StarDestroyer.Net BBS

For me it depends on the game. I've played the icewind dale series, and it would be nice to be able to cast a spell without fear of it being disrupted by getting an arrow through the throat. Turn based games take the pressure off of you to be constantly doing things and improving your territory and forces. I was never really able to master starcraft or bw or warcraft, but I suppose that was because of certain things were a hassle like searching for your enemy where your orc wouldn't have the intelligence to circumvent a grove of trees and go to spot you told him to, or get caught in the nooks and crannies of the maps. Keyboard shortcuts are a must in real time games, as they'll get you ahead of your opponent or behind if you don't do them. If you are behind your opponent aren't you pretty much screwed in a RTS, because he has the more advanced stuff that he will be attacking you with, say he has some lurkers, and you don't even have a factory or comsat built?

Part of your problem with Blizzard RTSs is probably due to them requiring no tactical skill whatsoever. Even traditionally silly RTSs like C&C require more than Blizzard's.

For awesome real-time tactical shizzle, get Blitzkrieg.

While turn-based will probably require more tactical thought than RTS, I prefer RTSs more cause they simulate the act of battles, wars, attacks, counterattacks, all that some more. And RTSs have a bigger emphasis on defense than TBS, which you just take one force and defend or attack, while in RTS you protect large base or bases and plan multiple attacks over a period of time.


That said, Total Annihilation is a really good RTS to get into.

Turn-based games are more cerebral. RTS games are more fun. Let's face it; there's no sight in a turn-based game which is quite as satisfying as seeing your forces roll through the remnants of the enemy base, delivering the final blow to the enemy in real-time.

Darth Wong wrote:Turn-based games are more cerebral. RTS games are more fun. Let's face it; there's no sight in a turn-based game which is quite as satisfying as seeing your forces roll through the remnants of the enemy base, delivering the final blow to the enemy in real-time.

Quite true...especially in wargames. While I have enjoyed a variety of Panzer and other WW2 games or better still Civ games. It doesn't have the satisfaction as seeing my forces destroy some enemy base with a hundred of my men blazing away.

Turn based allows me to examine the situations and then come up with a proper solution and see what the possible variables are for the next three to four moves the computer will do(or on those very rare occasions the human opponent)

RTS...or any real time game(fighting games persay) I just come up with a basic strategy, and fill in the blanks when I get to them but have a basic outline of what I want to accomplish and what hurdles I have to overcome.

Turn based gives time to think and time to take a break if necessary, many's the time when I've left a game of Civ3 sitting for a day's lectures and work before coming back to it, the same cannot be said of RTS's. If I dont finish an RTS game in one sitting, I rarely come back to it, hoping to improve on the second time round or a different map.

'Course, this is mainly because I'm a poor gamer at the best of times.

Darth Wong wrote:Turn-based games are more cerebral. RTS games are more fun. Let's face it; there's no sight in a turn-based game which is quite as satisfying as seeing your forces roll through the remnants of the enemy base, delivering the final blow to the enemy in real-time.

I remember once landing a nuke in an enemy base, and jumped to my feet screaming "YES, IT'S A HIT!!!" as I saw a number of secondary explosions follow the nuclear blast.

Anyone that thinks that RTSs require no thought whatsoever are probably really really bad at them.

In StarCraft if you build a mass of marines as quickly as possible and send them off to attack chances are you're going to get your enemy's boot planted firmly up your arse when they encounter a pair of siege tanks dug in the high ground.

It depends on my mood. I've played and enjoyed both. Master of Orion kicks ass. Star Craft kicks ass. My brother OTOH only likes the turn based ones. He likes more strategy. He practically grew up playing 'Risk' and 'Axis and Allies'.

Real time all the way IMO. This is especially true in X-Com: Apocolypse, i like to actually be able to do something about that brainsucker that is just about to jump on my squad members head, thank you very much!

I've found that I tend to enjoy Turn-based more. It gives me a lot more time to plan and think through actions while still mainttaining a great degree of satisfaction. While Imay not be able to watch my tanks rolling across the plains destroying the enemy there is still great pleasure in watching apaticularly clever offensive catch my opponent with no warning. That said there are many RTS games that I enjoy greatly, it just is a different, more visceral, enjoyment.

I prefer turn based. I like to be able to plan my actions carefully and be able to weigh all my options before deciding on the best course of action.

Turn Based...Starfleet Command should have been Turn Based....but instead
they had to turn it into realtime, and COCKED it up big time

Darth Wong wrote:Turn-based games are more cerebral. RTS games are more fun. Let's face it; there's no sight in a turn-based game which is quite as satisfying as seeing your forces roll through the remnants of the enemy base, delivering the final blow to the enemy in real-time.

