quote: Original post by spock
I think the main reasons for RTS games being more popular is simply that most people don''t have the time and/or patience for TBS. While I like very complex, intellectually challenging games and don''t particularly mind if a session takes many hours, virtually none of my friends enjoy this in a game. A game of Alpha Centauri (still my favorite) will usually take several days of multi-hour sessions to complete, and that''s not what people expect of a computer game.

Yes most "normal" male teenage gamers prefer RTS over TBS because of some reason. I love TBS (some games I even think would have been better as TBS or partial TBS instead of RTS), however none of my friends have got the patience to play a TBS. They often complain about "outdated graphics" and "neardy clickfeasts" (like they don''t click more in RTS-game )

I love turn-based strategy games, however, I''m decreasingly playing single player, most of my gaming activity is now at LAN parties. (can''t afford to play online) Well, we played a 3-player Heroes of Might and Magic 3 game at a LAN party once, ( > half a year ago) on a relatively small map. The game took 5 or 6 hours. While thinking strategically is cool, and I do have the patience, I think that this is just too long to work in mulitplayer. I don''t know how this could be done, but turn based strategy games shouldn''t be changed in pace, but in total length. I''m thinking some sort of squad/infiltration game, but I don''t really know how to make it interesting.

Random idea: Worms is turn based and hugely popular, even in multiplayer. (we often even play it at LAN parties) Of course it doesn''t count as a true strategy game, but one would need to capture the essence of it in a TBS.

Another nice idea are simultaneous turns, so other players don''t have to wait anywhere near as long. The now stone-old game Conquest Of The New World solved this in a wonderful way, each unit had "movement points", and if player actions conflicted, the unit that had used fewer movement points before the conflicting action got the priority. (you didn''t see what the opponents did until the next round started)


- JQ
Full Speed Games. Period.

Is there anyone who prefers RTS for TBS?

This is an electronic private mr.ZORG''''s verification signature. Tested and Trusted.

quote: Original post by mrZORG
Is there anyone who prefers RTS for TBS?

I like both equally, they''re just extremely different and hard to compare. I''m playing Warcraft III at the moment (arrgh... crap interface!) and constantly playing (and winning) Red Alert 2: Yuri''s Revenge at LAN parties. YR is the best RTS in multiplayer around in my opinion - it''s pretty suck without the addon though. At LAN parties people are always amazed how fast I play that game, so yeah, very real-time - I do love RTS as well


- JQ
Full Speed Games. Period.

Baldur''s Gate did a great job of combining Real time with turn based.. The player could play real time but pause at any time to issue orders, prepare spells, or answer the phone.. Playing co-op over Internet worked pretty good too.. I am not sure how it would work when you play against another player. Anyone who had any experiences playing Fallout: Tactics on the internet? Do you play it in TBS mode or real time?

::aggression is the result of fear::

I prefer turn-based for a game that works best with a turn-based system, but I prefer real-time for a game that works best with a real-time system.

I loved Warhammer: Shadow Of The Horned Rat (real-time combat) and I loved History Line: 1914-1918 (turn-based combat, ala Battle Isle).

I also loved Shogun: Total War, which had real-time combat, but used a turn-based system outside of combat. I would''ve liked more available choices during turn-based combat, but overall, the game worked very well.

Real-time combat catches the drama of combat, making you into one of the foot soldiers. Turn-based combat catches the strategy of combat, making you into one of the generals.

I can fully imagine a game which lets the player make choices in a turn-based system, but lets the results of those choices play out in real-time. The proposed time limits would apply (giving a player a chance to only give an order once every X seconds, for example).

I always like TBS over RTS, and although I don''t play too many of them unless I have an entire free day.

I love multitasking, and sending troops all over the screen, and they all seem to die in a RTS because the computer can actually pull off controling two or more groups of troops. TBS allows a person to micro manage they''er troops.

There has been several TBS games online, usually "risk" or games like axis and allies. They usually either allow people to choose between something like the two minute rule prevous mentioned, just waiting til everyone is done, or having a limit of 24 hours to respond.

Another idea that has not been implemented is creating an AI that you can give a modivation, and if a player does not respond in a time period, allow the AI to move for him...

There are next following moments in RTSvsTBS:
1) Interface - how player can control units and orders (repair, build etc), where we meet Fast Clickin'' (RTS).
2) Multiplayer - controllable time cannot be here because control focus cannot be stable in unpredictably time changes. Turn Based is bad because Long Waiting Period.

