StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Real-time and turn-based games both have advantages and disadvantages, and a different fanbase I imagine, even tho I like both; but games don't have to be split down that divide anymore.

Fast RT games suck, because you can only do one thing at once and you're little dudes/ships/whatever don't have any initative, so your intervention is required everywhere. Turn based suck because they usually use old-score things like visible grids, no turn time limits, boring combat, etc. However, a slow RT game with full scripting for AI would avoid these problems entirely.

If you could code your own 'scouting' AI script, you wouldn't have to nurse your vulnerable recon units away from battles, constantly queing up waypoints around your mapped area. Your groups could be scripted to execute plans without you having to manually do it all; and moreover you'd be able to script the taskgroups and any unit production to maintain your unit balance without having to keep clicking on buttons. Proper scripting would allow you to define your own levels of relationships with other players in real time, by setting AI levels like proximity and such.

Scripting could also remove the time-critical aspect of RTSs, in that even if you don't notice a battle start or a resource run out, your little dudes have a SOP to actually do something, instead of stand about. Many games don't even have target priotisation, so you have to micromanage to the level of making sure your AT guys aren't shooting at planes. All this could be scripted, and indeed prepared pre-game and modified during to suit.

So why, in the world where all the gamers I know engage in some level of scripting or modding, don't any games do this? ATM I'm playing some Kohan for the first time in a while, and constantly retreating my scouts from battles then resetting their circular scout path is the kind of boring repetitive task that cries out for scripting.

A friend of mine at Mincom believes he could code a Kohan script to defeat the AI without any input from him; I'd love to be able to implement labour-saving code like this. Particularly since with the freed up attention, games could have a little more depth than your average RTS, and closer to your turn-based level. RotK, anyone?

(all this because I saw the Front Mission 4 trailer.... die turn based die!)

See, I'm too slow for RTS games, as a rule.

I love shooter games like Tribes 2 and BF:1942, but I usually play support roles as I'm not quick on the draw either.

Turn based hit its peak with Lord of the Realm II - turn based strategy and the odd real time combat. I'd love to see a return to that style of game - no grids, no AI flying at me in under five minutes from more directions than I can pay attention to, etc.

Anyone who hates turned based games hasn't played X-COM: UFO Defense, Master of Orion II, or Final Fantasy: Tactics.

I think my ideal strategy game would have a combination of turn based and real time elements. Economy, building, training armies, and general civilization management would be "turn based", and the actual battles themselves would be in real time. That would remove the thing I dislike the most about RTS; the stupid town management. Nobody mines resources and conscripts soldiers *on* the battlefield. It makes it so battles are often won by who can manage their economies better rather than any kind of tactics. I'm told that the Total War series actually uses this. I'll have to check it out sometime.

for those of you that detest turn based strategy, i suggest playing Civ 2 and 3.

I became a fan of turn based after playing Might and Magic 6,7,8,9 and Fallout 1,2 and Tactics. Especially when it's about RPGs I hate the Diablo style: hack and slash. I've also liked Heroes III and Call to Power 2 - both turn based. Real time has its benefits, but I prefer the planning available to turn based.

I like both but i prefer Turned based strategy games.

Personally I'm a big fan of the Total War series, its one of the most enjoyable strategy/tactics game going, most offer one or the other to a reasonable degree. The TW games have the empire managment, economy, deployment of armies and navies going on but when you get into a battle, a sound tactical manouver or two can swing the balance.....decent use of terrain and mixed forces, with good plans take the day in it.

The Kernel wrote:Anyone who hates turned based games hasn't played X-COM: UFO Defense, Master of Orion II, or Final Fantasy: Tactics.

Or Fallout. Or Silent Storm. Or Ultima 3-5. Or The Bard's Tale...

In that order of relevance.

I've found out that most of the Turn-Based games that suck at being turn-based are those that attempt to have both systems, like Fallout Tactics, Arcanum and X-Com: Apocalypse (usually it's less anoying - not better - to play real-time to get it over with quickly)

UFO & TFTD were the peak of the X-COM games really, though there is that "remake" going ever so slowly on.....

I always liked the way Apocalypse handled the real time, though. Watching the soldiers seeking cover and retreating when overwhelmed was fun. Not to mention bullet-dodging

Outruning incoming shots was always rather surreal, though all you needed for the best troops you could want, was to raid Marsec and the Temple for the first week non-stop, with real time mode and machine guns on full auto.

I dislike cliche' RTSs like Command and Conquer style games. The "strategy" involved in them is...how can I say it...less than strategic. It is how you build your base and quickly you drag select men, move them whatever. It isn't in warfare it is in understanding the Rock Paper Scissors of it. Which bothers me. I like RTSs like Total War, a lot more factors to take in than just X damage, Y hit points. Of course the same thing can happen in Turn based games to make them equally as bad. Another grand RTS is Close Combat 2 - 5. Fantastic games, real-time yet detailed.

sometimes, a change of pace is good.

RTS and TBS are different games. It is not about what is superior, but what is well made for its context.

Fast RT games suck, because you can only do one thing at once and you're little dudes/ships/whatever don't have any initative, so your intervention is required everywhere. Turn based suck because they usually use old-score things like visible grids, no turn time limits, boring combat, etc. However, a slow RT game with full scripting for AI would avoid these problems entirely.

