|> the attack i make turn 2 order 2 is 'simultaneous' with your turn 2 order 2 in the sense that they happen within the same 'time period' (same year/month, same day/hour/minute).
|>
|> in the game:
|>
|> - obviously, one attack happens before another
|> - but their 'time period' is the same

But... what is the effect of a "time period"? Currently the game has no notion of "time" other than that things happen in a strictly defined order. Nobody knows whether an order takes a second or a year but that's okay since it doesn't matter anyway... Could you please just describe what the actual effect on the game is?

---

|> to illustrate this:
|>
|> ABRACABRA HOLYMOLY
|> 123456789 01234567

Oh stop complaining, that diagram was perfectly easy to read. I even put it in fixed-width to make it all line up and even simpler to read. But if you honestly didn't figure it out, here goes again, with even more explanation:

Order number: 123456789 ...

Turn for team: ABCCBAABC CBAABCCBA ABCCBAABC CBAABCCBA

Turn for player
- in team A: 1 23 32 1 1 23 32 1
- in team B: 4 5 6 6 5 4 4 5 6 6 5 4
- in team C: 78 9 9 87 78 9 9 87

- The order numbering of course continues after order 9, but "10" doesn't fit in a single column, so you'll just have to imagine.
- After each "full turn" (one turn for each player) I inserted an empty column. That's just for clarity; in the game nothing special happens there.

---

@Eagle: Hush, you're supposed to only *think* that! ;)

@ Rvw, your picture is easy to see, but it is still off. It would be better seen as:

Team 1: ABRACADABRA
Team 2: HOLYMOLYYES
Team 3: OHMYGODYEAH

REGL eagleblast Quote: To me this seems like it's a benefit for those who are so full of themselves as to think that they don't need teammates, because nobody is as good as them

Certainly cant benefit you. A teamgame with a random partner will almost always increase your chances of success. In Gui`s case, its the other around.

the hand that rocks the cradle...

You wanna be an arrogant prick? Sure, have fun.

But when you're done being conceited (no hurry, I'll wait (the heat-death of the universe won't though, so don't take too long)), how about you explain what you are actually proposing? Because what you've said so far (having one account control multiple "allies") will simply *not* accomplish what you claim to be after (changing turn order).

Of course, I guess I shouldn't be *too* surprised you don't know the first thing about how team games work...

rvw:

- first, you claimed (in a thread a week or two ago) to only play single-player games. if that is true, i cant take anything you say seriously when it comes to multi-player games. if you are in fact a mask for a more experienced player, then you are a liar. upon seeing your real account (if you have played multi-player games), i might consider your ideas: if a dentist has never studied dentistry and never checked anyone's teeth before, i will not go to him when i have a tooth problem.
- second, you don't even understand the idea i proposed. so why should i act like i understand yours? before making elaborate charts and number waves, try to understand the other person's initial idea. you didn't. maybe it is bc you play single-player and you are not sure about the strategic concepts in multi-player.
- third, let's not resort to name calling. your number waves look nice. but since they are unrelated to the strategic concepts at hand, i'm not interested in them.

turn order probability is a strategically less significant part of the matter. "independent armies" is the important part: this means they have their own colors (see above) and their own incomes ("own colors" + "independent"), as if they were other people (see above). *independent armies with their own colors and base incomes attacking independently each turn and each order* (if you put all the ideas together, like simple math: 1 + 2 + 3 = 6) is the thrust of the argument. your pretty number waves do not address the strategic significance of this.

The way I see it you're making two different, albeit related, proposals in this thread:

- Letting one player control multiple colours, creating a single-person-team game. Okay, this is easy enough. Just make multiple accounts and play a normal team game. (As long as your opponent agrees to this, I guess that doesn't break the `You shall not operate more than one WarLight account in a way that gives you an advantage in a game, tournament or ladder.` rule.) Anyway, nothing Earth-shattering, that's why I didn't really respond to this part.

- Doing something with "simultaneous orders". This is the part which I don't get, but sounds potentially-interesting, so this is the part I responded to.

---

|> first, you claimed (in a thread a week or two ago) to only play single-player games. if that is true, i cant take anything you say seriously when it comes to multi-player games. if you are in fact a mask for a more experienced player, then you are a liar.

