide? We give an penalty, and this penalty is also a resolution.

This means that if you want a RTS from start to end. All you get are decisions. But no resolutions, and thus no penalties? Is that even possible in a board game?

---

I had to divide my game into decision moments and resolution moments to get a clear look of what I could do.

The only thing that I could work on where choices. And the most important ones where were other players might react to.
This occurred only the action phase.
And in the Event Cards usage.

***

Action Phase:

- A player in turn takes an action.
- All other players may react.
- Based on the chosen action; the player in turn might change the action partially. As if the action was all ready in progress and stopped half way. (Used Event Cards can be lost this way for all players)

To get close to real time. We started forcing things here, "or else!!" .
This means that every choice that players can make has to be hasted.
All other parts of your game needs resolution in a correct way and caNNot! be hasted. Players really need to take time for resolutions to play out.

Of course, if a decision is failed to be made. A penalty is the best way to punish this player. A penalty is simply a resolution.

In short:
Forcing players to decide on something.
Or else a penalty occurs.

---

For pro players, we have this 30 or 10 second timer to force a decision.

The counter reaction also gives a 30 or 10 seconds for each player.

Decisions take 1 to 3 minutes for a 6 player game.

If the player in turn doesn't do anything, penalty is that the player in turn looses one action point. This also means that no other player may react with an action.

***

Event Cards:
Event Cards can be played any time. But no one has to wait for it until a player declares on using one or more. Thus the game goes forward unless some one shouts Event Card(s).

If a player declares on using Event Cards, that causes the game to pause a bit.
Again the timer is used for this. But if a player still has to think and look in their deck, while the timer runs out.
A penalty occurs! The next in turn may remove "blindly" 1 card from that deck.

Wed, 03/09/2016 - 01:34

#3

Experimental Designs

Offline

Joined: 04/20/2013

X3M wrote:Great to see you

X3M wrote:

Great to see you back.

I still remember your topics. And I hope that I am not the cause for your absence with my complex explanations. (I felt that way and somehow regret)

Not at all. Life happened and everything was put on hold until things were resolved or at a manageable level. It had nothing to do with your complexity or the scary maths you put into your explanations (math is not my forte after all) it was timing of when the proverbial crap hit the fan on my end of things.

That being said I'm looking forward to working with you and everyone else involved once more. ;)

I've come to the conclusion that no one truly owns a game mechanic and in this day and age it is nigh impossible to be completely original so when I'm coming back to this project I feel compelled to have far less restraint on my concepts than before.

As far as your explanation on decisions and resolutions, I'm looking at it like the cause and effect of the basic game fundamental of making a choice then seeing the results. The only difference the resolution is in real time on a video game versus a tabletop which is left to the fate of your dice rolls, card flip or what have you.

It seems to me most tabletops these days are focused on your choice of army lists instead of actual tactical decisions with some exceptions. I'm against the idea timed forced decisions, the whole real time aspect I was aiming at was your tactical decisions are critical at a action by action basis rather than waiting on long turn intervals of resolving in one big movement. In real time the opponent isn't going to wait around for you to pound them into dust, they're going to make sure you don't succeed. Does this make more sense or did I derp real hard just now?

Wed, 03/09/2016 - 07:02

#4

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

To me, you made 100% sense.

No time forced decisions. Yet an active reaction from any one in the game.

I agree that forced timing isn't a real answer. It is sometimes the only befitting mechanic to the game.
For my game; I had no choice.

We often, only have the timer for the first initial actions by the "starting" player. As described above. Most reactions are free, "to do", or, "not to do". And we often let the game resolution decide how much time other players have to react.

A focus point in board games is the fairness. This fairness in video games are a single push on a button. That is an absolute single moment that mirrors the decision that one has made. And it is a solid rule for all.

You cannot do this in board games. Every step takes longer. And making a "mouse click" in a board game is not a single moment, but more or less at least a second. Instead of the video game making the resolution. The board game requires each player to notice a change in the flow. Communication takes time if it is not in the form of a single button-push.

The more real time you want, the less time on communication you need.

***

Another way to look at games:

A board game has a focus on every moment. And each player has to notice this moment.

