Idea / Sugestion :One turn per year Solution with multiple turns

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Got another Idea ...
This was posted in the 1tpy thread but was quite ignored so I wanted to repropose as many may have just missed ...

My idea is :

To have two turn types ....

Year and season.....


to have two skip buttons inside the time advancements

one advances you of a season

the other advances you of one year ...


the year Advancement


just advances of 4 seasonal turns per time , when the revenues get collected and the major yearly changes do happen ...
handles all of the major things and balancements , like overall lenght of a year travel , sea travel, incomes, events, scripted happenings , diplomacy etc ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------

The seasonal Advancement


slows down the yearly turn , when you need to micromanage your armies on field and on a specific campaign , like surrund an enemy , send vexillations , recruit troops , move generals and leaders , use season and climate to your advantace tactically , etc ...
you would be able to more carefully manouver armies and npcs around or micromanage the campaign ,
---------------------------------------------------------------------

that way someone could have both systems at the same time .. and actually the time woudl slow up or faster advance according to the needs of the players ...

Ofc the turns would be 300 and 1200 at the same time ...


Resume:


With that system all major campaign balancements will be handled in a Year turn

all the micromanagement of armies and seasonal changes witll be handled in season turn

The player will be able to skip year by year ( 300 year turns )

or if he wants skip by season in season ( 1200 seasonal turns )

So if nothing big is requiring seasonal turn change the player can just use the normal turn , but if he woudl like to micromanage the armies , movements etc he woudl be able to with seasonal moves ...

All the main campaign things though will take realization only at the end of the year turn ...

[torongill]

No slider?

[Sharpe]

The saga continues.

[Sun Tsu]

The game developpers choose to implement 1 TPY, for reason unknown by us, ( because none of us have played ROME 2, YET )
1200 turns seems a lot, a very lot , maybe the game will be to stretched and will bore the players... also, 300 turns for a whole game may be just not long enough... we don't know because again, non of us have ever played it.

would you use the seasonal turns per year, making so that you tech research is like 400% slower ??? something of 5 turns, will take 20 turns to complete..!!

I do like the possibility to choose between 1 year or half a year ( instead of seasons).... 600 turns instead of 300... (not 1200!) for them who love the micromanagement and want to enjoy each campaign as long as possible.. 600 turns is close to RTW1...

But again, let not be hasty in our conclusions without ever being able to play the game..

[Sharpe]

300 turns is a lot.

I suppose, however, I can only speak for myself. One turn per year is fine for me, but for others who literally want to fossilize in front of their PC, 2 turns, 4 turns or perhaps more are wanted.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

The game developpers choose to implement 1 TPY, for reason unknown by us, ( because none of us have played ROME 2, YET )
1200 turns seems a lot, a very lot , maybe the game will be to stretched and will bore the players... also, 300 turns for a whole game may be just not long enough... we don't know because again, non of us have ever played it.

would you use the seasonal turns per year, making so that you tech research is like 400% slower ??? something of 5 turns, will take 20 turns to complete..!!

I do like the possibility to choose between 1 year or half a year ( instead of seasons).... 600 turns instead of 300... (not 1200!) for them who love the micromanagement and want to enjoy each campaign as long as possible.. 600 turns is close to RTW1...

But again, let not be hasty in our conclusions without ever being able to play the game..

As long as I understood CA implemented 1 tpy for balancing the campaign... With that solution the balancement would stay the same.

the seasonal subturns would just be used for micromanaging the tactical and strategical disposition of armies and use of seasons...

The player would be still able to just skip of year in year if he doesn't want to micromanage seasons...

I think such kind of solution wold please all , from 1 tpy to 2 to 4 tpy ...of course the seasonal advancements could still be 2 or even to the extreme opposite, made into months , but thats not the point, the point is to grand a more strategical manouvering in seasonal changes .

[Sun Tsu]

As long as I understood CA implemented 1 tpy for balancing the campaign... With that solution the balancement would stay the same.

the seasonal subturns would just be used for micromanaging the tactical and strategical disposition of armies and use of seasons...

The player would be still able to just skip of year in year if he doesn't want to micromanage seasons...

I think such kind of solution wold please all , from 1 tpy to 2 to 4 tpy ...of course the seasonal advancements could still be 2 or even to the extreme opposite, made into months , but thats not the point, the point is to grand a more strategical manouvering in seasonal changes .

Yes it would please all, we don't know "how" the campaignmap wil work for us, maybe it will be different then we know, nobody has seen the campaignmap yet...maybe it's balanced in an other way, other then we are aware off... but i agree that for micromanagement, it can be nice to have more turns for some period.... working with that system would also bring out other things that gotto need a look at... ( when besieging and have to wait 1 or 2 years for your siege equipement to be build is somewhat far fetched, certainly when you planned that siege some time ahead)

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Yes micromanaging stuff could be done in seasons ... Like if you need to cross the water channel between britain and france you would use a season to prepare the transports , then another turn to cross and bringing all on the other side... ( sure still more than what would havle been realistically required but better than a whole year...

Not counting that you would be able to plan in advancement and not use winter to cross the channel ... Or build the ships in winter to have them ready by spring and so not risk storms at seas...


The sieges as well could be managed in seasons , where autumn and winter would bring more attrition to besiegers , or also for abroad country crossing armies etc....

It would give also the possibility to harvest resources in summer....
Battling in the desert in winter seasons wouldn't be as harsh as in summer etc....

