prometheus666: "On the other hand, I really think turn based games only exist because of either, the limitations of table top gaming, or the limitations of early consoles and computers."

I disagree. If you look only at strategy/RPGs, maybe.

Look at board and card games. I''m an avid player of both (I probably buy two a month). Almost without exception, these are turn based.

And some of them desperately need a computer shuffling. Ever try shuffling six cards? It''s very hard to deliberately shut off your brain and generate randomness.

One game, Starships of Catan, takes more than ten minutes to set up. A computer could do it in the amount of time it takes the players to make just two simple choices. Another (Kupferkessel Co, currently only in German) has complex enough scoring that it takes four pages in the manual. Again, no effort for a computer.

Of course, the majority of these are "minorly multiplayer" (2-6) only. There doesn''t seem to be a huge market for this in computer games. Not sure why; maybe that would make an interesting topic.

Looking back, perhaps you might be considering these "limitations of table top gaming"... if so, I apologize. I think of them more as things that could be optimized, making for a much more enjoyable game. Even the "earliest computers" did a good job -- I could play a solo game of Mille Borne in under a minute. Heck, it takes me that long to shuffle that many cards!

I have a few problems with RTS games. Primarily it''s about the fact that most of them are actually RTT games. Tactics are fine and all, but very few game makers actually make STRATEGY games that are RT. If they do, everything happens so fast and planning is almost non-existant, again, largely making them TACTICAL games. How am I supposed to coordinate 4 units together in a RTS without almost micromanaging?

If I could pause the game and set up attacks or whatever it would be different, but without micromanaging, it''s impossible in RTS games. Let''s be real, in real strategic situations, you have weeks, months or even possibly years to plan attacks and such, why can''t I pause the game, set up units to move to particular places at particular points in time or to wait for another unit to get into position before continuing? In many strategy games, particularly board strategy games, you can get a large number of units into place and tell the units to attack together. In an RTS, the units move at their only speed into place and then you can just sit there waiting for the next unit or you can attack.

I''ll settle for being the general, they don''t micromanage, they handle the big picture, telling units where they need to be and when they need to get there. Some units can get there at their maximum speed, while others move slowly into place. Being able to move some units 2 or 3 spaces and having others only move 1 space during a ''turn'' allows me to have them all get there at the same time effectively and then have them attack in concert.

That''s just me though. I like looking at a map for an hour or so, planning out my next 4 turns in theory and then trying to see how everything goes. RTS games are interesting, but I notice a few HUGE problems with RTS games that really irritate the daylights out of me:

1) Unrealistic unit movement. Why would you say that my unit of elves can''t move through that forest there? They LIVE in a friggin forest!

2) Strange, almost silly, unit production and resource gathering. I''m sorry, I need 150 units of this highly explosive stuff that is sitting on the ground, then I build a barracks and somehow this highly explosive stuff and energy creates trained troops... OK... If I lose my ''harvester'' units, I can no longer mine gold, right? Apparently the soldiers that I''m paying are too stupid to go into that mine and get some gold out, or chop down trees or whatever. I was in the military, I chopped down more trees in those years than I would care to count. We built bunkers, command centers and anything else out of those trees. Saying that we couldn''t use that same lumber to do any number of other tasks is just silly.

Reality: the resources are already being mined, there are hundreds of people already chopping down those trees, you don''t need to hire anyone, they will do it for their employers. Draw taxes (tribute, whatever) from those people and then give them a break if they give you more resources of whatever it is that you want. Production will increase determined by how you manage your taxes and tax breaks. You need more production, pay them more for a higher production rate. You need less production, don''t give them as much tax incentive. This is how governments have and will always work.

RTS games just irritate me most of the time. Corporations mine ore, not our military. Corporations make the weapons, not the military. So you''re communist... call it all government property, but there is still currency and those manufacturers that make a profit will always get higher priority on workers (production capability).

I''m sure that you could shoot holes in my arguments by pointing out exceptions, but my version is a lot more realistic than the RTS versions out there. Even the Panzer General series (5-Star?) was better about it, abstracting the resoures out of the game and giving you fame, more for doing good, less for doing not so good. It wasn''t the best turn-baed strategy game out there, but it was a sight better than sending out your government employees to get that iron mine because apparently the civilians didn''t think that they could make any money from steel production.

solinear: "I have a few problems with RTS games. Primarily it''s about the fact that most of them are actually RTT games."

So true!

I really enjoy economic/building/tactical games. For the first N turns. Until I have four or five dozen troops. Then it''s just time consuming to micro-manage all the troops.

The problem is, games are designed to force you to assume tactical control in all situations, even when there''s an insanely large number of units. If you rely on the AI you get the braindead version that all the enemies are using.

Why? I assume the basic logic consists of:
- "if we give them a powerful AI, they''ll just use it from day 1, and be bored with the game"
- "we only have time to write one AI and that''s for the enemies so the user can''t really trust it to win"
- "dumbed down AIs so the user feels really good when they can make better decisions than it does"

But I agree: highly unrealistic. If it''s an RTS, and you''re in control of the entire situation/operation/theater, you should have that level of control. Occasional tweaking if a unit is operating in a weird way. But for the most part, you''ll be focused on the Big Picture.

My Point is that in table top games you have to take turns. There are no real time table top games as there are real time video games.

I play card games too, they''re fun. But if you''ve got a computer or console as powerful as they are today and you''re going to make a game, outside of nostolgia I can see no reason to make a turn based game.