Watching your superlaser blow up a planet in Master of Orion 2 tops my list.

(Not that I'm disagreeing with you in general.)

Spyder wrote:Anyone that thinks that RTSs require no thought whatsoever are probably really really bad at them.

In StarCraft if you build a mass of marines as quickly as possible and send them off to attack chances are you're going to get your enemy's boot planted firmly up your arse when they encounter a pair of siege tanks dug in the high ground.

I remember in TA someone attempted a PeeWee rush, but had so many that the engine lagged. Oops: when the screen finally updated you could see the wreckage of many a PeeWee onscreen while a bunch more were trying to push through.

Turn based. I prefer my success in a strategy game to be based on my actual strategy instead of how quickly I can click. The only RTS game that I've ever actually liked was Total Annihilation, since the unit AI was good enough that you didn't have to babysit them all the time, and you could queue up enough tasks that you didn't have to be frantically clicking all the time.

The only problem with TA is that the naval AI and naval pathfinding were pretty bad. That, and they couldn't use nukes.

I think many (read:Blizzard) RTSs are less sophisticated than turnbased wargames. Indeed, 'wargame' and 'RTS' are separate genres. But a good 'RTS'-like game, such as Kohan or Shogun, gets the funk of realtime with slower pacing than your average 'craft title. The slower pace allows you to spread your attention around a bit, and the complex combat models in both those titles make the battle both more realistic and satisfying, but less micro-managy too. Real-time games don't just suffer because of the lack of thought - their units and scenarios are usually much more abstract and divorced from reality, and thus real tactics. Any game that doesn't have flanks is virtually useless as a tactical exercise, for example.
I've got alot of problems with turn-based - MOO is good, but multi suxors on account of the long waits. It wouldn't be too hard to make it slow-time instead of stop-time, then noone would be staring at the 'wait your turn' screen. Of course, turn based games can afford to be much more complex, but I disagree that a game should let players stare at the stat sheets for ages before making a decision.

EDIT - sp

I prefer RTS, generally. I love nailing the other guy's ass to the wall, and he can't react in time to do anything. The element of surprise is vastly less important in turn-based, in my experience.

On the same note as Stark the Total War series (which he mentioned) is excellent in the mixture. You get your strategy turn based and your tactical real time. I'm really looking forward to Rome:Total War.

phongn wrote:

Spyder wrote:Anyone that thinks that RTSs require no thought whatsoever are probably really really bad at them.

In StarCraft if you build a mass of marines as quickly as possible and send them off to attack chances are you're going to get your enemy's boot planted firmly up your arse when they encounter a pair of siege tanks dug in the high ground.

I remember in TA someone attempted a PeeWee rush, but had so many that the engine lagged. Oops: when the screen finally updated you could see the wreckage of many a PeeWee onscreen while a bunch more were trying to push through.

I remember one time I was playing TA. I had amazing defenses...was getting bored, so I sent a 200 size army of Pelicans at the computer. They all died...but damn was it fun. I love TA. The only game where defenses get so good that they can even take out a few Krogoth.

RTS all the way. I HATE TBS games with a passion. I hate having to sit at the screen managing economy some of the times, and other times finding I can do little at all.

In RTS you have everything you need at your fingertips, whenever you need it. You don't waste time building cities that run properly, you build bases that can churn out as many units as possible. While in TBS, victory in battle relys purely on number of units, in RTS strategy (while much more on-the-fly) takes a bigger role in battle so you can even achieve victory over a foe with larger forces and more firepower.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:In RTS you have everything you need at your fingertips, whenever you need it. You don't waste time building cities that run properly, you build bases that can churn out as many units as possible. While in TBS, victory in battle relys purely on number of units, in RTS strategy (while much more on-the-fly) takes a bigger role in battle so you can even achieve victory over a foe with larger forces and more firepower.

This is madness. RTS success comes from build-tree raping. As Sun Tzu tells us, the first guy to build the uberunit wins.

What RTS games have you played?

Stark wrote:This is madness. RTS success comes from build-tree raping. As Sun Tzu tells us, the first guy to build the uberunit wins.

Someone hasn't played Star Craft, I guess. All the BCs and Carriers in the world won't save you from a couple of Wraiths and Valks; the most badass Archons and Utralisks get owned by small numbers of marines/zealots. Hell, even Nukes aren't that powerful (unless they hit a paticularly large portion of your army; and then you were being stupid because you failed to move said army).