A video game looks like a constant flow. This causes players to not notice every moment.
Each second, that you play, are for example 100 rounds.
It might take a couple of rounds for the game to have the resolution ready for that mouse click, some milliseconds ago. Players can notice the resolution between the click and the "end result" moment. But also when the resolution has taken place. The unit is suddenly gone.
In video games, players do not take notice of every played round. And most rounds don't have actions by players. It is in a sense still turn based, even if the turns are played simultaneously by the players.

There is only a constant flow of resolutions.
And this flow, is forced by nature itself.

This is my look on things.

Wed, 03/09/2016 - 07:10

#5

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

A suggestion

That reminds me.
With semi time.

What if your field (if you have one) has numbers on it. And each round, each player compiles information. Which decides on the actions that players want to take.

Information, where you do your action from.
Information, where you do your action towards.
Information, if you attack or move or whatever.

One might want to use small magnetic boards or something similar. That contains numbers from, numbers towards and a couple of possible actions. Simply placing 3 magnets. And if everyone is ready. Turn around the decisions.

Now the resolution takes place.
It would be absolutely a same time decision. Not forced.

Wed, 03/09/2016 - 09:15

#6

Corsaire

Offline

Joined: 06/27/2013

Programmed movement hits the

Programmed movement hits the feel pretty good. A couple of old ones: Star Fleet Battles has twelve ticks in a turn everyone populates the ticks they act on like one player has 1,3,6,9,12 and another has 2,6,9,12 then everyone takes there specified action when their tick happens. Avalon Hill's Gunslinger has you place three cads with actions down like move 3, turn, shoot, run... Etc. Much more recently Colt Express does it.

In a different way, with many pieces, you could alternate piece movements, indicating which has moved this turn. Can't think of a specific example, but I recall games like this feeling for snappy and in the now as they take on a rythm.

Thu, 03/10/2016 - 02:06

#7

Experimental Designs

Offline

Joined: 04/20/2013

Ah, this is why I came back

Ah, this is why I came back to this forum. It's a living breathing gold mine of information.

Once more X3M you bring laser focus to the mechanical aspects of the matter. Even your turn-based games like Civilization or Age of Wonders the computer makes the turn process feel seamless in the resolution stages since the combat element in those games are resolved in one go instead of your unit smacking one unit for a few hit points this turn then on their turn the other unit does it in kind until it becomes a derpy "I hit you then you hit me" type deal.

Whether it is button hitting or mouse clicking it comes back an earlier discussion on another topic when you referred to action points in a pulse-like mechanic. Going back to that had me thinking about a limited pool of action points makes the ordeal into risk and resource management.

Here are my different variations of using action pools and Action/Reaction mechanics.

Method 1: Each model has a preset number of actions in the form of their initiative and certain actions cost points to use. Some models are better at doing actions cost wise versus others to represent their capabilities. During the action phase the order of actions is from highest to lowest meaning if a model is doing an action that is costly towards their initiative they're slower to react or respond towards another model. For example a mobile artillery piece needs to spend points to deploy before it can use an attack action. So it has to spend points to ready its gun then spend additional points to fire it and if the total equals to 0, because you subtract from your initiative score, it is going to go dead last. This is can be offset if you had observer teams to provide effective fire before the target can move out the way! On the other hand an IFV cost to deploy infantry is significantly less which gives it room to provide covering fire, pop a smoke screen or even advance on its activation. If the IFV has an initiative of 6 and has a deployment cost of 3 it has an action order of three versus an opposing model action which maybe the same or less. Scores that are same are resolved simultaneously with some modifiers tacked on. To do additional action rounds during the phase you spend points but these cost are not cumulative but each initial action tacks on an extra point per consecutive actions. If a tank fired on its first action round it will have to spend an extra point to use the same action on the next round, but not to move unless a special rule applies. To keep track you leave color coded chits next to models to help you remind you which model moved, which model fired on their first action round. There can be anywhere from 1 to 3 action rounds in a single activation phase depending on the scenario and presets agreed upon to show the ebb and flow of battle.

