turn based vs real time games

Coaan · Post by **Coaan** » 2003-04-15 07:14pm

Now there's a rant.

it does seem very lame to get given the key to the universe as it were

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2003-04-15 09:33pm

The way I see it, it's probably best to have brief interludes where players make decisions on what to do, and then kick it into time acceleration which shows the results of the actions. A la simultanious turns.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-04-15 09:52pm

What really killed me was when I tried to play EUII without pausing to assign orders. No way I could keep up.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-04-16 01:02am

As a note, I should add that both Age of Wonders 1 and 2 have what is called simultaneous turns mode, in which the action is still turn based, but all players move at the same time, and once everyone has clicked the end turn button, the next one begins. Hotseat play in this mode is impossible, of course, but it is very good for speeding up network games. That's about as close to a TBS/RTS hybrid you can get.

Out of curiosity, how many people here are familiar with those games? And those who are, what did you think of them?

Edi

Coaan · Post by **Coaan** » 2003-04-16 01:14am

Aow1 was practically unheard of when it was released....the first I even got a glance is when someone at school (back in the day) brought it in to be copied...it was worth every bit of that fiver

ever since then, I've been a fan...the combat is a little hero-sided...but apart from that, You'll struggle to have more fun with a game in the same genre

Aow2..well..it was better graphics and so on...even if lamed a few bits..(Wtf?!..no monster descriptions?!) overall, quite enjoyable

Post by **Edi** » 2003-04-16 04:33am

Coaan wrote:Aow1 was practically unheard of when it was released....the first I even got a glance is when someone at school (back in the day) brought it in to be copied...it was worth every bit of that fiver

Triumph Studios actually didn't have all that much in the way of marketing resources. I followed the game's development since the beta demo, from around October 1999. It's a shame it didn't get wider notice, it kicked ass, and in fact still does.

Coaan wrote:ever since then, I've been a fan...the combat is a little hero-sided...but apart from that, You'll struggle to have more fun with a game in the same genre

I got hooked already on the beta demo.

Yeah, über-heroes were something of a problem, but not insurmountable. If you've played the map Hunters of Blood II (custom-made, by Dixie), some of the worst badasses on that map (Indar Morion, Witchking, Galtor) are my design, I submitted them to him...

Anyways, yes, AoW is tons of fun, especially with the hundreds of user made maps. Best ones are invariably those made by RayB (Raymond Bingham, one of the developers), Dixie, Jason and The Jerk.

Coaan wrote:Aow2..well..it was better graphics and so on...even if lamed a few bits..(Wtf?!..no monster descriptions?!) overall, quite enjoyable

Yeah, it is, though it's annoying that you can't have a wizard off option like you had leaders off in AoW.

If you want to know anything related to AoW or AoW2, go to http://aow.heavengames.com or http://aow2.heavengames.com AoWHeaven is the place where all major announcements are made, and they've got all the maps and anything else you might need, including several mods, the original Warlock one and additional ones that came later (Lighthawk and others).

Edi

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-04-16 04:59am

I have to say I prefer RTS, it gives more of a strategic feel to it, whereas TBS feels so mundane.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-04-16 05:04am

Turn-based, I like to micro-manage.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2003-04-16 01:30pm

Gandalf wrote:I have to say I prefer RTS, it gives more of a strategic feel to it, whereas TBS feels so mundane.

What are you smoking? There are very, very few games that are both strategic and real-time. Most are tactical action games, and are not strategic at all.

Coaan · Post by **Coaan** » 2003-04-16 01:58pm

Graeme Dice wrote:
Gandalf wrote:I have to say I prefer RTS, it gives more of a strategic feel to it, whereas TBS feels so mundane.
What are you smoking? There are very, very few games that are both strategic and real-time. Most are tactical action games, and are not strategic at all.

By definition if a game makes you think to best someone, that's strategy.

Even fps when you circle around your enemies instead of hitting them head on, that's thinking.

You cannot avoid thinking in games....the ones that don't. die.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2003-04-16 03:06pm

Coaan wrote:By definition if a game makes you think to best someone, that's strategy.

Well, not really. Strategy is very different from tactics. To give you an example, a General has to consider strategy when planning an attack, a squad commander has to consider tactics.

