OK, while I ease myself back into hacking away on Risk related code I need some distractions.  So I want to start a general simultaneous play discussion.  The first thing is what to call it.  I'll start off the voting by calling it synch, because simultaneous is too long and sim sounds stupid.

It happens to be the latest thing that has grabbed my attention, thanks to getting dragged into an A&A tournament on that 'other' website.  I had played some synch games before but never had to fully understand the intricacies of that style of play.  In order to not look like an idiot I had to learn them quickly, and I'm not sure if I really like the way it's set up.

It seems most of the tactical considerations revolve around turn-order, which seems to be the last fucking thing I should be thinking of when dealing with synchronous play, because the moves are all supposed to happen at once... right? Hence the term?

Of course if you could design a system whereby all of the moves actually DO happen at once it would destroy the turn order tactical considerations, so you'd have to replace them with something else.

So that's the question for you experts who have played this style much more than me.. assuming you could develop a system that was true synchronous play, what could you add in that would replace the turn order tactics that would be lost?

What about something like, you can execute orders for 2 turns at once?

IRoll11s wrote:

It seems most of the tactical considerations revolve around turn-order, which seems to be the last fucking thing I should be thinking of when dealing with synchronous play, because the moves are all supposed to happen at once... right? Hence the term?

Of course if you could design a system whereby all of the moves actually DO happen at once it would destroy the turn order tactical considerations, so you'd have to replace them with something else.

So that's the question for you experts who have played this style much more than me.. assuming you could develop a system that was true synchronous play, what could you add in that would replace the turn order tactics that would be lost?

What about something like, you can execute orders for 2 turns at once?

 

Could you even have a system where all moves actually do happen at once?  Doesn't even sound feasible since Territory A would be attacking Territory B but should B have 10 or 15 troops on it or should it have already been attacked by C?

I'm not entirely sure turn order tactics should be lost, I think it is part of BAO.  Now, I'm not a big fan of setting up a hundred "junk" orders necessarily, but again I think it's part of the tactics of BAO and depending on the board/game then that tactic may not even be necessary.

The basic turn order rules in the board designer should be present (Random/By Units/By Territories/By Seat) and I imagine this could be expanded on so that it looks at this each round and creates the turn order, but I'm not sure this gets rid of the "junk" orders (even Randomizing your turn order, it could be beneficial to have "junk" orders).

As for executing 2 turns at once, WarLight has something like this by setting a percentage of units to attack Territory A, then you able to set another percentage to attack from Territory A to Territory B, then Territory B to Territory C, and etc.  Of course you could set up a big long list when really never take over Territory A.  I thought it was a pretty cool idea, I didn't play it much and I didn't like having to convert my units to percentages, but possibly some merit there IMO.

Finally, I don't really like Simultaneous (too long and easy for a typo); Sim is kind of dumb; same with Simult; Synch, eh.

The thing is the correct ordering of turns is part of the fun and skill involved in BAO play, it's all about guessing which move your opponent will make and when and then countering that with your own move order to ensure that they have the effect you need. This is what makes it more challenging (IMHO) than turn based play.

The flip side of this is having to 50-60 padding moves just to shift your real move late into the turn order which sucks.

So whatever is come up with needs to retain the skill element but eliminate the turn padding.

One possible idea would be to reduce the likelihood of your attack killing an enemy unit as it's position in the turn order increases.

I think the issue of "turn padding" should be addressed by the designers on a board-by-board basis once the proper tools are in place.
On some boards that were Blind at Once on WF it was a waste of units to only use them as early junk moves, on others it became the difference between life and death; that's just how the boards go.

Like Tom said, the real beauty is trying to figure out what your opponent will be doing and how you should plan for it.

As for names, I'm not a big fan of "synch," sorry man.

I can see "Sim" as not being all too great, but what if we keep it as "SimPlay," and be sure to not shorten it further?

I know it's a bit too close to Warfish, but "At Once Play" sounds good to me.

Should we all just embrace our nerdy roots and go with Latin? "Pugna Simul"

Simply simplay. Nuff said.

Simulplay could work too... kind of like simulcast.

EDIT: also, would it be possible somehow to come up with a set of rules that allows for true simultaneous orders to occur, even if territory A attacks B and territory B is attacking territory C?  Diplomacy manages to do it, albeit with a much simpler number of units (one per territory).  If we could do that, then the turn padding issue would be moot.

i was going to offer up simulplay also...darn it. i don't much care what you call it, i will rarely play it anymore. i'm not that good.

Norseman wrote:

Simulplay could work too... kind of like simulcast.

EDIT: also, would it be possible somehow to come up with a set of rules that allows for true simultaneous orders to occur, even if territory A attacks B and territory B is attacking territory C?  Diplomacy manages to do it, albeit with a much simpler number of units (one per territory).  If we could do that, then the turn padding issue would be moot.

Can you elaborate more on how this works in Diplomacy?

Toaster wrote: I think the issue of "turn padding" should be addressed by the designers on a board-by-board basis once the proper tools are in place.

I agree with that.  Board design plays a big role IMO.

One possible idea would be to reduce the likelihood of your attack killing an enemy unit as it's position in the turn order increases.

I don't think I like that idea.  There are some legitimate attacks that just end up late in the turn order just because you have a bunch of legitimate attacks.  I guess it could be a board option, but seems a bit more complicated (especially when modifiers are present), even for BAO.

Also I propose keeping the ability to "push" troops through territories.  I think that takes quite a bit of risk and tactics.

SimPlay isn't bad, I'd prefer that over SimulPlay too I think.

To address 11's concern about there being turn order in what he's interpreted as totally simultaneous play, the Blind-At-Once term only describes the entry of orders -- not their execution. When that fact dawned upon me is was a moment of enlightenment that allowed me to both understand and enjoy playing BAO.

