How possible simultaneous rounds in TripleA?

[Hepps]

@schulz Now I will forewarn you that trying to do this on such a game level scale becomes very challenging if you want to do it properly.

Just a couple of things you need to bear in mind before you try this...

All territories on the map have to be assigned who will take possession of the territory when it is captured. This is still fraught with challenges as these predetermined settings are fixed.

Unless you want all units to become a homogenized unit when they convert into the controlling Major... it means that every unit of each Minor has to be duplicated in the unit roster of the associate major. So in the Major Allies unit roster you would end up with: Allied British Infantry, Allied American Infantry, Allied Russian Infantry, Allied British Artillery, Allied American Artillery, Allied Russian Infantry... etc etc etc down through every unit in each nations roster.

There are even more complexities as you work through this concept, but probably best that you simply ask as you discover them.

[Schulz]

<alliance player="Germany" alliance="Minor"/>
<alliance player="VichyFrance" alliance="Minor"/>
<alliance player="DanubeAxis" alliance="Minor"/>
<alliance player="Finland" alliance="Minor"/>
<alliance player="Russia" alliance="Minor"/>
<alliance player="Japan" alliance="Minor"/>
<alliance player="Manchuria" alliance="Minor"/>
<alliance player="Thailand" alliance="Minor"/>
<alliance player="China" alliance="Minor"/>
<alliance player="Britain" alliance="Minor"/>
<alliance player="Canada" alliance="Minor"/>
<alliance player="ExiledAllies" alliance="Minor"/>
<alliance player="SouthAfrica" alliance="Minor"/>
<alliance player="India" alliance="Minor"/>
<alliance player="Australia" alliance="Minor"/>
<alliance player="Egypt" alliance="Minor"/>
<alliance player="Italy" alliance="Minor"/>
<alliance player="Usa" alliance="Minor"/>
<alliance player="Spain" alliance="Neutral"/>
<alliance player="Sweden" alliance="Neutral"/>
<alliance player="Turkey" alliance="Neutral"/>
<alliance player="Brazil" alliance="Neutral"/>

Then I delete all game sequences and add it;

<step name="majorTech" delegate="tech" player="Major"/>
<step name="majorPolitics" delegate="politics" player="Major"/>
<step name="majorCombatMove" delegate="move" player="Major"/>
<step name="majorBattle" delegate="battle" player="Major"/>
<step name="majorNonCombatMove" delegate="move" player="Major" display="Non Combat Move"/>
<step name="majorPurchase" delegate="Purchase" player="Major"/>
<step name="majorPlace" delegate="place" player="Major"/>
<step name="majorTechActivation" delegate="tech_Activation" player="Major"/>
<step name="majorEndTurn" delegate="endTurn" player="Major">
<stepProperty name="skipPosting" value="true"/>
</step>

Will it work?

[Schulz]

<alliance player="Germany" alliance="Major"/>
<alliance player="VichyFrance" alliance="Major"/>
<alliance player="DanubeAxis" alliance="Major"/>
<alliance player="Finland" alliance="Major"/>
<alliance player="Russia" alliance="Major"/>
<alliance player="Japan" alliance="Major"/>
<alliance player="Manchuria" alliance="Major"/>
<alliance player="Thailand" alliance="Major"/>
<alliance player="China" alliance="Major"/>
<alliance player="Britain" alliance="Major"/>
<alliance player="Canada" alliance="Major"/>
<alliance player="ExiledAllies" alliance="Major"/>
<alliance player="SouthAfrica" alliance="Major"/>
<alliance player="India" alliance="Major"/>
<alliance player="Australia" alliance="Major"/>
<alliance player="Egypt" alliance="Major"/>
<alliance player="Italy" alliance="Major"/>
<alliance player="Usa" alliance="Major"/>
<alliance player="Spain" alliance="Neutral"/>
<alliance player="Sweden" alliance="Neutral"/>
<alliance player="Turkey" alliance="Neutral"/>
<alliance player="Brazil" alliance="Neutral"/>

Then I delete all game sequences and add it;

<step name="majorTech" delegate="tech" player="Major"/>
<step name="majorPolitics" delegate="politics" player="Major"/>
<step name="majorCombatMove" delegate="move" player="Major"/>
<step name="majorBattle" delegate="battle" player="Major"/>
<step name="majorNonCombatMove" delegate="move" player="Major" display="Non Combat Move"/>
<step name="majorPurchase" delegate="Purchase" player="Major"/>
<step name="majorPlace" delegate="place" player="Major"/>
<step name="majorTechActivation" delegate="tech_Activation" player="Major"/>
<step name="majorEndTurn" delegate="endTurn" player="Major">
<stepProperty name="skipPosting" value="true"/>
</step>

Will it work?

Edit: I have changed alliances to Major.

[Schulz]

Also is TWW the only map that could fit in this concept? Aren't they simpler maps thay may fit in this concept but if not I will be ready to make separate units for every nations.

[Hepps]

@schulz To my knowledge TWW is the only map that uses this system. That is not to say it couldn't be done in any map. Just someone needs to have the intestinal fortitude to actually do it. Or make it worth my while to do it for them.

[Schulz]

Ok I understood. Seems like I'm not able to do it by alone. At least it is good to hear that simultaneuos rounds are possible. I hope somebody will define this feature and introduce.

