Wel if you have never played multiplayer, I am not certain why you would try to comment on it. In multiplayer, the AI typically goes first, it reacts first. So if you have a player unit and an AI unit adjacent to one another during a period of war, that AI player is going to react before you even get a chance to click the unit. Same with religion, if a player researches a religion in the same turn the AI researches it, the AI will get the religion. If the AI is going to trade with each other, they trade with each other right away. The trading tech for different techs is a basic idea for the game, not just the players. The AI does the exact same thing.

Sounds like a broken system IMO, not a good model to copy.

It's actually a good model, used in boardgames like Diplomacy.

Note that if one wants to nitpick, "real-time" does not exist. Even real-time games are handled by frames or simulation ticks. The difference between real time and turn based is whether the game auto-pauses after each computation. Some games like Chess or Galciv only allow one player to move during one computation, while others like RTS, Civ IV, Diplomacy, allow both players to move during one computation. Note Baldur's Gate and D&D based games have a quite complex initiative system inside each round, so each computation actually only allows one unit to move (the one with the current initiative score). I think you can pause/change orders inside a round in some games (e.g. for doing opportunity attacks when someone comes near)

Whatever the underlying mechanism (simultaneous or not), what matters is whether you can pause the game when you want it and give orders when you pause.  TBS tend to pause automatically, while RTS often either don't allow you to give order in pause, not pause at all (MP), or don't let you pause when you want because it goes too fast.

I was commenting on the situation he described, where the AI is able to instantly react to things before the player has a chance, that is not a good model. Board games do not have this problem, for obvious reasons.

A semantic straw-man. The big difference between real-time and turn-based strategy games is that in real-time it is impossible to issue different orders to multiple different units simultaneously, a routine task in turn-based games.

Pausing doesn't really work very well in multiplayer games. It introduces deadlocks, permission issues and an overall disruption of game flow. There's a very good reason why most Neverwinter Nights multiplayer games disable the pausing feature.

Whoever said it was a the best model? You made a comment on something you knew nothing about, and I corrected you for it. It seems strange that you would incorrectly talk about Civ IV multiplayer, even though you admitted you never actually played it, and then turn around and say you don't like it. Pretty low to make an opinion on something you know nothing about. The simul turns in Civ IV has flaws, but its meant to keep things moving faster for the human players and gives a slight edge to the AI in the process. None of this is an issue if you aren't playing with the AI. THen it really is simul. turns, and it's who ever does it first.

EU3 has a pausing system where only the first person can unpause for the first 30 seconds, I think, and then after that anyone can. It keeps a game from deadlocking, and if you are playing with friends, pretty easy to agree to let someone pause for an extended period of time aka, bathroom breaks, dinner, whatever else you might be doing and just leave the game up. These games aren't meant to be finished in one setting, most of the time.

I wasn't commenting on Civ IV's model, I have never played that, why would I do that? I was commenting strictly on what you described, which sounds broken to me. If there are aspects to Civ IV's model that you did not describe to me, I am not aware of them and therefore cannot comment on them.

What happens when you are not playing with friends and someone keeps pausing and unpausing the game every 30 seconds (because they are mad, immature or whatever)? What if the game has progressed to a point where there is simply too much to do and 30 seconds is not enough time to do it?

Multiplayer is a totally different breed of game, one where you cannot assume that all players will cooperate and refrain from exploiting the rules.

EU3 has been around for a good awhile. Has a fine community. I don't know if you seek out asses or they find you, but if you have a problem with a player, don't play with them. Stardock can't spend all it's time trying to hand hold players from accidently encountering someone who wants to ruin a game. There isnt' a game out there that is so handicapped and restricted that some dick can't come in and ruin it. Multiplayer is indeed a different breed of game, and if you need the perfect experience, i woudl suggest finding friends to play with or stick with single player.

That's not a satisfactory answer. Assuming that everyone will "play nice" is a recipe for disaster. I, for one, play many multiplayer games with my friends. However, I don't play exclusively with them because that tends to get boring.

The biggest advantage of multiplayer is the enormous amount of value you can get from many different players' play styles. This advantage is completely ruined if the game is so broken that you cannot play with anyone but friends.

Pretty much all multiplayer games that I've played implement strategies to combat undesired behaviour. If the SD does not do this, the game will in all likelihood be broken.