Even fps when you circle around your enemies instead of hitting them head on, that's thinking.

Thinking tactically, yes. Thinking strategically? No.

You cannot avoid thinking in games....the ones that don't. die.

All games make you think. Those that don't aren't games. However, a FPS engages a different type of thinking than an RTS or RPG, or Space Sim, or Flight Sim, or TBS.

Frankly, RTS games are incorrectly labeled. They are, in fact, Real-Time Tactical games, with a few exceptions. They lack any serious strategic value.

Coaan · Post by **Coaan** » 2003-04-16 07:16pm

...Oh.

Didn't realize there was much of a difference....I sit corrected!

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2003-04-17 12:19am

Coaan wrote:...Oh.

Didn't realize there was much of a difference....I sit corrected!

Well, tactics are just manuevers and such. Circle-strafing, pincer movements, and so on. Strategy is more of an overall plan. While some RTS games really do deserve the name, most are along the lines of "build units, capture resources, build more units, rush enemy and win."

Rebellion is a good (albiet somewhat poorly designed) Real Time Strategy game, with a decent real time tactical aspect. The game moved in real time, though you could slow things down to the point where it was essentially turn-based.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-04-17 12:21am

EUII could be considered a RTS.

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2003-04-17 12:31am

Edi wrote:Out of curiosity, how many people here are familiar with those games? And those who are, what did you think of them?

I have AoW2, though I haven't played it in a bit. I thought it was fairly decent, though I don't think the tactical element is quite what it could have been, especially unit balance. A lot of the problem was that games larger than two players were slow, but now that I have my ubercomp I think I'll give it another shot.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-04-17 12:38am

I a fond of a mix of both. Lords of the Realm 2 being a good example. Turn based o the economic and diplomtic level...but if one of your castles is sieged...switches to real time.

Coaan · Post by **Coaan** » 2003-04-17 12:42am

Lotr (lord of the realm

not the ring) 2 kicked ass. It was really fun to the point where even now, I can play it and still have fun....massive siege battles and all

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-04-17 12:48am

I developed a fool proof way to capture royal castles

Post by **Edi** » 2003-04-17 01:00am

JediNeophyte wrote:I have AoW2, though I haven't played it in a bit. I thought it was fairly decent, though I don't think the tactical element is quite what it could have been, especially unit balance. A lot of the problem was that games larger than two players were slow, but now that I have my ubercomp I think I'll give it another shot.

It's quite playable, if the map is good. I still like the original AoW better, though. The graphics aren't quite as good, but playability is better, unit balance is imo better, and good maps in it absolutely kick ass, especially when you play with leaders off (so the AI will actually do something instead of sitting in its capital protecting its leader.

Edi

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-04-18 07:21pm

Coaan wrote:A pause button?

Let's see........Yep, affirmative on the prescence of the pause button(which actually saved my ass a couple of times[From a archer rush, for example])
So there!

Coaan · Post by **Coaan** » 2003-04-18 07:49pm

Darth Gojira wrote:
Coaan wrote:A pause button?
Let's see........Yep, affirmative on the prescence of the pause button(which actually saved my ass a couple of times[From a archer rush, for example])
So there!

Archer rushes...evil stuff...especially when the ai starts running them away from your advancing troop..becomes a game of cat and mouse....don't be fooled, the mice really hunt the cats

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-04-19 07:26am

Coaan wrote:
Darth Gojira wrote:
Coaan wrote:A pause button?
Let's see........Yep, affirmative on the prescence of the pause button(which actually saved my ass a couple of times[From a archer rush, for example])
So there!
Archer rushes...evil stuff...especially when the ai starts running them away from your advancing troop..becomes a game of cat and mouse....don't be fooled, the mice really hunt the cats

Thanks, I learned that when my spearmen started dropping off like flies. Fortunately, I had a pre-TC Teutonic TC, and thus slaughtered his raiding party.

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2003-04-22 04:35pm

RTS all the way!

I'm a HUGE Starcraft fan.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2003-04-22 07:08pm

Starcraft is RTT, not RTS. HOI or EUII is RTS.

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2003-04-22 10:20pm

Arg. I should've read the topic befoer I posted that.

Although, I would be willing to argue there is some strategy in Starcraft (just not as much as in the games you mentioned).