The reason behind the 10 second thing is to recreate a TBS type system for people who prefer that, in multiplayer. Obviously with the pause system it isn't required in single player (you can make a "turn" 1 second long if you want to). In MP it lets you recreate a TBS style of play without everybody jumping in to pause constantly. You use your turn to give orders, and your opponents do the same at the same time. When everybody hits "next turn", 10 seconds of RTS happen and those orders get executed. Everybody then gets to change orders as necessary as its a new turn.

You could still have RTS and continuous-turns as options for people who prefer those, but I can't imagine using countinuous-turns in a 16 player PUG. With a friend or in single player? It's ideal.

I guess the way I envision it is an option on game creation (either SP or MP). The engine would be built as continuous-turns, that is realtime with pausing (which is what it was billed as until this post). You'd have three options:

1. RTS - Pausing disabled in combat.

2. Continuous Turns - Pausing enabled in combat. In MP any player can pause at any time, possibly for X amount of time per minute as determined by another setting, or unlimited. In single player, the player can pause whenever they want for however long they want, as the AI really doesn't mind.

3. TBS - Combat auto pauses every 10 seconds, and won't unpause until all players are ready. Players can't pause on their own.

I think if you implement it like that, you're getting close to what every camp wanted out of tactical combat.

edit - Since tactical combat isn't in until beta 3 (is it 3 now that the old beta 3 became beta 2?), hopefully Stardocks decision to go back to TBS isn't carved in stone. It's already changed a few times, what's one more?

Because the smallest distance a unit can move is 1 tile. So a unit with a movement of 1 can go 1 horizontal, 1 vertical, or 1 diagonal. The diagonal is actually ~1.4 tiles distance, but the system isn't granular enough to allow for the true amount as there's no partial movement into tiles, or being in different areas of a tile.

Hex tiles are the best solution if you want a tile based system, but I prefer a tile-free system.

If at all possible, I would love to see a TBS Tile (without Grid ON) (Hexs are out due to the Engine afaik) based battles that allow me to select squads or singles and designate multiple turns of moves by simply selecting a spot somewhere on the Map.

The visual would tell me by a path on the ground that I click via nodes, each showing the Turn # that spot represents in moves in advance. So I could zigzag ahead, flank around or go straight in.

A max. # of turns could be allowed, say 4, and each Turn # noted would be color coded towards the RED spectrum the farther along the line it was out to bright RED at Turn #4.

As well, this same option would be avalaible for Magic Users. Each Move node selected would allow magic to be used, and if not done, then a Timer simply moves to the next node. All Magic spells would show Range, and AOE, using a 180 degree ridial dial scenario for direction of Fire.

Of course, at any point when it once again my turn, I may select any group or magic user and cancel and re-issue.

Darn, now it rather sounds like continuos Turns doesn't it...

Anyways here is a pic showing the rough idea. Magic was done quickly... sue me.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/2168/spiderattack.jpg

I was thinking a little bit more about difference between TBS and CT combat.

It will be really interesting to see, how you will deal with huge amount of units on the battlefield, it might be really pain in the ass at the end game, and for the multiplayer.

Obviously, CT are much better for presentation and feeling of the battle. They do look more interesting and alive. However it is quiete hard to micro manage things if you will try to make units unique and interesting with alot of abilites and attaks and other stuff.

So...

On the other hand, TB is boring to look at, except for some flashing spells, which again will not feel as good as in the full motion. I just hope, you will really take full advantage of TB then, so you make alot of special abilites to use for units, and spells which add unique attacks and effects. Terrain will affect visibility, high ground will give advantage, not being able to shoot at the unit which is behind other one, being able to affect terrain in combat, unit formations and stances, unit speed etc...

I also thing that squares are not very good idea, at least hexagons would be much better for unit movements and fair if it can not be non title based.

Another thing on my mind is, you were mentioning counter spelling during combat, how this will work now? Will we be casting some spells several turns for example? Or you have scraped that idea?

I'm not sure anyone saw my previous post, but after reading the last page of posts I'm more convinced that Stardock should implement TBS like Combat missions.  Where you program the moves and actions of all your units and then submit your turn.  ....After both sides put in their orders you can watch the result of the tactical battle for that turn.   Little video showing how CM looks when playing the turn.  I thought this might help those who never played the game- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W-SSr1tLxE&feature=related

I absolutely 100% agree with this and would encourage everyone that hasn't played the Battlefront games to check the video.  Many good points with regard to the advantages and disadvantages of real time but one REAL downside for an older guy like me is I can't keep up in the "click-fest" with the younger generation (but I would argue I am pretty good tactically).  INTERESTINGLY, Battlefront made their most recent game, Combat Mission Shock Force, selectable for either RTS or WEGO (submit orders simultaneously, watch "movie" for 1 minute, submit orders, rinse/repeat).  Really, the best of both worlds, however not sure what PROGRAMMING resources are gonna be needed for this.

i for one am glad that the battles are Turn based.  i just don't want to have to think very quickly in battle.  i want to be able to think about my strategy, atleast for single player.  for multiplayer, perhaps a timer that gives 1 minute to make decisions.