Method 2: Model initiative plays a larger factor and has more risk management in it than the previous method. However this is more "wristy" with die rolling than tracking action priority after spending points. This works by having preset initiative for each model and instead of point costs you have thresholds to pass with 2 six sided die. This is more focused on your models capability versus your opponent's models capability of reacting and activating first. The higher the initiative the better it can pass an action threshold with variable level of risks depending on the model's capability and how many actions you wish to do with that model. Some models can do multiple actions without too many issues while others lack the "virtuoso" of some models and they become a risk in a certain situations. So if a model had an initiative of 10 and if moving is a factor of 10 and attacking is a factor of 7 and to do both actions the action threshold is 7. Since the move action is the same as the initiative it does not count as an initial action. However if the move was a factor of 9 and attacking was a factor of 7 then the threshold would have been 6. Which on 2D6 it is very risky due to the average numbers on a 2D6 bell curve. Rolling a successful threshold makes it harder for your opponent to react because for them to react, however much you succeed that is added to their action. So if you needed to roll a 9 threshold and you rolled a 7 that is going to add 2 towards his threshold. On the other hand if you fail a threshold he can react without this penalty then until their threshold fails even if you activated first your actions maybe resolved last.

Method 3: The third method was using a dice pool and each die was an action point. According to your models initiative (there's that word again) you roll the dice pool and allocate them to which actions you want your model to do. Certain actions require a 3+, 4+ and so on while rolling 1s don't count and they're discarded and 6s can go towards any action. Most models require 2 points to do an action while others can cost more depending what they're suited for. With this method you have to manage how much emphasis you want on an action. The more points invested towards an action the better it is going to do it. This allocation is done secretly until activation and you still put a chit to annotate if it moved, attacked and etc. This one isn't as hashed as well as the previous two because I'm not big into dice pools and goes against the consistency to stick with 2D6 through out the game.

Take a moment to digest this and see what you think.

Thu, 03/10/2016 - 05:40

#8

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Well, this digesting might

Well, this digesting might take a while. But ok. I will react on each method separately. If you don't mind, I will change the wall'o'text into something more digestive. Please read through this, for if I have not made any mistakes.

Experimental Designs wrote:

Method 1:
Each model has a pre-set number of actions in the form of their initiative.
Certain actions, cost points to use.
Some models have better cost wise actions compared to others, to represent their capabilities.

During the action phase, the order of actions is from highest to lowest.
Meaning that if a model is doing an action that is costly towards their initiative, they're slower to react or respond towards another model.

For example;
a mobile artillery piece needs to spend points to deploy before it can use an attack action.
So it has to spend points to ready its gun, then spend additional points to fire it. And if the total equals to 0, because you subtract from your initiative score, it is going to go dead last.
This can be offset, if you had observer teams to provide effective fire, before the target can move out the way!

On the other hand an IFV cost to deploy infantry is significantly less, which gives it room to provide covering fire, pop a smoke screen, or even advance on its activation.
If the IFV has an initiative of 6 and has a deployment cost of 3, it has an action order of three (6-3=3) versus an opposing model action which maybe the same or less.

Scores that are the same, are resolved simultaneously, with some modifiers tacked on.

To do additional action rounds during the phase you spend points, but these cost are not cumulative. Instead, each initial action tacks on an extra point per consecutive actions.
If a tank fired on its first action round, it will have to spend an extra point to use the same action on the next round. But not to move, unless a special rule applies.

To keep track, you leave colour coded chits next to your models, to help you remind you which model moved and/or fired on their first action round. There can be 1 to 3 action rounds in a single activation phase, depending on the scenario and pre-sets agreed upon to show the ebb and flow of battle.

I laughed when I read "ebb and flow". This is something that only a few countries use in their vocabulary. Where are you from?

Anyway, I hope I made the text a bit more readable. If correct, I don't mind you pasting it into your post. And I will simply turn this one more into a reaction post. But most importantly, you can re read and know if I understood what you are saying.

I like this idea (while I did not read the others yet).
If I where to put this into examples, I would consider this to be possible in the game:

Mobile Artillery.
6 points to start with.
Move, 2 points.
(un)Deploy, 2 points.
Fire if deployed, 4 points.

APC.
8 points to start with.
Move, 1 point.
Deploy infantry, 3 points.
Fire, 2 points.

