[Gareth]

. As you say, your system, on auto-pause, would have more pauses than a TB system! It could have a ridiculous amount if "pausing on every action" meant pausing every time some combatant takes a step, reloads, readies a spell, moves the cursor, etc... Talk about waiting for 30 rats being tedious!

No, you've missed the point. You wouldn't pause on any character finishing an action, you'd pause on any one of your party members finishing an action. While you're, for example, casting a fireball, all the rats are moving at the same time. It's still real time, when time is unpaused everything is moving. When you finished casting the fireball the system would pause again. So it wouldn't be waiting for 30 rats one after the other, the 30 rats would all be moving at the same time. All it would be is waiting for one of your party members to finish an action. The length of time you'd be without control would be the length of time for the shortest scheduled action by any of your party members.

It would be much less tedious in the 30 rat scenario and avoid any 'oh noes, I don't have quick reflexes and my dudes sat around doing nothing because I hadn't noticed they were idle' crying while being effectively equivalent to a TB system.

[Morbus]

ToEE also had groups of enemies which took turns as a single unit...

I don't recall that particular feature. I bought my ToEE from Role-Player from Codex like three years ago, but only finished it once, so...

They need that interrupt mechanic due to the fact that you can perform multiple actions over a turn in TB. See bazooka example.

My aim is to eliminate ANY need for turn based combat by creating a proper and effective real time engine. I know why it's there, it's just that it's a fun thing in turn based combat, and to know if it's possible to have that fun in real time too.

[Euchrid]

. As you say, your system, on auto-pause, would have more pauses than a TB system! It could have a ridiculous amount if "pausing on every action" meant pausing every time some combatant takes a step, reloads, readies a spell, moves the cursor, etc... Talk about waiting for 30 rats being tedious!

No, you've missed the point. You wouldn't pause on any character finishing an action, you'd pause on any one of your party members finishing an action. While you're, for example, casting a fireball, all the rats are moving at the same time. It's still real time, when time is unpaused everything is moving. When you finished casting the fireball the system would pause again. So it wouldn't be waiting for 30 rats one after the other, the 30 rats would all be moving at the same time. All it would be is waiting for one of your party members to finish an action. The length of time you'd be without control would be the length of time for the shortest scheduled action by any of your party members.

Right. You'd still need to define an action, ie. have turns. Enemies would need to have them too, otherwise it would be broken. So, if you have a defined action period for each unit where other units can not commence an action, and a pause at the end of each action. How is that not turn based? Even if the enemies animations are sped up (again, a number of TB games already have this feature). If other units are not prevented from commencing an action during another unit's "action period" or "turn", then it's not "effectively" turn based. Because, once you unpause, having planned your movement, attack, etc it's still a free-for-all, with many units, foe and friend alike all acting at once (or close enough to), likely requiring further adjustment to your initial plans, including probable extra pauses. Doesn't seem like TBC to me. Seems much more hectic, with much less defined tactical choices. And yes, it would quite possibly require more pauses than a TBC game, certainly one which allows all enemy units to move together.

[quasimodo]

. As you say, your system, on auto-pause, would have more pauses than a TB system! It could have a ridiculous amount if "pausing on every action" meant pausing every time some combatant takes a step, reloads, readies a spell, moves the cursor, etc... Talk about waiting for 30 rats being tedious!

No, you've missed the point. You wouldn't pause on any character finishing an action, you'd pause on any one of your party members finishing an action. While you're, for example, casting a fireball, all the rats are moving at the same time. It's still real time, when time is unpaused everything is moving. When you finished casting the fireball the system would pause again. So it wouldn't be waiting for 30 rats one after the other, the 30 rats would all be moving at the same time. All it would be is waiting for one of your party members to finish an action. The length of time you'd be without control would be the length of time for the shortest scheduled action by any of your party members.

It would be much less tedious in the 30 rat scenario and avoid any 'oh noes, I don't have quick reflexes and my dudes sat around doing nothing because I hadn't noticed they were idle' crying while being effectively equivalent to a TB system.

The problem is I don't want to watch a few seconds of RT battle with multiple enemies acting simulatneously, and then pause and attempt to figure out exactly what just happened. 

I want to watch each one take their turn, enjoy their animations, know exactly what damage they did to who, formulate a response and have it ready and waiting for my turn.  This is the rhythym of TB combat.

I find systems like you propose to lack all rhythm, being short periods of hectic action followed by random pauses.

[thomasc]

I don't recall that particular feature. I bought my ToEE from Role-Player from Codex like three years ago, but only finished it once, so...

I remember some of the gnolls in the moathouse used this.

I don't think they used this on the 30 rats encounter. In fact, I don't think they had a 30 rats encounter. They probably would have if they used a continuous timing system wherein you take actions for your PCs until inaction occurs. That combat system was probably on Troikas TODO list but they ran out of time so they had to stick with a simple lame turn-based game depending on rigorous abstract game mechanics in order to make fun and challenging encounters. I mean, the systems are equivalent.