It doesn't necessarily have to be the same way here. I might even prefer our "simultaneous play" be a little different than it was over there.

That said, I suggest we only look at Warlight for suggestions on what not to do. Warlight is terrible and boring. Working in %'s feels very unrisklike, and having the computer calculate all your odds of success and likelihood of troop movements, etc, is like playing poker strictly by the odds of drawing the cards you need or have. You can do it, but its boring, and people who can calculate pot-odds on the fly or actually bluff and read will take all your money most every time.

Name options:
Sealed Bid
SimulPlay
SimPlay
SimulTurn
Simulturneous
Synchronized Play
Synchroturn
SynchroPlay
Locked Gear
SameTime

Also,

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/325p1/Simultaneous_Play_Discussion

Cramchakle wrote: Also,

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/325p1/Simultaneous_Play_Discussion

Why simulate rolling dice at all? It makes little sense to me. Just allow the board designer to define the probability that a given unit will score a kill on offense and on defense. You could make it discrete from 0-100 (easier to work with %), stepping by 1%. Then for each unit attacking and defending on each attack, pick a random number from 0 to 1. If the number is below the defined probability, a unit on the other side is killed. If it's above, nothing happens (no kill). If all the defenders are killed, the attacker takes the territory with the numbering of surviving attacking units. Otherwise, both attacker and defender lose some units, and possession stays the same.

That would be the most intuitive way for people to understand what to expect in a given attack, and would operate pretty much the same way as BAO on the other site, just with less complicated terminology with dice sides, floor values, armors, etc.

Alternatively, if you want to go with Cram's idea to compare dice rolls in the same way that turn-based vs. play works, in resolving every attack order, the game engine would need to simulate a scenario equivalent to clicking the T-button on an attack order in a normal vs. dice game, so that both attacker and defender would keep rolling until the attacker either wins, or takes the territory. Otherwise, because defender wins on a tie, as long as at least one defender rolls a 6, the territory is unconquerable. Other options would be to give the tie to the attacker, the player with the most units going into the battle, or giving the attacker dice with one more side than the defender's dice.

I don't like Sim Play as a name. There's nothing about it that suggests the "Sim" is short for "Simultaneous" and not "Simulated" which is what most people would assume. Simulplay is much better.

I agree with 11's for the most part about BAO mechanics. The BAO A&A that Toaster worked up was an incredible accomplishment, but it got less and less interesting to me as I realized that the amount of time I spent playing each turn was about 10% incredibly deep and awesome strategical planning and 90% figuring out a way to make my actual orders as cheesy as possible.

No solutions here, just my usual complaining.

I've never played a simplay game on that 'other' site, so I'm not sure how they handle it, but I have played a simplay game somewhere... I do not like the idea of your 'play's' coming in a defined order. Here's how I see it.

Lets just assume a simple map with three players and only four territories in a square.

Territory A Territory B
Player 1 8 Armies Player 2 12 Armies
Territory C Territory D
Player 3 7 Armies Player 1 4 Armies

Now Lets say Player 1 Attacks Territory C from A AND C from D, and both players 2 and 3 attack Territory A. When the players 'schedule' an attack, they would also choose how many armies they would send. So here are the exact orders
Player 1:
Attack C From A 7 Armies
Attack C From D 3 Armies
Player 2:
Attack A From B 8 Armies
Player 3:
Attack A From C 6 Armies

Now there are many types of attacks that occur, and they occur in this order.
Attack vs Attack - When two territories are attacking each other. These go first. In this example A & C attack each other

Combined Attacks - If in the example C wins the Attack vs Attack, the rest of the armies join a combined attack with the players from B attacking A.

Combined Attacks part 2 - If the armies from B and C in the combined attack win. They must then fight for control of the territory, so B and C fight each other for the territory

Simple Attacks - Normal attacks. D attacked C, and will only encounter 1 army as player 3 sent all the other armies attacking A.

Dice rolling is different based off the type of the attack, let me know if you want to explore this option further and I'll post more of what I remember.

What site is that from Anti?

I wish I could remember, but it's probably been 4 years. It actually was more then likely a network game/app then a website.

For the record, I am firmly in the camp that supports ordered commands. Deciding in what order your commands should be resolved is half the strategy involved in BAO play, as it forces you to set priorities, consider the likely timing of your opponents' strategies, and then plan accordingly. At least this should be the case if each player gets to resolve 1 order per round in the turn.

I would like to note that an alternative would be to allow a player to resolve ALL of his orders, one after another, before the next player gets to resolve his. The order would rotate by turn, so that the order of play is not always the same. I think that could potentially be really interesting, actually.

Kjeld wrote:

Deciding in what order your commands should be resolved is half the strategy involved in BAO play, as it forces you to set priorities, consider the likely timing of your opponents' strategies, and then plan accordingly. At least this should be the case if each player gets to resolve 1 order per round in the turn.

This is true of BAO (tm), but doesn't necessarily have to be true of all simultaneous order entry systems. As long as we've got a blank slate, lets see if we can come up with something better. Particularly, something which doesn't reward padding your actual moves with 1000 unit shifts prior to what you want to happen. If we don't come up with anything better, then fine. But frankly, rolling over on not being able to come up with a more creative way to do it than that other guy did would be embarassing.

My point was that I like the way the other guy did it. And I don't think that padding "actual" moves with hundreds of small unit shifts is necessarily the dominant strategy in all cases. For example, it's a terrible idea if there is no defender advantage. Or if your opponent decides to make quick early strikes to wipe out major attacking forces before they get to make a move. In short, the entire objection to the trademarked* BAO is premised upon a false assumption.

*is it actually tm? I feel that blind-at-once should be too generic to trademark...