Is there a multiplayer turn-based game where you have a war or fight with another group. Your team consists of different roles each played with a real person. And with each different roles they have different abilities or perks for example: Commander - have a view for the whole team that will help him to strategize but he is not good in direct combat, Rangers - Great field view but is not for close combat Soldier - Great close combat and high health but moves only little. It is not limited to modern battle, but even to medieval, sci-fi..etc Somewhat like holdfast but turnbased. Like XCom but each characters were played by real person.

I want to use that game as my guide.
Thanks

Hello thenightrobin,

I tried looking for an example of this style of game you are looking to use as a guide, and couldn't find anything. My instinct is that this style of game won't really work. Not to say that it couldn't work, and that shouldn't stop you from making it and testing it out. I'd like to be pleasantly surprised, because I love turn based games. But, let's say you have 5 players, each controlling a character. Player one has to make their move, while everyone sits and waits. How long does the player have to make their decisions? 20-40 seconds? That means that each player would be sitting there bored awaiting their turn for well over a minute. It doesn't seem like a lot of time, but it really is and it adds up. Perhaps you should look into real time strategy? Perhaps the commander could have a limited “pause" ability where they can stop the game state and issue orders or whatever they need to do.

@Lionsworth82 Thanks. I am thinking regarding that, if I could allow teams to have 1 minute per turn. So it will be per-team turn and not per-player turn. The preparation, discussion and action itself must be done in that minute. As the other team is currently their turn, you can discuss with your teammates what plan you will all do.

But of course I have to test this to see if it is feasible. Thanks again for the insight ?

Lionsworth82 said:

… I love turn based games.

Player one has to make their move, while everyone sits and waits. How long does the player have to make their decisions? 20-40 seconds? That means that each player would be sitting there bored awaiting their turn for well over a minute.

But most turn-based games work like that already! And all that I know of, up until Civ 5, which implemented simultaneous turns. @thenightrobin could do something with that, perhaps?

@SuperVGA Thanks! Civ5? I'll look into that ?

I know that's how they function. But that also is a HUGE mark against these type of games and why they are nowhere near the top in popularity. I've played and have watched plenty of 1 v 1 games (Hearthstone, MTGA) where the opponent gets mad at how much time it takes, and starts doing what they can to vent (luckily there isn't a chat feature on these, else the toxicity would be overwhelming).

@thenightrobin I really do hope that you play with this and find a solution that is really cool, and create something that works. @supervga 's suggestion of simultaneous turns sounds like the right foot to start from.

@supervga I have played hundreds of hours of Civ games, and have never played online. The percentage of Civ games (or any 4X) that people actually finish to the end has to be about 1%, right? 1 in 100 games started? I will definitely have to check it out, I'm intrigued.

Lionsworth82 said:

I know that's how they function. But that also is a HUGE mark against these type of games and why they are nowhere near the top in popularity. I've played and have watched plenty of 1 v 1 games (Hearthstone, MTGA) where the opponent gets mad at how much time it takes, and starts doing what they can to vent (luckily there isn't a chat feature on these, else the toxicity would be overwhelming).

@lionsworth82 Absolutely. That is the one thing that retracts from the experience in most TBS games, in my opinion. Of course the 1v1 should be better when it comes to round time, but I totally get that in the competitive games, it tends to take even longer.

Lionsworth82 said:

@supervga I have played hundreds of hours of Civ games, and have never played online. The percentage of Civ games (or any 4X) that people actually finish to the end has to be about 1%, right? 1 in 100 games started? I will definitely have to check it out, I'm intrigued.

Probably. I don't know. I think it's been a 50-50 for me, and I normally play in a gang of 4. We did play Civ IV a lot together - mostly hot-seat, in fact. When we started playing Civ V we saw that players could take their turns simulateously. I don't know if the AI does that too, and it may be grouped by teams - I'm not sure though. There are some tricks wrt. how it's implemented. Most important of all, you don't fall asleep while the others take their turns (mostly, at least ?). It's also more fun to co-operate on a frontline or a siege like this.

I haven't played a lot of TBS - likely fewer than you have, so I don't know of any other games that do this. But it's an interesting take on the genre for sure.

@supervga I imagine the end rate of games is much higher in multiplayer CIV games. Most people with single player REALLY love the exploration in the beginning, and things falter during mid-game. Either they forget what they were doing when they came back to play more, or they clearly were on a trajectory for a landslide win/loss. End game can be atrocious. The podcast “Game Design Round Table” has had designers and programmers from Civ and other 4x games on there, and they talk about how the game stages in more detail. Basically the majority of their time and effort is spent on making sure the beginning to mid game is on-point. I'd love to play these kind of games online. It's a much much smaller market, but I think one worth attempting. I'm in that wheelhouse of players who would play these types of games.

@thenightrobin Let us know what you find. I'm genuinely interested in what you shake out.