[Balor]

The problem is I don't want to watch a few seconds of RT battle with multiple enemies acting simulatneously, and then pause and attempt to figure out exactly what just happened. 

I want to watch each one take their turn, enjoy their animations, know exactly what damage they did to who, formulate a response and have it ready and waiting for my turn.  This is the rhythym of TB combat.

I find systems like you propose to lack all rhythm, being short periods of hectic action followed by random pauses.

Heh, question is, TB is just MEANS TO AN END - designed for a combat system that is both complex, and easy to control... however, such implementation involves a certain degree of abstraction, therefore will not always work exactly like real life.
Also, TB comes from P&P, where real time is simply impossible.

RTwP with configurable pause also serves as means to control a complex combat system in a very manageable way, AND without any sacrifices.

The 'rhythym'  (sic!) is simply a matter of taste, and tastes differ.
Realistic implementation, without any abstractions is NOT a matter of mere 'taste' - it is utterly objective. See my 'sniper rifles with handgun in CQC'.
You may 'enjoy the freedom TB gives you in terms of weapon selection' this way, but I'll just call you a damn cheater who exploits a system that is poorly designed and move on .

[Euchrid]

^^Without any scarifices?
RTWP is also an abstraction, and no more inherently realistic than TBC.

[Balor]

^^Without any scarifices?

Beavis, he said sacrifices! He-he-he!
It also rhymes with orifices, you know.
*laughtrack*

RTWP is also an abstraction, and no more inherently realistic than TBC.

There a saying we have here in Russian: Anonymous is worse than homosexual.
Well, here is a continuation: and demagogue is worse than anonymous.

Don't be a demagogue. Just don't.

[quasimodo]

The problem is I don't want to watch a few seconds of RT battle with multiple enemies acting simulatneously, and then pause and attempt to figure out exactly what just happened. 

I want to watch each one take their turn, enjoy their animations, know exactly what damage they did to who, formulate a response and have it ready and waiting for my turn.  This is the rhythym of TB combat.

I find systems like you propose to lack all rhythm, being short periods of hectic action followed by random pauses.

Heh, question is, TB is just MEANS TO AN END - designed for a combat system that is both complex, and easy to control... however, such implementation involves a certain degree of abstraction, therefore will not always work exactly like real life.
Also, TB comes from P&P, where real time is simply impossible.

RTwP with configurable pause also serves as means to control a complex combat system in a very manageable way, AND without any sacrifices.

The 'rhythym'  (sic!) is simply a matter of taste, and tastes differ.
Realistic implementation, without any abstractions is NOT a matter of mere 'taste' - it is utterly objective. See my 'sniper rifles with handgun in CQC'.
You may 'enjoy the freedom TB gives you in terms of weapon selection' this way, but I'll just call you a damn cheater who exploits a system that is poorly designed and move on .

I would call the desire for "realisitc implementation",  whatever that means in terms of a computer game very much a matter of mere taste. 

[Hector]

By the way, real time isn't impossible in P&P; all you need to do is run combat in terms of time instead of turns.  In White Wolf's Scion, for example, a give action will take a certain amount of time to do.  Once it's done, that's when you get to act again, instead of simply six seconds after the last time you acted.

But like I said, RT/P is just as legitimate a choice as TB; it's just that it's very rare to see the former implemented properly.

[quasimodo]

By the way, real time isn't impossible in P&P; all you need to do is run combat in terms of time instead of turns.  In White Wolf's Scion, for example, a give action will take a certain amount of time to do.  Once it's done, that's when you get to act again, instead of simply six seconds after the last time you acted.

But like I said, RT/P is just as legitimate a choice as TB; it's just that it's very rare to see the former implemented properly.

Give me an example of what you consider one of the rare cases of good implementation.

[Morbus]

That MAY have been a force of expression. I myself can't think of a real time game with pause that was implemented correctly... Maybe if I think hard enough, but I wouldn't say RTwP are ALL badly implemented. There must be something good out there...

OH! I remember! KotOR (1) was fairly well implemented. I like it, or at least I remember liking it. The Witcher also works pretty well.

[One Wolf]

I'm glad you guys are having a conversation about this.  I generally favor turn-based combat simply because one general system for handling rt/p somehow became the accepted model when there is a lot of room for improvement.  Gareth's rat analogy is a good example.  It was pretty irritating in FO2 to take hostile action in cities, since not only all the enemies had to move, but all the fucking civvies as well.  I personally would really like an improved version of rt/p that falls somewhere between what we know as rt/p and what we know as turnbased. 

Carry on.

[Oscar]

Well, the way TOEE handled enemy movement was the best. All the enemies that were only moving on the same round did it at the same time. A real time saver.

[quasimodo]

In ToEE each character's initiative determines when they move.  I thought this worked very well.