I love this game on so many levels but sometimes I'm just left with my jaws on the floor when I see what the AI is doing.

I mean this is a turn based game. I have my turn, and then the AI has its turns. Or so it should be. But of course, turns don't seem to apply to the AI. Let's take an example that just got me ripping my hair out: I have fleets in System A. The enemy has fleets in System B. They're connected by a wormhole. On MY TURN, I move my fleets from System A to B to engage him. All of a sudden, the AI enemy decides to say "haha lol noob" and moves his fleet from System B to A and proceeds to blockade it. ON MY TURN!



Please, what kind of a turn based mechanic is this stupidity supposed to represent?

There are several thread about this issue and I believe it is listed as a defect. Just wait untill the next patch.

Welcome to what is called "simultaneous turn based." Everyone gets their turn at the same time.

Like Draco said - this game has simultaneous turns - everyone gets to move and queue up stuff at the same time. When everyone has ended their turn, buildings and such are calculated and a new round begins.



The AI tend to do most of its moving as the first thing of their turn - unless there's a reason not to (like an ambush)

EngineerHero wrote:
I love this game on so many levels but sometimes I'm just left with my jaws on the floor when I see what the AI is doing.

I mean this is a turn based game. I have my turn, and then the AI has its turns. Or so it should be. But of course, turns don't seem to apply to the AI. Let's take an example that just got me ripping my hair out: I have fleets in System A. The enemy has fleets in System B. They're connected by a wormhole. On MY TURN, I move my fleets from System A to B to engage him. All of a sudden, the AI enemy decides to say "haha lol noob" and moves his fleet from System B to A and proceeds to blockade it. ON MY TURN!



Please, what kind of a turn based mechanic is this stupidity supposed to represent?

As Draco said, the game isn't a traditional turn-based game. It's simultaneous, so everyone is acting at once. The turns just limit how much you can do at once. Think of it more as a play-by-play RTS, if you must, instead of a turn-based game.

DeBingJos wrote:
There are several thread about this issue and I believe it is listed as a defect. Just wait untill the next patch.

It isn't a defect its a design choice. A highly suspect design choice admittedly, but still a design choice.

nats wrote:
It isn't a defect its a design choice. A highly suspect design choice admittedly, but still a design choice.

Suspect? How so? - It speeds up gameplay immensively, which is perfect for multiplayer 4X games.

I agree with Mansen, the system in Endless Space is, in my opinion, perfect for the game. I can't play RTS games like SoaSE because, after a point, I just lose track of everything. That, and the AI/people who know what they're doing tend to trash me quickly anyway. Total War games, on the flip side, I absolutely love. But it takes so long to do anything because all the turns are separated.



Endless Space, though? It's the perfect compromise between the two kind of RTS. Again, all in my opinion.

The simultaneous fans have clearly never tried to play this game for the full duration in PvP MP. There's nothing "perfect" about it at all; it's an ungodly mess that’s more about how badly you can exploit the awkward turn mechanics into your favour than it is about any in-game considerations.



The only way to put an end to the Mexican stand-offs (turns can drag on for such a long time because of this alone), the comical race for the ‘Intercept’ button, the AI bulk-moving far more than you can ever hope to, waiting to initiate a battle when you know your opponent is already embroiled in another (or is simply in another screen and doesn’t notice the battle ping), coming out of a battle to discover that you’ve lost two other more important engagements to Auto that you didn’t even see initiate, the AI getting its moves for free because the interface is all but unresponsive whilst it moves, banging away on the ‘Attack’ button to engage an enemy fleet that isn’t really there (human player moved it away but your client has reported that yet), to name but a few annoyances, is to junk the part of the turn sequencing that allows movement and battles to happen real-time. Everything else works rather well being simultaneous.

Intercept/autobattles have nothing to do with sim. turns, they're issues that are exposed by it.



As for AI moving before you...so? That's exactly what would happen without sim. turns!

The only thing that the simultaneous turn will be good for is if they change the planetary screen to show a planetary assault, bombardment, blockade happening. If they do that I will love the turn system.



Otherwise it just gets in the way I would rather it was a normal turn based system where I can take my time doing my turn without wondering whether I am going to be called into combat at any minute. Its not really bad for me but a lot of people are questioning it, it does sound like it ruins multi-player and prevents email play as well.



So is it worth it? At the moment no - but if they add what I said above, damned well yes, it could be the best decision since Lucas decided to try making a sci-fi film.

Velaux wrote:
Intercept/autobattles have nothing to do with sim. turns, they're issues that are exposed by it.



As for AI moving before you...so? That's exactly what would happen without sim. turns!

Yes they do, and no it wouldn't.

It's a perfect compromise right up to the point where you lose control over events because you get more than one battle at the same time and can control only one of these. Not to mention you can move one fleet at a time, while the AI moves everything.

nats wrote:
The only thing that the simultaneous turn will be good for is if they change the planetary screen to show a planetary assault, bombardment, blockade happening. If they do that I will love the turn system.