Yep first thing I heard about that makes me feel somewhat disappointed.  I wouldn't even mind the idea of giving troops "orders" and watching them fight.  Strict turnbase will slow the game down too much.

But, I'm still excited just a bit disappointed.

I'm so busy these days with work, that I'm just a lurker that checks in every few weeks and reads the journals.  If this was 10 years ago, I would of been right in the middle of these debates.  At this point, I wish I was.  I like turn based combat as a memory of the good old days.  But, the simple fact that most of the audience has shifted, "myself included" to the alure of "real-time" battles.  Company of Hereos, Dawn of War, Total War all have a great battle engine depending on the scale you are looking for.

I would love to see the combat be like "total war". e.g. take your campaign/map play and mesh it with a fantasy version of the Total War engine and I'm hooked.

I want to see my hero fight for his life in battle.  Not click on him, an ability and watch an animation.  Then click next person...

Come on don't do this to us.  As a compromise make it like the Dragon Age/Balders gate style engine.  Just don't hit us with only turn based...

Yay for new info and I'd just like to add a small camp that I fall into, which is the Dominions camp. This game as well as dominions 3 as of late, fall into my game play style of choice. The two games, Elemental: War of Magic and Dominions 3 seem to emanate, to me at least, the very core game play mechanics that give life to so many turn based strategy games.

This totally doesn't discount the Galactic Civ games and Sins of the Solar Empire for me either. Cheers again for the new stuff to read.

Edit: Just wanted to say, what has provided me with a breath of fresh air for a turn based gaming experience from both Elemental and Dominions, is that the player takes control of a single entity with substantial power at the beginning of the game and gets a choice of what to do with said power. I feel the philosophy behind Elemental's development elaborates quite well on that.

Derr. Then you're doing it wrong. Seriously, we are talking about combat like in Total War, not like Starcraft. Not only is it relatively slow-paced, but it is fully pausable, however often you want, for however long you want, and you can issue commands while paused. So if your reaction time isn't fast enough or you don't have time, then you're doing it wrong. There is plenty of fine control; if you weren't ever able to utilize it because you weren't aware of a major feature of these games (read: pause), well that's another story.

There is no pretending involved. There is flanking, ambushing, and yadda yadda. My strategy in total war is always centered on making good use of those two specific tactical options. By far the best way to obliterate opposing formations is to smash into them from the back or the side; and by far the best way to stop their archers from turning my troops into pincushions is to lure their defenders away so my cavalry could crush their archers. Another example of this is in King Arthur: The Role-Playing game (odd title, yes). There really is no pretending involved whatsoever. There is an enormous amount of tactics involved in Total War combat.

In terms of making units converge on a point at a specific point in the future: correct, if there is no mechanism in place to allow this it can be difficult/micromanagy to achieve. But please, tell me, how do you intend to do this in me-go-you-go combat? If your units move one at a time, how do you intend to get two of them to converge at the same spot at the same time? So basically: in turn/tile-based combat what you suggested is fundamentally impossible; in continuous turns, unless it is implemented as a specific command, it can be annoying but it is doable.

Except in continuous turn or real-time combat, you get both. For example, I have fond memories of battles in Total War that basically turned into massive brawls; definitely not memorable because of the strategy employed; but I also have fond memories of the luring stronger armies through chokepoints or difficult terrain, giving my siege weapons and archers a chance to whittle away enough of their numbers to swing the battle to my advantage; and the times that I sent my cavalry on false charges, only to recall them at the last instant, causing their archers to scatter (buying me time) without losing any of my cavalry to the spearmen that would've closed in shortly after.

In trun/tile-based, you get only the one; and generally (for me) not even that - with some experience the strategy tends to turn more into a formula.

This isn't really an issue at all, regardless of the type of combat. We have squads and companies in Elemental; you won't have to (probably won't even be able to) to control each individual soldier on the battlefield individually. And comparison to Starcraft is fairly meaningless: even discarding the fact that Starcraft isn't just combat (you have many, many other things to consider simultaneously), the combat itself in Starcraft is much faster paced and the mechanics behind it are much different. For example, grabbing the whole lot in Total War and focus on one enemy squad is a good way to maximize your casualties, which is generally not what people want

It really isn't much more strategic; that is not a fact. It is a little more strategic, but at the cost of tactical options. And if you don't see any serious differences between the two systems, then you have not played both of them. If you were to remove the tactical elements of Total War, the combat would be completely different, and much worse.

Sorry for the excessively long post... I need to get over that burning need to respond to everyone and everything! My posts are always so long...

this is what frogboy was referring to with 'Continuous turns' in his OP.

Game is turn based. With squared tiles. Each player has his turns (one player after the other). Difference with the "proposed turn based combat"? You can "move" all your "pieces" in each of your turns (no initiative or alternate turns like Chess).

I'll not revisit the whole list and how I think one change was remarkably ill-conceived and time and testing has only confirmed that for me.

Since the topic of upcoming tactical battles is mentioned though I'll say that my concern isn't at all the pacing of turn based or not turn based battles but rather how auto-resolve is handled.