Non Gid based RTS - turn based games

This might be better placed in game design thread - but I wasn't sure -

I have always been slightly distracted by grid/tiled turn based games, any type of game that allow the player to control different units, but mostly strategy games. Probably because I'm more visual than logic geared, I've always wondered and couldn't figure out why grids are so visual in turn based games beyond feedback for the players to understand distance.

I understand grids and tiles are a great visual way to inform the player how far a unit can attack or travel, but recently I've noticed several space based games that also use a grid type of overlay and wonder - can't this really be a player choice - if a specific weapon can shoot/move as far as it needs to, if the information on max distance is known or given to the player? After playing any game for a bit most players (I assume) can gauge distance, and even without grids and tiles I think there could be a more pleasing visual delivery method to show the player how far a unit can travel, or how far a weapon can shoot.
Off the top of my head a ghosted character at the extents of the units distance, or a boundary - which I have seen used a couple times, though it was also with visual grid units drawn over terrain.

I don't remember Starcraft or (the real) Warcraft (not WoW) ever having grids, though I'm pretty certain the units still adhered to grid based movement, and I don't recall the "Age of" games having visual grids.
I'll admit - it's been a while since I played any strategy games - one of the reasons - I don't play online multiplayer.

I'm very interested in learning why logically grids are used in nearly all rts games, and why is the grid visually represented in game?
And if there are a lot of games that do not use grids, what have they solved that games that use visual grids have not solved?
Is there other reasons turn based games, rts games use visual grids beyond player feedback for distance?

 

It's a good question. My initial thought was because a lot of TBS players appreciate the logic more like a board game than an unrestricted positional game. Just a guess on my part.

That said, that's one of the reasons I really liked Frozen Synapse. It broke the idea of grid-based strategy, and uses a navmesh instead.

 

I would assume grid type games at the beginning were made because of lack of OO concepts and building the game on procedural type languages. Where array's would be used to represent "grids" and it would make sense to build the system around knowing that "grids" would be attacking and being able to manage the game through that, which is very procedural type thinking. I am assuming the grids being shown were just a visual representation of arrays to the programmer and worked for the users.

Why game's still use grids? I have no clue as I feel they are always clunky and slow and should not use a grid system anymore in most RTS games. I would believe people stopped using grid type RTS games when OO became more popular for game design.

Visual grids are not used for distance, they are used for your opportunities and choices in the future to think ahead of your opponent.

 

Grids are used to make it obvious how far you can move... Nothing to do with OO concepts (I assume we are talking about object oriented)... not sure how that correlation has been made.

 

Are the units in Warcraft, starcraft and Age of Empires limited to grid based movement. I always thought you were free to move them how ever far you wanted to?

 

Best look to board game design for clearer examples of grids versus no grids, there are plenty of examples of both grid and non grid games.

With a grid piece movement is explicit. A piece is either in location A or location B. There is no ambiguity. It is typically very clear how many grid spaces a player can move, and its possible to calculate range exactly ahead of time. Check out games like chess, its always exactly clear to both players which squares are threatened by a particular piece. Game play on a grid becomes very much about calculating things out in advance.

Another thing to consider grids is there is typically no state between tiles. This works well with a turn based game, as most designs assume that there is no state between turns.

With non grid piece movement is less explicit. Its not always clear if a piece is close enough to attack. If I move my archer forward, can he get close enough this turn to attack? Warhammer and Star Wars X-Wing Miniatures game are good examples of this. In both cases the players have to guess if there piece will be close enough to complete an attack without measuring it. This make pure calculation less important, and puts more emphasis on being able to eyeball things.

In the computer space turn based games are most often played by deliberate, calculating players. Hence why you see the prevalence of grids. Can you imagine a way to make Civ work as effectively as it does without a grid? Adding the extra cognitive burden of precisely positioning units at the end of each turn would be pretty painful.

Most real time games don't use grids. In a RTS the grid would likely slow down the action.