Here we can see two exits (for both - 1 and 2) at first look:
First.
Time Scale Change. Example: Ground Control.
This means that almost all of valuable events are not fast. We can regroup (reorder) our armies when they being attacked.
Fire - not fast, we can
Move - faster...
Bad example: Starcraft, where we couldn''t be in time to order while forces are being attacked (faster mode - slow is very boring)
Second.
Is changing TBS concepts. Simultaneous turns, time restrics, etc.

This is an electronic private mr.ZORG''''s verification signature. Tested and Trusted.

quote: Original post by Silvermyst
Real-time combat catches the drama of combat, making you into one of the foot soldiers. Turn-based combat catches the strategy of combat, making you into one of the generals.

Very interesting observation and I agree entirely. Realtime tends to make the player think tactically and feel like he is really there, encouraging a sense that with each unit he clicks on, that is the player himself he is sending into battle. Whereas turnbased games tend to encourage the idea that the player is seperate from his units and not actually a part of them.

quote: Original post by Silvermyst
I can fully imagine a game which lets the player make choices in a turn-based system, but lets the results of those choices play out in real-time. The proposed time limits would apply (giving a player a chance to only give an order once every X seconds, for example).

I think this would be quite easy. Just set a time limit to give orders to all of your units and then once the player was done, all the units would act in real time. As I was trying to explain to my step father the other day who hates Turn based systems, what this really is is RT, but with a pause built in. The pause is merely there to give the player time to order units.

In other words, it doesn''t go, "Side A gets to move/shoot, then side B gets to move shot" in an alternating pattern. Rather, you have a pause that gives the player time to give order, then everything still happens simultaneously. My stepfather said this was still unrealistic and that real time was the only realistic way to go. So I pointed out something to him (and he''s an ex-Programmer himself so I''m surprised he didn''t catch on to this...)

In real time, let''s say that a player has 6 units up against 6 computer controlled units. In real time, realistically, the human player would need at least 1 second to point his mouse over and click on an order for that unit. Assuming he doesn''t want each unit to all do the same thing (just drag a box around them and all give them the same order) this will take about 6 seconds to perform. By the time he is ordering his last unit...the 6th one, 5 seconds have gone by, at which point the computer....which only needed a micro second to issue all it''s orders....may have attacked something you didn''t intend.

My stepdad then pointed out that while this was true, the programmer could compensate for this by making the AI have built in pauses or somehow slowing down decisions....taking into account the average amount of time a human player would take. So my retort was....why not build in a pause in the game, in essence it is exactly the same thing. He couldn''t answer back, saying only that it interrupted the "flow" of combat. I again answered that the interruption of the flow of combat to me was perennially having to micro manage all of my units, diverting my attention from grand strategy to making sure all of my units were doing what they were supposed to be doing. And I said THAT is more unrealistic than having a pause in a game. In reality, battles follow the turn based/pause system more closely because orders are not issued from the overall commander second by second. The only orders that happen second by second are what the ground sloggers have to do, and that is tactical....not strategic. My step father finally conceded defeat...having been an officer in the Swiss army, he finally understood what I meant by the difference between strategic and tactical thinking. I did say that in multiplayer games, such time limits and pauses were probably unnecessary, but I still think having a pause stresses thinking in advance and anticipating what the opponent is going to do.

It''s just like you said that real time encourages tactical thinking (which was what my stepdad liked), and that turn based stresses strategical thinking.

I think that RTS''s offer many other, more realistic aspects of life than turn based strategies. As Kylotan pointed out, there is the pressure of making quick decisions. As for "point and click" or "memorize all of the hotkeys" that is a very small factor of a real time strategy, and anyone who actually plays any amount of real time strategies will realize that the strategy is not in pointing and clicking, or memorizing the hotkey''s. It''s the choice of units, the skills to use and the battle micromanagement. Saying that real time strategies have no strategy or are for the people with no attention span is like saying that turn based strategies are for the old folks who can''t grasp concepts as fast as they once did and for people who are over-controlling. They are both false statements. I think these two genre''s have changed to much over the years to really be compared with such a statement. It''s like saying which bird is better? Sure they are all the same thing, but each has it''s ups and downs. Perhaps real time strategies evolved from turn based strategies, but that was long ago and they are now two very different entities.

¬_¬