Well I never said they couldn't use any strategies but they shouldn't waste their time trying to give you a perfect idiot proof solution. I've seen enough complaints from Demigod, just about every MMORPG, Left 4 Dead... the list goes on. All these games have attempts to fix the problem but if you are going to play a game like SWAT 4, Left 4 Dead and someone goes around PKing, there is only so much you can do. Some of that responsibility is in your hands not the game's.

Just wanted to add when I say idiot proof solution, the idiot I am referring to is not the ones trying to keep people out but the idiot whose goal is to ruin the game. Simul turns was meant to keep turn based games from having 12 people sitting around twiddling their thumbs for an hour, not force people to take turns. Civ IV does have a time limit per turn you can use, but I've never used it.

I just thought I'd link the primary source of actual information that we have been given on this subject.

https://forums.elementalgame.com/342047 

You're assuming that everyone who isn't your friend is a complete ass intent on ruining your experience. That said, I do agree that you should not be able to manually pause battles between two or more human players. That would cause chaos, regardless of how mindful everyone is of the other players (although I suppose 'manual pausing' in combat could be an option in the game setup). One possible solution is that if the combat is such that frequent pausing is optimal, the game could just auto-pause at the start of each new round; it would unpause when everyone hits "ready" after issuing their orders for the round. It be a little jerky, and it might not be ideal, but it would solve a lot of the abuse problems; the only one it wouldn't really solve is someone taking way too long to issue their orders.

solved easily enough with a timer and AI giving orders for slowpokes..

Why AI orders? If a player is not able to give his orders in the agreed timeframe, his units should just stand there doing nothing or carry on with whatever they were doing previous round.

It's gonna be slow brain problems, not slow twitch response problems, people.  This isn't a console, we only solve the one!  (Aka the twitch problem) <-For those with the other.  I'm mean at 3:30am EST.

Why not AI orders? There will need to be a unit AI anyway, every RTS has it - your units need to be able to figure out what to do when, say, you've ordered them to move to location x but enemy unit y is blocking their path, and knights can't just stand there looking stupid when that archer they were fighting moves 20 yards away and pelts them from a distance, you'll want them to automatically close back into melee so they can fight. It's a logical extension to give the units a little initiative, i.e. move towards nearest enemy/assist nearest friendly that's fighting, so that you don't have to go through the tedious process of telling every unit "ok, now charge at the other guys and make them bleed".

Not to mention that Stardock will have to program a comprehensive AI for the AI players to use their units properly, I see no reason to turn off that wonderful programming for the human player's units (at least, the ones that don't have specific orders from the player) - it'll cut out all the tedious micromanaging of thousands of troops and let us focus on the pieces that actually matter, say our channeler/other uber unit with special abilities and spells. Not to say you can't/shouldn't micromanage the positioning and actions of every single foot soldier in your army if that's your cup of tea, but I see no reason every player should be forced to do so either.

You're assuming the tactical battles will be RTS-like with hundreds of individual units whereas I'm more on a low unit count grid-based turn-basey model, where I would not want an AI to take initiatives.

I think I'm gonna close my yap until we got the basics of tactical combat. Until then, there's going to be a lot of misunderstandings

Personally I hate the idea of allowing the AI to command a players troops, but I would never, ever, trust an AI.  They're stupido.  Now in multi-player, whatever, just makes it easier.  Especially since there wouldn't be a coherent strategy if a player moved some of his units and the AI then moved some for whatever reason. 

Ok, that silence oath of mine was the shortest ever. So, yeah exactly! I don't remember the AI in Total War moving or charging on its own, except if the unit has a specific behavior (berserkers charging at will) or auto-behavior options (ranged units fire-at-will and skirmish modes).

Well, you can put units/groups under AI control in TW, but it's crazy.  and now I really need to stop going on forums tonight.  Posted about 2x my total post count from all before now.

I'd dearly love to see this come to pass. while I still treasure wego games that have a simulated orders (LSN) this could be a quite acceptable compromise.

as for the whole pausing debate and TB/RT thing....have a look at online poker....most sites will let you decide what you want to do during an opponents turn, and then auto submit that move unless the game has changed significantly (ie it doesn't react to checks or passes but will scrap your decision if someone raises) then when it is your turn you get a limited amount of time to move in.