This is my only account (not that I expect you to believe me, but if I don't even object, you'd probably take it as a confession). However, just doing single player doesn't mean I can't play team games, there's no reason the AI can only be an opponent.
Sure, I'll readily believe there's a huge practical difference between having an AI or a human player for a team mate, but *the game mechanics* (such as move order, which is what we're talking about) work identically.
Besides, how many team games I've got under my belt is irrelevant; when it comes to game mechanics, I can just set up a quick test game to double-check what I say is accurate (in fact, that's exactly what I did, better sure than sorry).

|> second, you don't even understand the idea i proposed. so why should i act like i understand yours?

I'm trying to understand, but when I ask you to explain your idea, you either repeat exactly the same thing you said before (which, surprisingly, doesn't clear anything up) or simply don't answer at all, instead just being rude.
Secondly, I'm not proposing an idea, so there's nothing for you to understand; all I was trying to get you to do is describe your idea coherently enough for me to understand what you have in mind.

---

First, let's make terminology clear:

- Colour: Belligerents / warring parties, each with separate income and such (I can't call this "armies" since that already means something else, "countries" has the same problem)
- Turn: Deployment phase + attack/transfer phase
- Order: One attack/transfer
- Attack: Abbreviation for "attack/transfer"; the difference between an attack and a transfer doesn't matter here, and doing it like this saves a lot of typing

Okay, so let's try this again, from the start. You want to have multiple orders happen simultaneously. The way you count "one order" is *for every player* to perform one attack, right? Which would mean that in a team game (let's say with three people on each team), during "one order", each team would actually perform three attacks.
What I'm trying to show you is that this doesn't matter at all. Sure, three attacks happen per team, but if you were playing by yourself and look at groups of three orders, during each of those groups three attacks would happen per player as well.
Now, the crucial part is that it's entirely valid to look at groups of three orders at once and call it "one order", because the sequence in which those attacks are actually executed is identical (that's where the diagrams come in).

So, that means the only difference between current WL and what you are proposing is an option to easily control different colours from one account. Sure, that's a valid suggestion, but please leave out all the talk about simultaneous orders, since (1) that's not what would happen, (2) that doesn't seem to be what you want anyway and (3) it adds lots of confusion for no reason.

in the context of a metaphor equating turns/orders to periods of time, 'simultaneous' has a meaning. without this context, it is confusing and not true.

i think if the settings i proposed were already an option, and then you played 100 1v1 games with the current settings and then played 100 games with the settings i proposed, you'd realize (in the first game) the strategic implications.

it'd go from being a duel (each man with a muzzle-loader that takes time to reload and fire) to a war (each man with [buddha-like arms](http://www.travelchinaguide.com/cityguides/tibet/buddhist-statues.htm), each with a rifle).

Maybe, maybe not, until you actually explain how this new mechanic of yours is supposed to work it's impossible to tell.

// Giving up...

@Gui

Think more out of box if you want more strategic game. For general mode you need different types of armies. Different attack and defense kill rates. Some armies will be better for attack other better for defense. So....in picking stage you chose what type of armies you will use and where you will put them.....like in real life.

High, have you noticed how prolific in the forums and arrogant Gui is? If so, why ask him to understand real life? He just wants a way to win team games without "inferior" players who will bring him down from his god-like and admirable place in the game.

High offered good criticism. More settings options could be added to improve the game.

With respect to motive, Texas, your words remind me of the OJ trial and the glove that didn't fit. Regarding your emotional outburst, I'm not sure if I should curse you or say thank you: "Gui sucks....Gui is god-like and admirable...."

This is interesting. I've been criticized numerous times for only wanting to play competitive games with the best players. I've been criticized a few times for playing 3v3 games with average and below average players for fun. Now I'm being criticized for trying to avoid "inferior" players like the plague. I'm beginning to question who I really am...

If only Gui spends less time writing nonsensical posts on the forum and make the moves faster in his ladder games, lol. Players like Gui is the reason why I detest the ladders.

And seriously, are you suffering inferior complex, Gui? I really dont understand how a normal person who has a life could be so passionate about a game like you.

à la babi, how is this related to the thread's topic?

superiority complex

so complex

wow, nice wordplay. stick to being a self-important douche, gui.

@TexasJohn

I have noticed a lot of things about different people....but I keep that for myself. I strongly believe that psychoanalysis of other persons on all forums should be prohibited and punished. Read what is written, not who wrote it.
Psychoanalysis can't bring any good. Look the forum these days.

We are all here because we like the game. To keep it interesting game need to be improved constantly. When I have some idea about that....I write it...hoping that Frizzer will find it interesting and possible. This "general mode" have potential.

how is this relevant to the thread's main idea?

(in response to x the irritable one)