The Battle for Wesnoth Forums

It's been suggested before many times, and opens up a lot of possibilities for modders.

It also significantly decreases playing time, especially when playing with more players.

Please see the wiki page here for more details.

References

• Proposal: Simultaneous Ally Moves (as far back as 2005! by Dave himself)
• Forking of Wesnoth…
• Merge allied turns into one simultaneous turn
• https://gna.org/bugs/index.php?13642

Simultaneous ally moves seems like a really nice idea. I see no good reason why it shouldn't be implemented if possible. Would really cut down play time and waiting between turns in multiplayer games where there are more than 2 players, and it also happens this problem is already a growing one with the number of players, calling even more for the solution of it.

(Sim. moves for all players, including the opposition, is on the other hand probably one of the worst ideas ever as it changed the whole game. But that's not your suggestion so I'll not go into that.)

There is an issue with allied-side simultaneous moves: a side can be on multiple teams. Consider the situation where there are 3 sides and team A consists of sides 1 and 2, team B of sides 2 and 3, team C of 3 and 1.

AI wrote:There is an issue with allied-side simultaneous moves: a side can be on multiple teams. Consider the situation where there are 3 sides and team A consists of sides 1 and 2, team B of sides 2 and 3, team C of 3 and 1.

Sides can be on more than one team and teams can be on more than one side? Hmm.

Could this be a game option before the game is made? Or could there be some way to make it degrade gracefully if this scenario came up? (e.g. no players can take turns at the same time, all players can, or only teams that have sides and teams that are mutually exclusive can.) It's certainly must be rare in multiplayer as I've never encountered that before.

Well, the multiplayer game creation interface doesn't exactly support it. Only a few SP scenarios use it atm. (LoW2, olurf)

AI wrote:There is an issue with allied-side simultaneous moves: a side can be on multiple teams. Consider the situation where there are 3 sides and team A consists of sides 1 and 2, team B of sides 2 and 3, team C of 3 and 1.

Normalizes into two sides taking turns. This is what Wesnoth MP should have been from the beginning. When I think about slow etc. then we really didn't solve this "more than 2 sides per turn" design very nice. Too many exceptions, too complex.

I may not have been very specific, but this feature is really only useful in online multiplayer games. You could consider it an online multiplayer-only feature.

WOW! That would be kinda wierd, no?

AI wrote:There is an issue with allied-side simultaneous moves: a side can be on multiple teams. Consider the situation where there are 3 sides and team A consists of sides 1 and 2, team B of sides 2 and 3, team C of 3 and 1.

Then no one has an enemy, and there will be no battle

Now do the same thing with 4 sides and alliances. Everyone has exactly one enemy, which is an ally of his allies, so no simultaneous turns are possible.

Yup.

Is nice to see that after one year wesnoth have made nothing to fix is bigger issue.

I have stop to play (and whynot, modding) this game because nobody have consider it as serious as it is.

Simultaneous turn for teammate is a must have for online games. Is the only way to have a game smooth and nice to play. When I left wesnoth it was frustrating and a lot of content was unplayable. Make a 3v3 is really hard and all games players vs AI are slow in a way that looks stupid.

This should be priority 1 for developers.

Did you read what AI wrote?

Personally I agree with what Turuk said in your last thread 100%. Its inviableness has been pointed out every time the feature has been brought up. It breaks all current map balance except 1v1 and FFA. It radically changes gameplay. It doesn't play well with the multi-team system. It would be horrible to code. It makes it much easier to OOS. Wesnoth scenarios are based on events and you shouldn't have two players triggering those at once. There's probably more in those 7 other threads on the topic.

But this is sparta the Experimental Fork! We don't care about changing gameplay or map balance (I think ). Make a quality patch, and it will probably be implemented! I imagine, however, you'll have to solve the rest of those problems listed in the previous paragraph before someone will consider doing this work for you.

And your post is borderline developer bashing. Your sarcastic anti-dev insinuations are not required in a logical discussion of a proposed feature.

I have a question. What about order-queuing as an alternative to simultaneous turns? You could queue up orders and recruits during other player's turns. After your turn began, *if* you still believe your orders should be carried out as assigned, just hit the "move all" button to carry out all orders. If you wish to change an order regarding a specific unit or tile, just click on that tile to clear the existing order. Any orders which cannot be carried out in the exact manner specified (such as attacking, or moving) due to new constraints at the beginning of your turn would be canceled, and you would be notified using a simple "Orders at X, Y not valid."
After the "move all" operation has been carried out successfully, you still must end-turn. That would give you a chance to issue any final orders.

I realize it's probably a lot more complicated than it sounds to code, but I was mostly just curious if it could fit into gameplay well.

impyre wrote:I have a question. What about order-queuing as an alternative to simultaneous turns?

http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=31338