Yea, dunno how they're going to handle pausing in multiplayer... my guess is that anyone can pause, whenever they want.  Other games have implemented "pause-voting" and "unpause-voting" and whatnot to try and deal with the folks who "wreck the board" by keeping it paused... but SD may not be intending to make it impossible to do that, it's just a matter of finding people to play with that possess a bare minimum of real-world ethics.

edit: double post, it wouldn't show me the previous one

Hmm... that would make it more of a active-time bar battle (ATB like in the old Squaresoft games) then continuous turn based battles (like in the Paradox games).

Makes me more even more impatient for a movie of the battles.

I was thinking something a bit more like gladius (or final fantasy tactics I think, I don't remember those games' mechanics all that well), where you have a continuous series of turns based on the characters' initiative, but in this case without deciding your turn while paused unless you manually pause. I'm not sure though, an ATB system would be very interesting (FF8 was the last squaresoft rpg I played, to be honest, I had no idea they ever stopped using ATB).

I understand that this is not an easy coding feat. But I still posted this because the actual difficult can vary a lot depending on how the devs are going about the code. Civilization 4, for example, because of the way it was coded, allowed on to change entirely how the game worked. All the game logic was coded in files to which a any buyer had access. By compiling these files into dlls, seemingly any game element could be changed. So, I thought that posting about this would be relevant, even if only to get an answer from the devs.

Also, I understand this doesn't take care of the arduous testing that needs to take place. However, since a lot of the content will be shared between users, it seems like, much of what can be added to the game will be up to the user's discretion. Furthermore, if turn based battles are moddable instead of switchable, Stardock would not have any reason to support this. It would be entirely up to the player base to make sure it is fun.

If it's continous turns like the combat Mission games then it will be a good thing.

Enter text here."The player tells where they want their units and uses the space bar to pause the action to give new directions. That way, we can get much more interesting battles."

 

You mean, LESS interesting?  How is it MORE interesting to have your units all on auto-attack?  It "LOOKES COOLAR!" sure, but anyone who knows the first thing about games should realize that what LOOKS cool and what is good for gameplay are two different things.

Hey I know let's make CHESS have an active turn based pausing system so that all your guys just ram into each other and you pause to make commands.

Seriously make the game turn based or else I will be REALLY pissed off =]

ATB (with action points) would be interesting ... aka a Knight could move twice as often as a footsoldier, as opposed to moving twice as far in a single turn (perhaps?)

Either way ... quite interesting.

Also, I highly approve of continuos turns. (in single player can make larger battles vs an inferior foe much less tiring, and in multiplayer the smaller guy might actually have a shot, as he has less orders and perhaps can form a more solid and responsive strategy)

// also, I would kind of like an option during multiplayer game-host/lobby, whatever, to have "hide battles" and "show battles" option. -> if Show battles was selected, then whenever 2 people fight everyone gets to watch.

Hide battles would be for people that want less transparency and are willing to be more patient ... however honestly I feel everyone wins when the happenings about the globe are more transparant/ available knowledge to everyone.

Eh yeah, TBS battles as an option is a must have.