Infantry.
4 points to start with.
Move, 1 point.
Take cover, 3 points.
Fire, 1 point.

This means that if infantry only moves.
The APC is only firing
And the Artillery is only firing.
Their initiative are 3 versus 6 versus 2.

The APC fires first. Then the infantry may move. And last, the Artillery shoots.

Correct?

So, the points that remain are also 3, 6 and 2.

This means that a next round, the APC has a high chance in being the first one to do something again. The infantry and artillery are close to each other. Yet the infantry have cheaper costs.
The Artillery, if doing something, would remain with 0 points and not able to do the same thing.
The infantry can have 0, 1(in case of moving again) or 2, depending on the chosen action.
And the APC will be having 5 or 3 (firing costs 3 now, right?).

I don't know how you have the initial points in mind. So maybe this example of mine sounded like a retarded version. But still. If the math is correctly displayed. And the rules are used correctly. Than I say, this mechanic has a good potential. And sounds rather original to me.

The only down side of this is, that you really need a lot of balancing.

This because every choice, also has it's own costs.
This is linked to each unit individually.

Thu, 03/10/2016 - 18:21

#9

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

The other 2

Experimental Designs wrote:

Method 2:
Model initiative plays a larger factor and has more risk management in it than the previous method. However this is more "wristy" with die rolling than tracking action priority after spending points.

This works by having a pre-set initiative for each model and instead of point costs you have thresholds to pass with 2 six sided die.

This is more focused on your models capability versus your opponent's models capability of reacting and activating first. The higher the initiative the better it can pass an action threshold with variable level of risks, depending on the model's capability and how many actions you wish to do with that model. Some models can do multiple actions without too many issues while others lack the "virtuoso" of some models and they become a risk in certain situations.

So if a model had an initiative of 10 and if moving is a factor of 10 and attacking is a factor of 7 and to do both actions the action threshold is 7. Since the move action is the same as the initiative it does not count as an initial action. However if the move was a factor of 9 and attacking was a factor of 7 then the threshold would have been 6. Which on 2D6 it is very risky due to the average numbers on a 2D6 bell curve.

Rolling a successful threshold makes it harder for your opponent to react because for them to react, however much you succeed that is added to their action. So if you needed to roll a 9 threshold and you rolled a 7 that is going to add 2 towards his threshold. On the other hand if you fail a threshold he can react without this penalty then until their threshold fails even if you activated first your actions maybe resolved last.

Sorry, this is to vague for players to understand right away. Even I am troubled.
Rolling dice to determine initiative is no problem. But you might want to explain it in a completely different way as above. To much ifs to ifs, if you catch my drift.

Instead of giving examples and explaining how this idea works in the background. How about you explain this idea as if it does belong to your game? Simply telling what a player has to do and what the player needs to know. And then give 2 unit examples with different values, while rolling the same.

Experimental Designs wrote:

Method 3: The third method was using a dice pool and each die was an action point. According to your models initiative (there's that word again) you roll the dice pool and allocate them to which actions you want your model to do. Certain actions require a 3+, 4+ and so on while rolling 1s don't count and they're discarded and 6s can go towards any action. Most models require 2 points to do an action while others can cost more depending what they're suited for. With this method you have to manage how much emphasis you want on an action. The more points invested towards an action the better it is going to do it. This allocation is done secretly until activation and you still put a chit to annotate if it moved, attacked and etc. This one isn't as hashed as well as the previous two because I'm not big into dice pools and goes against the consistency to stick with 2D6 through out the game.

While I get a rough idea with this one. If you don't know for sure yourself if this idea is any good. Perhaps discard this last idea completely.

In overall. I think that your first idea was explained the best. The best to follow in steps. And the most logical one to do. (That is, if I understood it completely)

Wed, 03/16/2016 - 22:22

#10

Experimental Designs

Offline

Joined: 04/20/2013

For the record, I have

For the record, I have difficulties explaining how something works. I have a terrible habit of making the simplest things turn into rocket science. The same reason I share such trepidation having to write the actual rulebook for the public because I promise you it’ll be an unintelligible mess. Trust me it took me a long time to get that last entry posted due to the editing alone! As for my origins just take a gander at my profile and it’ll give you a good indication where I’m from.

