Hello. I've looked around and categorized RTS'ses into : a) Your "traditional" RTS, where units only have a modicum of timing control, in form of attack cooldown time. b) "Pseudo" real-time, where combat is actually turn-based, and only looks real-time due to the lack of "End Turn" button. c) "Phase" real-time, where units act simultaneously, but only once per set amount of time, aka "round", as seen in AD&D RPGs, for example. What i want to have, is a system for fights of mostly melee units with low amount of health, call it "hearts" if you will. Because of that - my choice would be "pseudo" real-time, meaning sides will take _almost_ notable turns whacking each other. I gather, it will help with timing control, if player knows at all times who acts now, and who acts immediately after that. Also, the action order will be defined by stat-derived initiative, instead of precise mousework and the like. Point at the failings of such system, where you find them, and also there are some specific questions i'm interested in. The questions are : 1) If units take turns anyway, is there a point of a game being real-time in your opinion ? Will turns being local to the specific battle help ? 2) What would you say if you played your usual Real-Time-With-Pause(tm) RTS, but the (combat) pause was limited in amount of time the game stays paused ? As seen in Space Hulk games, (you stop time and a bar goes down, you go real-time and bar slowly restores to the top.)

Most of my pausing in Real-Time-With-Pause RPG games is to fight the interface trying to get my units to do what I want them to do. Usually I am trying to move them to a certain spot, or face them in a certain direction, but not always. So, I don't necessary like the idea of being limited in how long I can pause a game. But if the interface is super clean and the tactical options aren't overwhelming, I might not mind a limit to how long I can pause a game. Although, I wouldn't pause it, I'd slow down the gameplay like bullet-time. Gamers are used to bullet-time being temporary. Gamers are not used to pausing being temporary.

Real-time games, pause or not, differ most notably from turn-based games in their movement. RT or RTwP allow all units to move simultaneously. So a unit who has already attacked can still run away from other units while waiting for the turn to end and his attacks to regenerate. Its very cheesy, but I've exploited that in pausable games like Baldur's Gate and NWN. Turn-based games, on the other hand, have a unit stand there and get punched 3 or 4 times until its his turn to move. Then he can run a few circles around his frozen opponent. Its a very different style.

So the answer to your first question is yes. There is a distinct difference between pausable games and true turn-based games.

Okay, going deeper into the reasons, what do i _think_ timed pause will solve (reality may be different). First of all, i want to reiterate the words "combat pause". That is, player can still just pause the whole game and look around, and think about his next move, but wont be able to actually give out new orders to his units, which will be possible only withing the "combat pause"(Btw, good idea about bullet-time, i suppose its better for general understanding).

What are the benefits of timed pause to the gameplay :
a) It pushes the player to think about unit placement and overall army recruiting policy. To better understand differences between units and what unit is good in what situation. Naturally this requires to actually HAVE substantial difference between units. :)
b) It removes the "hit-n-run" exploit you've mentioned, not entirely, to be sure, but it seriously limits its usefulness. You could probably still do it a few times and then run out of alotted time for controlling other units you have elsewhere, that may need it.
c) It also trains player in his judging ability, when to act - and when its perfectly fine not to act. Thats not to say that player should just be content with watching the action, the amount of time should be enough to plot waypoints for other troops to join the fight without rushing, choose special tactical options and whatnot. My thinking is : even if time limit on pause is _VERY_ generous - it still "instills" a sort of responsibility and thought order of sorts in the player.

If anyone disagrees with me on those points - feel free to dismantle my thinking process. :)

Still looking for opinions.

I am now working on a game that uses what you described as "pseudo real time".

Regards to your questions :

1) It solves the common problem in turn based games where players have to wait for each other - even more terrible when your opponent decides to AFK for the whole fight!

It moves the focus of the game away from APM (actions per minute, ref : Starcraft) to more in-depth thinking about the trade offs of various actions.

IMHO, turn based is much easier to program than real time. My project is a small one man project and I wanted to save time and effort on programming in order to spend more time on gameplay. But i could be wrong, i am just an amateur beginner programmer.

2) I don't like this system and i have no comments about it. Just my personal preference. :)

Okay then. Then what if i say we increase the significance of strategical thinking with exchanging timed pause with loyalty-experience system ?
Newly gotten troops wont trust you as much as their commander, and will execute their orders more slowly or possibly with some slight deviations, whereas when they've killed some enemies under your command they'll trust you more and get more experience, thus executing orders with efficiency and vigil.

So, what will happen is at first you'll have a force which cant react to every danger at moment's notice, and you will have to think about things like proper troop placements and such. And in the end of the game the opposition will be much stronger, but player's surviving units will also react to orders better and faster. I suppose it will also give the game a nice learning curve, instead of just piling on the challenges without actually raising the player skill bar.
What do you think ?