 

The real Warcraft: Orcs and Humans had a very obvious grid.

 

I think this was one element my brain was not allowing me to understand.

Do you have any examples of non-grid based unit movement board games? The only ones that come to mind are D&D which doesn't require grids though if going strictly by the rules require some measurement since some characters can move/attack/move . Risk which uses grids, Warhammer = grids, most other table top games that use figurines I've seen have a grid based or measurement based play field.

Thanks guys - given me some useful information to consider - now back to my - non turn based game.

 

I thought WarHammer didn't use grids? Its been a long time since I played, but from memory the original fantasy set didn't use a grid, instead players had to judge distance by eye, before measuring with a ruler.

The Star Wars XWing game also doesn't use a grid. Play is based on measurement using set distance pieces.

Are you asking for a game example that doesn't use discrete or continuous measurement? Its hard to conceive of a game that involves movement that doesn't use one system or the other.

You have games like Magic: The Gathering that have a concept of space (ground, flying, island ect) without any explicit movement.

There is also a whole genre of dexterity based board games that have movement that do not require a grid or measurement. Instead movement is based around a players physical ability to actually move a piece. You could also tie physical sports into this area.

Not sure if any of this helps at all. Its very pie in the sky thinking.

 

Yeah - I think I got wrapped up into my own question - thinking about states between movement areas -
About Warhammer - I do believe you are correct regarding movement - it's been 20+ years since I played that table top game.

 

Grids are used because those games are modeled after chess or board games.

Non-grid based games with turn-based combat...
Temple of Elemental evil. Valkyria Chronicles (well, it was sorta turn-based).

Those are quite rare.

 

Grids provide you with a simple way to understand distances on a map, especially if you can zoom in and out.

I wish they had a Grid option on Google Maps.

 

Warhammer doesn't use a grid, @BoredMormon covered this above. Warhammer uses straight measurement of distance, and part of player skill is eyeballing the range.

I think the main reason grids are used in games is that grids are way, way easier to code.

There's also a long tradition of grids and squares is turn based games, so players are accustomed to it and people who like these games tend to like grids.

In terms of turn based RPGs, Divinity Original Sin uses a pure navmesh based system and when you play it, it feels absolutely liberating and very slick.

Personally, I prefer non grid systems. I ditched grids and hexes in my current project and think that the game's feel improved pretty dramatically for it.

 

Beyond just distance, grids create an explicit sense of space. Things take up definite volume. If you put down a line of tanks in a hallway, you know no one is getting through. Grids make positioning important both offensively and defensively, and they make positioning an exact science.

Non-grid systems far too easily become clusterfucks. Melee combat in particular will frequently become these completely disorganized mosh pits, where the only thing that matters is getting close enough to get a hit in.

 

Valkyria Chronicles is turn based and doesn't use a grid (as far as i know)

 

@frosted - your game was one I had in mind while initially asking the question. Should of referenced it. Thanks for the reference to Divinity Original Sin, looks like an awesome game I'm going to check out.

Interesting point, however the example instantly made me think of world of tanks which places a high emphasis on strategic placement and movement without using grids. I've not played just watched one a friend play.
Great point regarding melee combat games.

 

This is also very true. But melee combat in general has a high tendency to become a clusterfuck, grid or no grid. Although yeah - non grid does allow the condition to get way, way worse.

Glad my game sticks in peoples mind

There are a lot of obstacles in building a good non grid based turn based system. Especially using a 3rd person camera. The obstacles range from game design problems ("it feels weird that this dude is just standing there!" - "when I run into this guy he just stands there and it's stupid!") to code challenges dealing with more complex animation and navigation.

If you look at the Divinity Origin Sin interface, you'll notice that they never have "target radius" overlays like you get in most TBS. Getting an accurate movement radius using open ended navmesh is extremely difficult if not straight impractical without a lot of constraints on the scenery. To get around that, the Divinity guys really put together an excellent UI design that feels entirely natural, gives adequate information, and pretty and fun to use. The mouse movement gives you all the feedback you need - and will calculate a proper path along with the AP costs, etc.