So it would grant a lot of seasonal micromanagement for tactical purpouses....
The big year turn is always there for who doesnt like to get into management of tactic level , and doesnt want to wait too many turns ...they would be able to just skip ahead using all the summmed events and results of the end of year.

[torongill]

So how exactly is it supposed to work if for example you play MP campaign? Who sets the turn length? What if one player wants to speed up, because he's decided he wants to turtle a bit, and another wants to play 12 turns per year, because he's blitzing minor tribes in Iberia? How is it supposed to work if in single player the AI would like to move faster/slower? How do you calculate the turns it takes to complete recruitment/finish a building? 1 turn and 3/4 of a turn? 17/24?

[PROMETHEUS ts]

I didnt propose for multiplayer , neither i have proposed a customization of turns or decision.
It can equally apply the same mechanics . Perhaps you havent played online much but as far as I remember you have to wait teh other tomcomplete its turn... But eventually for simplification online could be simplyfied to one or extended to 4 ...

[Wothan]

300 turns is a lot.

I suppose, however, I can only speak for myself. One turn per year is fine for me, but for others who literally want to fossilize in front of their PC, 2 turns, 4 turns or perhaps more are wanted.

we get it, you are a busy man that want to complete campaigns on an afternoon

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Its not a real time strategy , it takes the time you want to take.

[Chris Death]

At the end the turns per year do not matter at all.

Sometimes (honestly - most of the times) i caught myself, not knowing which year or turn i got in my campaign.

Even if i were to look at the date or to write down the turns - it didn't bother me at all - what bothered me
was; is the campaign still fun to play or should i start another one?

~S~ CD

[PROMETHEUS ts]

It matters a lot instead , espcially if you want strategic deepness and gameplay imersion....

Of you like to play a risk style game then is aother matter ...

Mine is a kind of idea to link both visions...

Its the idea in discussion in that thread not the 1tpy.

[torongill]

My point is that if you allow this for single player, you might as well allow it for MP campaigns. Since it's the same dynamics. And yes, I understand you have to wait for the other players, I have a working brain. However, if you allow variable turn length, that means all players will be forced to endure the highest number of turns that one of the players wants. For example, if one player wants 2 turns per year and another wants 12, 12 T/Y will have to be played, otherwise the 2 T/Y player will be at disadvantage. A serious disadvantage at that.

The same game mechanics and balance will have to hold, that means either fractions or "empty turns". A player who wants four turns per year will have to wait for four turns for his army to be recruited. Four turns at least for a farm to be built. He will have to wait for at least three turns to have the funds to set a structure for building(because you have to pay up front). He will have the flexibility in campaign movement, but his movements will be more restricted, because they will be fractions of the 1T/Y movement points. Of course with multiple turns per year it will be possible to make the campaign much more rushed, because you will have more options to change the army stance, thus you will be able to cover much more ground than a player playing at 1 T/Y. This of course will make the game much more of a blitzkrieg. And since the same mechanics and balance will have to be used, players will be confronted with stuff like 40-60 turns of building/research time, which will cause impatience in the players and a ********* of whining that the game moves at the pace of a lame tortoise.

So to return at the main point for your post, why do you persist? Why do you want to force your vision of the game to the rest of us? CA have firmly stated that they intend to make the turns one per year, but have in place the mechanics that allow modders to make them four and maybe even more turns per year. In other words, for vanilla at least,
No means No.

And while we're at it, that rule holds in other circumstances as well. Failure to follow that rule may mean time spent in jail, where some others may take it upoin themselves to teach you the rear consequences of failing to follow that rule.

[Hanomean]

I think this idea is too complicated for new/casual gamers. You'd have to explain the two different systems and why they're there. It's unnecessary complex.

[Charsi]

What you're suggesting is essentially extra turns. You might not call it that, but that's what it is.

It raises a whole host of questions about moving armies. For example, does the army get one "chunk" of movement per seasons or can they blow their entire movement allowance in "spring"? What if the player advances one season, then gets bored and want to skip ahead to the next year? What does the year turn button do in a case like that, is it just greyed our or does it change behaviour, and how do you make that clear to the end user?

You throw out an idea but I doubt you've thought through just how much complexity you introduce to the game, the user interface, development timelines, QA, test cases - and ultimately the end user experience. The folks at CA have to jump all those hurdles, and do it within a budget and a timeline. Guys sitting on a forum making suggestions do not.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

What you're suggesting is essentially extra turns. You might not call it that, but that's what it is.

It raises a whole host of questions about moving armies. For example, does the army get one "chunk" of movement per seasons or can they blow their entire movement allowance in "spring"? What if the player advances one season, then gets bored and want to skip ahead to the next year? What does the year turn button do in a case like that, is it just greyed our or does it change behaviour, and how do you make that clear to the end user?

You throw out an idea but I doubt you've thought through just how much complexity you introduce to the game, the user interface, development timelines, QA, test cases - and ultimately the end user experience. The folks at CA have to jump all those hurdles, and do it within a budget and a timeline. Guys sitting on a forum making suggestions do not.

I am insteead doubting you could even read what I wrote befoure startng answering ... Istated several times the player could just skip ahead with normal turn advancement if he doesn't want to micromanage , or if he needs to get more timely control over a particular situation , he can just use the seasonal advancements ....

[Toho]

this sounds like I would just have to end turns just for the sake of ending them to get something specific done.
this does not seem appealing to me.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

this sounds like I would just have to end turns just for the sake of ending them to get something specific done.
this does not seem appealing to me.

You clearly showed you understood nothing of what I wrote !