Those are the result of bad design, not inherent nature of the games. An well designed RTS can keep the micromanagement level near constant and managable at times, like a game of zone control (starcraft map) where there is usually only 1~3 bases that auto builds and relatively minimum teching, making tactical combat the only thing to worry about and there is usually just enough units for the battles to be fun because people attack at under the upper limit of micro and prepositioning can elimate tactical micro by a large amount. (unless your opponent caught you in a bad position, which means he is better at command and positioning anyway, and you deserve to lose) Intervention SHOULD be required for all games, (or why are you playing) and if they don't overload the player, that would be perfect.

As for TBS, I don't think grids and lack of timelimits are bad when I'm building my empire and happily enjoying controlling every citizen and piece of ore in my land. While combat is slow, few things is as fun as seeing the enemy lines crumble after planning an massive breakthough turns before. If you need more action, this is not for you, but if planning is the fun part, TBS is fine. Anyway if you want to limit yourself to TBS,, just play combat mission if combat is not "fun enough" for you anyway. (watches me charge 3 SMG squads 100 meters across the ground into some light trees and panzerfaust that damned sherman to hell...thank god that tank is out of HE)

f you could code your own 'scouting' AI script, you wouldn't have to nurse your vulnerable recon units away from battles, constantly queing up waypoints around your mapped area. Your groups could be scripted to execute plans without you having to manually do it all; and moreover you'd be able to script the taskgroups and any unit production to maintain your unit balance without having to keep clicking on buttons. Proper scripting would allow you to define your own levels of relationships with other players in real time, by setting AI levels like proximity and such.

GET TOTAL ANNIHILATION -nuff said (it has got everything, and truely cool (read: frags everything) superweapons as well......ah my 10 nuke salvo followed by brawer strikes......)

<---- still waiting for a sequal to that game

Scripting could also remove the time-critical aspect of RTSs, in that even if you don't notice a battle start or a resource run out, your little dudes have a SOP to actually do something, instead of stand about. Many games don't even have target priotisation, so you have to micromanage to the level of making sure your AT guys aren't shooting at planes. All this could be scripted, and indeed prepared pre-game and modified during to suit.

I beg to differ on one detail. RTS can be easy to manage simply by simpifying the game. Resources running out? Why not simply make it permant or regenerating? Target priotsaization? Why not simply make some units "unattackable" or reducing the number/types of units. Scripting often has the exact same result on gameplay. That is simpifying gameplay by removing gameplay elements. (to decent players anyway) For all those fine and dandy scripts and formations in homeworld (original) for example, the corvettes are petty much locked in an constant wall and fighters on evasive (when excluding formation exploits and even more microing) and the playing field is back to where it exactly was. Players do not have more options and simply lock the units into the best script and probably have less because many microing-options are closed.

So as an result, there is a lot of fancy stuff going on in the background but the game is not really more fun. If scripts are to make sense, they should exist so that they give out more option without making the player spend more time.

So why, in the world where all the gamers I know engage in some level of scripting or modding, don't any games do this?

Earth 2150 (and expansion, the moon project) is one game where EVERYTHING is script controllable. Sadly, NOTHING can take advantage of this by much, as maps generally are too small, and weapn ranges too short (for original e2150)l for evasion scripts to mean much. The general terrain and pathing also means that maintaining coherence is difficult as hell and higher AI don't help much. The unit mixes are too simple as thanks to a bad vehicle design system means that custom targeting isn't that useful either (as all your opponent's vehicles would probably be the same kind w/ different weapons at best) excluding some rare weapons.
------------------------------------------

A game where the gamer writes a program and sits is not a good one. (unless u like AI wars-type of games) Besides, I can code a 4 pool rush in Starcraft to defeat the AI does not mean it is fun. (P.S. I even have the AI editor) The depth of this game is zero thanks to zero input, not high.

The depth of a game lies the in the number of options to a player, not the simplicity of complexity of control. Scripts that remove control are useless. Scripts should make the player do things faster, not do things for the player as it is often suggested. I don't want to watch some scripts doing all sorts of things all over the place. Scipts should exists only if it gives an option that would otherwise be impossible, otherwise it is just engine candy like e2150 and such.

IMO, The only script that is useful is for players to buffer commands outside battles. But with good design, scripts are not required.

<--- plays the thinking man's game

I'm a Starcraft nut

I'll be the first to admit that it isn't pure strategy. Instead, you need to be competent at a number of things, such as macro, micro, and unit knowledge before you can reach the 'higher plane' of strategic combat.

I kind of learned about the old-time roguelike games and haven't stopped playing them ever since. Rogue, Nethack, Angband... all classics, all still just as addictive now as they were back in the 1980s.

It's kind of a love/hate relationship with the RNG, of course.

I swear I remember a thread exactly like this one some months ago...

Anyway I'm with The Prime Necromancer on this one. My ideal game would have Turn-based strategy - such as building, queuing, resource management, unit placement (ie putting my Star Destroyers here and there, making sure Planet ### has a Stormtrooper garrison etc) - and real-time tactics or battles. I would love building an empire with hundreds of cruisers and planets, and when it came down to deliver the smackdown I can actually command the ships and marines to do their dirty work.

Stofsk wrote:I swear I remember a thread exactly like this one some months ago...

Anyway I'm with The Prime Necromancer on this one. My ideal game would have Turn-based strategy - such as building, queuing, resource management, unit placement (ie putting my Star Destroyers here and there, making sure Planet ### has a Stormtrooper garrison etc) - and real-time tactics or battles. I would love building an empire with hundreds of cruisers and planets, and when it came down to deliver the smackdown I can actually command the ships and marines to do their dirty work.

Play Total War series? You just described its core in a nutshell.