Lionsworth82 said:
I know that's how they function. But that also is a HUGE mark against these type of games and why they are nowhere near the top in popularity. I've played and have watched plenty of 1 v 1 games (Hearthstone, MTGA) where the opponent gets mad at how much time it takes, and starts doing what they can to vent (luckily there isn't a chat feature on these, else the toxicity would be overwhelming).
@lionsworth82 Absolutely. That is the one thing that retracts from the experience in most TBS games, in my opinion. Of course the 1v1 should be better when it comes to round time, but I totally get that in the competitive games, it tends to take even longer.
Lionsworth82 said:
@supervga I have played hundreds of hours of Civ games, and have never played online. The percentage of Civ games (or any 4X) that people actually finish to the end has to be about 1%, right? 1 in 100 games started? I will definitely have to check it out, I'm intrigued.
Probably. I don't know. I think it's been a 50-50 for me, and I normally play in a gang of 4. We did play Civ IV a lot together - mostly hot-seat, in fact. When we started playing Civ V we saw that players could take their turns simulateously. I don't know if the AI does that too, and it may be grouped by teams - I'm not sure though. There are some tricks wrt. how it's implemented. Most important of all, you don't fall asleep while the others take their turns (mostly, at least ?). It's also more fun to co-operate on a frontline or a siege like this.
I haven't played a lot of TBS - likely fewer than you have, so I don't know of any other games that do this. But it's an interesting take on the genre for sure.