Anyhow, you seem to have the gist of it with the exception you seem to have overlooked the consecutive actions have a “ramp-up” cost per use in the action phase. I also should have iterated further on the instance when a model has zero initiative all other action rounds will be resolved first before 0 initiatives are resolved. You are right about the part that it will need a lot of balancing which is why it is undergoing thorough testing.

At the current time of posting this I am testing a hybrid variation of methods 1 and 2. I will be posting new information on developments as soon as I get settled in.

Method 3 has been discarded completely for obvious reasons.

Thu, 03/17/2016 - 14:15

#11

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Experimental Designs

Experimental Designs wrote:

For the record, I have difficulties explaining how something works.

Me too. I am using hints and tricks from the internet (including this site). To get a better understanding of the mind of NEW players. But also to explain in a simple and effective way.

It requires research.
It requires practise.
It requires patience.

It is difficult for someone like me. But sharing experience as much as possible helps a lot.

Experimental Designs wrote:

Anyhow, you seem to have the gist of it with the exception you seem to have overlooked the consecutive actions have a “ramp-up” cost per use in the action phase.

Please, re-explain this part then.

Experimental Designs wrote:

I also should have iterated further on the instance when a model has zero initiative all other action rounds will be resolved first before 0 initiatives are resolved.

I thought you meant that for example; an unit has 2 points left and is resolved before 0.
If this is incorrect. Please explain this too.

But if both explanations are discarded at this point, because you are putting something together anew. Then nvm. :)

Sun, 03/20/2016 - 18:02

#12

gxnpt

Offline

Joined: 12/22/2015

possible semi-realtime

activity points - vary by unit

actions - point cost varies by action - cost activity points in absolute terms and determine timing in relative terms
so if you have 20 points a 5 point action happens 5/20 of the way thru the turn
unused points from a turn can be used to reduce the point cost and timing of the first action in the next turn (limit of zero) but only the first action in the next turn

for further complexity, some actions may have a trigger point partway (total cost and time=10,trigger at 7) to represent recovery swab out the cannon etc

and some actions may require a preceeding action or condition.....

Sun, 03/20/2016 - 20:00

#13

ElKobold

Offline

Joined: 04/10/2015

There's

There's this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_(miniatures_game)

Sat, 07/09/2016 - 23:19

#14

Experimental Designs

Offline

Joined: 04/20/2013

I apologize for long delay

I apologize for long delay due to RL issues and having to take a break from some projects before I drove myself mental. I’ve combined some mechanics from methods 1 and 2 while implementing something entirely new.

Method 4: Consider some of the details from the first two methods that game turns and rounds work a little different from conventional wargame design this time. Normally player A and player B each take a turn to complete one game round. My approach is to do a series of rounds like phases normally associated with UGOIGO systems to complete a single turn or a cycle of play. Not sure how the terminology will work on wargame veterans, but bear with me with this one. It is the only way to make this method sensible without going into deep convoluted semantics. If I am going about this completely wrong and butt-backwards then let me know because the more criticism I get the better the refinement process will be.

The first round is alternating in allocating orders and available assets in your hand with a resource system called control points. This is the resource management part of the game that what you decide here will carry onto the next round which is the activation round. The second round is alternating in activating models dictated by what was allocated in the previous round. The way these rounds alternate you’re not waiting on your opponent to do everything with their stuff before it is your turn to do so if there is anything left afterwards. Lastly the third round is alternating in “housekeeping” to resolve any effects, remove casualties, and check morale tests and anything else to get the game ready for the next turn.

User login

Navigation

Nov 23 2024

Nov 21 2024

Nov 20 2024

Nov 18 2024

Nov 17 2024

Nov 15 2024

Nov 13 2024

Nov 10 2024

Nov 7 2024

Nov 5 2024

Nov 1 2024

Oct 31 2024

Oct 29 2024

Oct 28 2024

Oct 25 2024

Oct 21 2024

Oct 17 2024

Oct 15 2024

Oct 14 2024

Oct 11 2024

Oct 9 2024