I don't see how this has any relation to the fact that turns are played out simultaneously - a design change?



@Defekt: Timed turns are being discussed. That is - every turn is X seconds long.

defekt wrote:
The simultaneous fans have clearly never tried to play this game for the full duration in PvP MP. There's nothing "perfect" about it at all; it's an ungodly mess that’s more about how badly you can exploit the awkward turn mechanics into your favour than it is about any in-game considerations.



The only way to put an end to the Mexican stand-offs (turns can drag on for such a long time because of this alone), the comical race for the ‘Intercept’ button, the AI bulk-moving far more than you can ever hope to, waiting to initiate a battle when you know your opponent is already embroiled in another (or is simply in another screen and doesn’t notice the battle ping), coming out of a battle to discover that you’ve lost two other more important engagements to Auto that you didn’t even see initiate, the AI getting its moves for free because the interface is all but unresponsive whilst it moves, banging away on the ‘Attack’ button to engage an enemy fleet that isn’t really there (human player moved it away but your client has reported that yet), to name but a few annoyances, is to junk the part of the turn sequencing that allows movement and battles to happen real-time. Everything else works rather well being simultaneous.

A lot of these issues are, just as you said, players who chose to exploit the game mechanic instead of playing normally. It's isn't the game's fault that the majority of players have the inclination to do whatever they can to make the game unfairly easy for them, while screwing over as many people as possible.

Velaux wrote:
As for AI moving before you...so? That's exactly what would happen without sim. turns!

He's more of talking about when you invade a system, or are trying to chase an enemy fleet, and the AI always seems to move it right before you can catch them. In a normal turn-based game, this wouldn't be the case. I was annoyed by this as well, until I realized how silly it was to go chasing. Now, if war in coming, I just make enough fleets to solve my issues. My invading fleets advance a system at a time, and my defensive fleets have key systems set to Intercept, so the enemy can't get by me. And most systems get a few ships dumped into their hangar so that if I have to, I just have a few Destroyers or Cruisers pop out ahead of the enemy, set to Intercept, and watch my tap unfold



That said, I have a very methodical and probably borderline sadistic/masochistic play style, and I doubt many will want to put up using my methods.

FinalStrigon wrote:
A lot of these issues are, just as you said, players who chose to exploit the game mechanic instead of playing normally. It's isn't the game's fault that the majority of players have the inclination to do whatever they can to make the game unfairly easy for them, while screwing over as many people as possible.

If a gentleman’s agreement is required before PvP MP can even get off the starting blocks then I would argue that this is evidence enough that the game is seriously flawed; if lightning reflexes and sequencing exploitation were not meant to be the way that this game is played then the game should have been designed in such a fashion that would not allow it to happen.



The only way this game could play out completely fairly for PvP MP is a) have no AI sides and b) for everyone to issue move/combat orders sequentially in a manually, prearranged round-robin fashion. This is not an impossible thing to arrange between like-minded players but do you not think that something of a ludicrous position to be put into when the game could (and should) handle this kind of thing itself? As far as I understand it the game was designed so that the minimum amount of time between turns is wasted, but if the only way to play this game fairly, i.e., non-exploitatively, is to rely on externally arranged pacing which in and of itself takes far longer to play out anyway, hasn’t something gone just a little bit wrong?



ES should adopt the same system that SotS developed. (Everything is simultaneous bar the moving and the combat. You order your stuff to move but it doesn’t move until everyone clicks End Turn and then the resultant battles are presented in a list where everyone decides which battle they want to fight and leave the rest to Auto.) The ES system is already 80% the same as it is, it’s just a shame that the missing 20% is arguably the most crucial 20%.

defekt wrote:
Yes they do, and no it wouldn't.

If ES was fully turn based, all the battles for one turn would be played at the same time, and people would complain even more. The flaw is that battles play out at the same time, which has bugger all to do with simultaneous turns.



The AI moving before you is functionally identical to the game being locked after you click end turn and the AI moving his ships, then being unlocked and you move yours.

Oh dear god. Someone else explain it to the man at the back.



EDIT: Okay, that was needlessly snipey. I take that back. I do however respectfully suggest that you've not thought it through completely, or you've not tried to play this game PvP MP to full term.

defekt wrote:
Oh dear god. Someone else explain it to the man at the back.



EDIT: Okay, that was needlessly snipey. I take that back. I do however respectfully suggest that you've not thought it through completely, or you've not tried to play this game PvP MP to full term.

You seem to think my points are an endorsement of the overall system when they are not. They are what they are. Battles playing out over each other is a serious flaw, and one unrelated to simultaneous turns. And letting the AI use all its moves first makes the game functionally identical to a regular turn based game.

The player can make his moves while the AI is moving as far as I can recall - it's not like the AI is "cheating" you by going first.