[Cernel]

@schulz For those that don't know the game, can you clarify if by simultaneous turn you mean all the powers of the same side moving/attacking together or everyone (both the attacker and the defender) moving/attacking at the same time (like planning the movements in secret, revealing them, and doing them)?

[Cernel]

@simon33 said in How possible simultaneous rounds in TripleA?:

Interesting idea.

I guess there would have to be some sort of mechanism to put in provisional moves and an option to pull them back. So you'd want to allow combat movement to be entered provisionally assuming everyone is at war I suppose then re-validated to check they're still desired once the other player has finished their turn. Perhaps something similar for the buy too but that's the smaller part. Even smaller is the politics.

Assuming you mean for all the players at the same time, not just the ones of a same side, to avoid a potential infinite loop of readjustments, simply keep the moves stored in the gamer's terminals, then once both have finalized them, the terminals send them to the hosting terminal, and the turn gets done. Like if you would keep two boards in two separate rooms. Tho if he here only means being able of making D-Day together (as @Hepps understood), we are off topic.

[Schulz]

For example in a wwii map; Axis and Allies players will be able to move all units but neither of side will be able to see their opponen's movements until battles occur after the movement stage. Let assume 3 Italian armours decide to attack to 2 British infantry in Egypt. During the movemen phrase; Allies player can predict Italy is going to attact Egypt with 3 armours. Allies player can pull back 2 british inf to Trans-Jordan. In this case no battle is occur. Italy takes Egypt with 3 armours. If 2 British inf stay, battle occurs British infantries are count as 2 defenders (with their 2 defense power).

But if 3 Italian armours move Egypt from Lybia and 2 British Infantry move Lybia from Egypt in the same round then the battle should be occur like this;

Italian Armours perform the same because armour's attack and defense powers are equal. They are count as attacker and British infantries are count also attacker too. British infantryes' attack power is 1.

Also in sumultaneous rounds system multiple countries can attack enemies together. In the system you will have to predict your opponents movements before to move your units. It works well only in big maps.

[Cernel]

@schulz Ok, then I can assure you that this is not possible (and @Hepps didn't guess correctly what you wanted), but good idea (for a developer).

Actually, if you play Axis&Allies, you can house rule something like this, if you keep two boards in two rooms. As far as realism is concerned, probably the map would need to have territories at most a few hundreds km wide, like NWO or more parceled.

[simon33]

I think war room (the upcoming game from Larry Harris) has simultaneous actions on both sides. That won't be possible to implement in Triple-A as we know it.

If you're talking about having a game with simultaneous actions then that would break every game within Triple-A or, if it were optional, have no games within Triple-A. I don't think such a proposition can be considered.

[Hepps]

@cernel I understood the iniitial idea... hence why I said "after the fact". It is clear that a truly synchronized game turn is beyond what Triple A is currently capable of.

What I was proposing was a solution that works within the confines of what the engine is capable of.

[Schulz]

@simon33 said in How possible simultaneous rounds in TripleA?:

that would break every game

No, you are wrong. Thousands of person have been playing Castle Vox online and even they pay for every maps. the game is much more inferior and simpler version of Triplea.

I agree %90 Triplea maps won't work in this way but in big maps it would work perfectly well.

[simon33]

How? Actions by one nation would affect the following nation.

[RoiEX]

Also the board game diplomacy (which also has a "pseudo-clone" map) works this way too.
It would definitely have a lot of potential.

[Cernel]

@schulz said in How possible simultaneous rounds in TripleA?:

@simon33 said in How possible simultaneous rounds in TripleA?:

that would break every game

No, you are wrong. Thousands of person have been playing Castle Vox online and even they pay for every maps. the game is much more inferior and simpler version of Triplea.

I agree %90 Triplea maps won't work in this way but in big maps it would work perfectly well.

Yep. People love fog of war or such. Just see how card games with revealed cards in hand are unpopular (almost nobody likes them). People like the suspense.

[Schulz]

Advantages of simultane round system;

1. More strategy; In this way you will have to predict your opponent's movements as much as possible.

2. Joint operations; Separate allies nations will be able to attack anywhere together.

3. Less stacks: More dynamic game.

4. Faster game: You won't need to wait your opponent's movements.

5. Reversibilty: In the current engine you can simply lose the game easily if you are even slighly behind your opponent in terms of TUV or production, but i this way you can reverse the game in every rounds.

[Cernel]

@schulz
6. No canopeners: They don't really make sense, in the moment you need another player to open you the way, but cannot do it yourself (also for opening canals before another player can react).

7. No air reinforce: It doesn't really make sense, as the game forbids you to land in newly conquered, but you can do it with another player (example, in WWII Revised using Japanese air to bolster the defence of what Germans conquer, before Russians go).

8. No need of disputable special rules about putting allied air on carriers and moving it as cargo.

9. Closer to realism: Especially for FFA, as there are no reasons why everyone must always go by the same turn order (Feudal Japan Warlords addresses this with alternating turn orders, but that is still gamey and creates substantial alternating partial double turns, that add a lot of complexity and feel strange).

10. Less time breaks, as you don't have multiple turns per round (mostly relevant for PBEM).

[Schulz]

Besides from Java, which computer programs should I learn for implementing this feature?What kind of path should I follow?

[Schulz]

@Hepps

Probably there was a misunderstood I though it could be possible in the current engine.

So what would happen If I could implement your way properly?