3rd person games have it a bit trickier, Valk doesn't have any kind of radius indicator. Mordheim, City of the Damned uses a really really awkward movement system to solve the problem, along with heavily constrained scenery. I went with a "no radius indicator" approach using the justification of "judging distance should be a player skill!"

 

I'm following up from your greenlight revival thread. I don't want to distract the subject of that thread with ramblings about the subject here, though its totally super relevant to that thread.
https://forum.unity3d.com/threads/a-year-and-a-half-later-back-on-greenlight.450776/#post-2918211

To follow up on this @frosted if the combat was ranged I think this could be solved by extra animations during this weird time, like reloading, kneeling down or slumping after taking a hard hit and playing hit reaction, specific in-combat idles like looking around for assistance, calling for reinforcements, changing weapons, etc etc. There is a host of idea that could make the enemy character/creature not look so odd. I did notice this weird feel from just watching a short gameplay video of Valkayria Chronicles. I need to get past the dislike of the anime style characters to play this game.

Thanks again for the references of the games you used as inspiration. I need to find time to play these games - because I'm very interested in this subject, to gain a better frame of reference that might lead to pursuing a game like this - as you have done.
Will no doubt check your game out.

 

Warriors of the Eternal Sun for the Genesis has to be my favorite RPG that follows this. I think it may have used as a grid internally for placement and projectile hit / miss, but otherwise it let you move all 8 directions and was a ton of fun.

 

Even said,, Valk Chronicles does a pretty outstanding job with out of turn characters.

The thing is V.C. is actually based on chess I think. The way turns work is extremely unique - you can choose to move the same guy over and over. This is something that very few to no video games do, it's also a major departure from any game rooted in table top gaming (d&d or rpg in general).

The thing that really makes the Valk Chronicles system work though is that any guy not moving will -always- shoot at any guy who is moving if they can see them. There is no 'overwatch'.

Each guy controls space, even when he's not moving. Like chess.
The fact that guys control space is connected to not being prompted to move a guy each turn.

So yeah - although sometimes guys still look kinda dumb, Valk does a pretty amazing job at keeping them all meaningful. Whoever designed that combat system was a friggin genius.

 

I made a quick Non-Grid based Tabletop Space RTS game, but I did add a reference grid to make it easier to see where things are in relation to each other...



What do you think, does it need the grid? -> https://arowx.itch.io/hello-i-am-orb

 

dude, looks awesome!

 

On my list to check out Arowx. As are all your other games. Me and my son have a game night with your name written all over it! We ended up playing Escape Goat, Legend of Grimrock and Hitman Go last game night.

 

How do you have time to play 3 games in one night?

 

Not to completion for sure. About 3-4 hours total.
Just set aside time for my son, ya know. I work a lot full-time, and game dev as much as possible in the evenings, so we plan game night.

 

Wow you could probably play through all my games in one night, they tend to be short and basic, let me know how it goes and how bad my games are (everyone here knows I like to complain about Unity because I can't make games, right ). All feedback welcome.

You might want to avoid Hitler vs Venusians, that was my bad taste/terrible game jam entry and it has some racy pixel art.

 

I'd say aer0ace nailed it with this explanation.

Going way back to the 90s, I loved the Combat Mission series. They're very tabletop-like turn-based non-grid strategy games by Battlefront.com. The graphics were pretty bad, they wanted to support Apple before Macs had any reasonable 3D capabilities.

 

IMO grids are juts another remnant of the fact it is 'easier' to deal with rectangles in a computer than to deal with things more free-form. Particularly that these games have their origin in mostly 2d environments with tilemaps. Once people get exposed to something like this they turn it into a kind of archetype and can't seem to get out of the 'tradition' of having to have everything align to a grid. Happens in many many games and genres.