I agree that from our omnipotent perspective what you say is true.Originally Posted by Bhruic
However, having played the role of Napoleon in a moderator controlled recreation of the Eylau campaign where both my Corps commanders and the enemies were also players, I have to say that the distinction is academic.
Although in this instance movement was simultaneous and constant (in that the moderator calculated troops movement based upon the real passage of time) from my perspective as a player and Commander in Chief the situation evolved as a series of turns or trigger points.
For example:
Late evening: Strategic Planning Session, Daily Orders Dispatched.
Morning: Reveille, Await acknowledgements from Corps Commanders. Then begin HQ movement.
Movement: Await arrival of couriers from scouts units and Corps confirming sightings of enemy or achievement of objectives. Upon receipt review content and decide on response. Dispatch reply if necessary bearing in mind perhaps a 1 hour to 2 hour delay for each dispatch.
Encamp: Upon reaching destination set up new HQ and plot all new intelligence gathered during the day on the map. Receive end of day reports from Corps Commanders. Prepare for strategic Planning session.
As such although the actual movement was being conducted in simulated real time and simultaneously the actual command experience was broken down into a series of event triggers which could easily be considered turns.
The problem with true real time where the player can see see everything, just the way it is, and at exactly the time that it is, is that it is unrealistic and prevents the sort of fog of war that really exists in the strategic theatre.
For example Darius' army would quite simply have failed to outmanoeuvre Alexander if Alexander had been able to watch their movements over the previous few days in real time. In turn based play such an event can occur because the Persian player can use the turn system to simulate the fog of war.
Bookmarks