You know, I retract that. I''m mainly thinking of rpg''s, not strategy, war, or simulation games.

Beat monsters to death with a lollypop.
www.happybigfun.com

I think turn-based games are just going through a bit of a rough time at the moment. Game developers want to make games for the masses for the $$$, and that usually means making the next-gen FPS with more special effects than the last.

A LOT of today''s gaming community are teenagers who are doing some form of study and would rather play a game that require a quick learning curve such as first-person shooters, than read through manuals in order to understand the game fully.

Turn-based games are usually made to be turn-based due to the complexity of the things that can be done between turns (as a number of turn-based games require the player to do much multi-management).

Turn-based games are also seen as more unrealistic as in real-life who would wait for another person/side to move before taking action. This market for realism has expanded recently as seen in games using realistic weapons such as Counter-Strike and the like.

Basically people are more satisfied joining a server, shooting a few people (based on THEIR skill in aiming, not by much calculations that are evident in turn-based games), and leaving feeling they have accomplished something.

Well my comments may have strayed a bit from the main topic but I tried to make it all tie in somehow - basically all i''m saying is that multi-player online shooters require some amount of skill per se, where as turn-based games like Jagged Alliance, Wizardry, and Sid Meier games can be seen as too dependent on the calculations the computer makes up, and people like that feeling of their skill reflecting their status on an internet server.

Turn-based games are more suited to single-player games in a relaxed environment (i.e. no school the next day) where you are not really competing with another player but are aiming for a greater goal which takes a great amount of time to achieve.

My thoughts :D

-epsilon

When have turn based games ever been a huge market? People are always predicting the demise of this or that genre, nothing much ever comes of it. In the years before diablo RPGs were supposedly dead. Then space sims, now people are saying that adventure games are dying. You get my point.

I agree with other posters that the board game world is a good place to look for creative tweaks to the old fashioned ''i wait for your turn to eventually be over before I can do anything'' turn based model. One of my favorite games is Illuminati (technically a card game, but feels like a board game). Most actions you can only perform on your own turn, but you can apply influence to help or hinder other player''s on their turns. So even though you still have the concept of turns, you are continually involved in the game.

Let me throw out a bone before I go - I predict that over the next however many years the turn based market will actually increase as a percentage of all games (though it will never become dominant). The reason for this is that the first generation to grow up with video games is now hitting it''s 30''s (or 40''s). It''s just a fact of life that as we age our reflexes get worse. So as we get more game playing older adults, there will be a demand for more non-reflex-driven games. Just an idea

quote: snak_attack:
Let me throw out a bone before I go - I predict that over the next however many years the turn based market will actually increase as a percentage of all games (though it will never become dominant). The reason for this is that the first generation to grow up with video games is now hitting it''s 30''s (or 40''s). It''s just a fact of life that as we age our reflexes get worse. [...]

Oh, sure, rub it in! But yes. I used to play any sort of game, but now find myself not playing FPS. Not just due to reflexes. There is also the eventual damage from 14+ hours on a keyboard and mouse every day.

quote: Original post by snak_attack
When have turn based games ever been a huge market? People are always predicting the demise of this or that genre, nothing much ever comes of it. In the years before diablo RPGs were supposedly dead. Then space sims, now people are saying that adventure games are dying. You get my point.

I don''t really like to see people calling Diablo an RPG. It it is considered so, it''s just because you have a character to build, and so have Final Fantasy Tactics. Why is the former considered an RPG and the latter is not? Something is weird here.

quote: Original post by MadKeithV
I really should play fallout, it''s mentioned in a lot of the discussions I participate in! The problem is that I have very little time to play games, and I''m usually posting from work hehe.

Yes, you really should. Anyone with interest in 2D isometric/turn-based RPG''s should take a look at it.

Well, I suppose you could find half an hour a day to play; or maybe some time on weekends... and since time is short, I''d recomend the first game, since it''s shorter, and a good idea if you''re interested in the story line(which is great, IMHO).
It also has one of the most involving, well-though worlds I''ve seen(and somewhat unique, mixed post-apocaliptic with 60''s).

I don''t know. I''m not really sure if strategy games will ever make a real comeback. I''d love to see a game that I could plan out events and then just leave running in real-time. Set up attacks and tweak them as things go. Go to bed, check it in the morning, go to work, check it when I get back. Let the units move and attack as they will, but at a much slower pace.

The biggest problem with RTS games is that they (literally) go too fast. There is too much going on to actually keep adequate control of your units without pausing every x seconds. This is why FLUSH is so common in Empire Earth and ''zerging'' is a common tactic in many games. Get up overwhelming force, attack and be done with it. It''s easier to send off 50 units and be done with it than it is to build up a balanced force and be more effective. Of course, you''re not actually more effective in most RTS games with a balanced force.

Even make it where the more often you command a unit, the less effective a unit is so that people will give a series of commands and then let the unit do it''s job. I''d even love to see it where you don''t get the battle results for a couple of days after the battle occurs to better simulate situations. Allow development of technologies that would allow better communications or blocking of enemy communications.

I''m not completely against RTS games, just the way they are currently implemented. Then again, most turn-based strategy games are poorly implemented too. I mean, look at the 5-star series... talk about horrible aircraft implementation. The planes sit over a location for 1-5 days? Huh? They worked so hard on the land units that they completely ignored the air units and ended up just making them stackable land units.