TT turn sequence vs. PC turn sequence

KenPortner · Post by **KenPortner** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:15 pm

Hi. I'm trying to sort this out.

Am I correct that the TT turn sequence isn't followed; i.e. in the PC version each BG moves and fights, then the next, etc. as opposed to all BG's on one side move, all on one side shoot, all fight, etc.?

If so, any insight on why the developers chose to do this?

Also, am I correct that in the PC game combat doesn't include Impact and Melee in the same turn? i.e. in the PC game Impact takes place in one turn and then Melee (if the units stand after Impact) takes place in the next (and possibly) succeeding turns?

If so, again, any insight on why the developers made this choice?

Thanks.

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:22 am

I believe back in the beta days it was stated that for ease of gameplay and keeping it fluid they had to do away with the TT turn sequence. As for impacts etc I think you are correct, you get a single impact and then it is all melee for however long it lasts.

keithmartinsmith · Post by **keithmartinsmith** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:12 pm

It was for ease of gameplay. Strickly following the TT game was just too many clicks and not enough fun. I think what we have is very fluid game play and a lot of fun. Keith

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:16 pm

Your game does give the right feel and it is fun. Much more would detract from that for sure!

petergarnett · Post by **petergarnett** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:10 am

The only thing I'd like to see changed with the sequence is the rally phase before the victory check

76mm · Post by **76mm** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:51 am

petergarnett wrote:The only thing I'd like to see changed with the sequence is the rally phase before the victory check

That's a good idea.

keithmartinsmith · Post by **keithmartinsmith** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:56 am

Why would having the rally phase before the Victory check be better? As the TT and PC rules stand once an army is broken thats it, there is no way back. Keith

petergarnett · Post by **petergarnett** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:56 pm

The key difference is that because the AI does the rout moves & may well move a routing unit through a fragmented unit you don't, IMO, have the exact same control as you do on the TT. To compensate for this an opportunity to move a leader & rally a unit would make the PC version better.

Paisley · Post by **Paisley** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:38 pm

If rally came before victory, it'd allow you to come back from the brink, making close games even more exciting

petergarnett · Post by **petergarnett** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:12 pm

Exactly my point - I've had a few really close & exciting games & a final rally for me or for my opponent would have carried the excitement on for another turn or two and may have changed the result (often against me).

deeter · Post by **deeter** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:30 pm

How about a variable game length? When I'm in a close game, I usually attack until I've gotten the enemy to its break point and not do any risky attacks after so I don't break my own side. I'll also accept a crumbling flank to go after BPs knowing the game will end and I won't be punished.

Deeter

McGlu · Post by **McGlu** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:53 pm

I've been considering picking up the tabletop rule book to compliment the PC game. I've read the turn order is different, noted the part about leader markers in the ingame rules.

Are there any others? Is the TT rulebook a good buy for playing the PC game?

76mm · Post by **76mm** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:58 pm

deeter wrote:How about a variable game length? When I'm in a close game, I usually attack until I've gotten the enemy to its break point and not do any risky attacks after so I don't break my own side. I'll also accept a crumbling flank to go after BPs knowing the game will end and I won't be punished.

Seems like another good idea, less gamey endings. Currently the final turn often feels rather artificial.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 6:54 pm

Talking of variable game length:

One (and one only) of my DAG games ended as a Draw with neither side broken on Turn 16.

Can anyone explain this?

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:31 pm

The sun went down on turn 16, the quitting horns blew and both armies called it a night and went back to their separate camps to plot for more fun frolic and death the next morning. I doubt that minor technicality was listed in the official text histories of your battle but I am sure it happened that way.

deeter · Post by **deeter** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:49 pm

In dozens of games, I've only seen two draws. One was in a league mirror match where I decided to sit it out rather than be defeated with an eye toward league standings. I think this game plays much faster than the TT where draws occur because time is up. The other thing is that multiple units can hammer away at on BG in one turn, hastening its demise.

Deeter

CharlesRobinson · Post by **CharlesRobinson** » Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:31 pm

I agree that moving the rally phase would be good for the PC version of the game. It simply would make it more fun and unpredictable. The variable game turn starting at say the end of turn 15 would be cool for DAG games (not historical or built games), but it should be an option just like LoS.

Skanvak · Post by **Skanvak** » Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:27 pm

I think that we are going toward a "how to edit the rule question". It wonderful to see that TT game rules can be changed easily (too easily in fact) and that in a computer game we cannot edit the rules, even the easy one

I like the rally phase at this position and see why. But I'd like to have the TT sequence and impact/melee in same turn (to smash those persian at Marathon).

TT turn sequence vs. PC turn sequence

TT turn sequence vs. PC turn sequence

Changes