Real time verus turn based - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  Real time verus turn based

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Real time verus turn based

Steel_Dragon posted 11-19-98 12:32 PM ET
Why not have a realtime game where disiosions are turn based?
dushan posted 11-19-98 12:58 PM ET
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.
Funnily enough, I was thinking about starting a thread with the same name after reading the interview with Sid, but thought better of it at the time :-)
I personally like turn based games, but real time might add new twist to the civ style of games. I thought that you could have two main speed settings, one for combat missions/civ management and one for when nothing much happens.
MOO2 had a similiar feature, i.e. you could let the turns flow if nothing much happened (if I remember well).
The 'slow' setting could vary, for example:
-real time: enough time for micro management/diplomacy, etc. and for precise management of armies.
-range of different rates of time flow, kind of like XCom, with some upper limit imposed by the graphics engine (as the position of armies, etc, would have to be continually updated).
The fast speed setting would be used when things would get boring, you might say something like 'skip next 40 years'. The graphics wouldn't be updated so the computer would be able to evaluate this very quickly. You'd see a window with years slipping by, until a specified year is reached, you cancel it or something interesting happens (war declared, major starvation, civil war, etc)
This would lead to an XCom style of play -> you organise things, and speed the game a bit until the next event occurs.
There might be a problem with multiplayer, as different people might want different speed settings, and the game might drag.
The quick speed setting might help a bit when everyone is fed up with the current units, so they all skip 100 years during which new techs are researched, etc. - the game can then enter a new stage.
Hmm, thinking about it, a lot of Civ mechanics would have to be dropped - I'm not sure if I'd like that. What do you think? What other RT solutions are there? (RT, as we know it now, lends itself nicely to a short campaign games like Red Alert, I think completely new concepts would have to be invented for a civ like game)
Steel_Dragon posted 11-19-98 01:27 PM ET
Make all the decisions with your cities, then tell each unit where to go and what to do if the enemy is contacted a then let everybody move at once. The best of both worlds time to think and Realtime playing. With "timeouts"(maybe limited in Multiplayer mode) to regroup troops after an excepted event.
dushan posted 11-19-98 02:16 PM ET
Isn't that a bit similiar to what I ve suggested?
Anyway, either proposal won't work on terrain where a unit has to be either on one square or another. The way I see it, RT needs the units to move smoothly on the map, like Red Alert.
Dushan
Steel_Dragon posted 11-19-98 02:35 PM ET
Yeh it pretty much the same thing, however I was just clairify what I said.
Smooth movment would be important
BigER posted 11-19-98 02:36 PM ET
I think you are both on drugs ;']
Everyone who is right minded knows
Real time = bad game
Turn based = good game
Leave the twitch fest games where they belong - on the garbage heap!

"The only reason to make a stategy game real time is to hide the bad -graphics, AI, or lack of game balance."
This should stir up some controvercy.
DCA posted 11-19-98 02:44 PM ET
Yeah, I hate real-time strategy games!
Steel_Dragon posted 11-19-98 02:48 PM ET
DCA I hate realtime becuase there is no time to think, however I in Real life everyone moves at the same time.
Why do you hate real-time?
WAS posted 11-19-98 03:05 PM ET
I think if you converted Civ II into RT you would lose half of the fun from the game. Before I start a game of Civ II I look forward to the challange of a long and drawn out game. I am a micro manager type when I play Civ II. I adjust every thing I can every time the city screen pops up (and sometimes in between)
If I get a hankering for a RTS game I will play Starcraft or Warcraft. I usually get tired of these quickly and come running back to the TBS games (specifically Civ II)
I would vote not to turn Civ II into a RTS game because I believe you cannot improve upon perfection!
Gord McLeod posted 11-19-98 04:09 PM ET
As I understand it, the game is already a hybrid of realtime and turn based. It's mainly turn based, but within each turn everyone moves simultaneously. I could be wrong about that, but that's the impression I've gotten from the various interviews and details released.
BTW, Age of Empires is a realtime empire building game. Check that out if you want to see what Civ would be like in realtime.
For my take on it... well, "Real-Time Empire Building" is an oxymoron of the first order...
Spoe posted 11-19-98 04:33 PM ET
Eh. There is one RT Strategy game that actually is. However, it doesn't fit well into the current genre. Harpoon, from 1989. Rarely hit a clickfest, though sometimes in large scenarios where you were trying to control a theatre-wide air battle with a couple hundred planes in the air you could hit something close.
DCA posted 11-20-98 01:06 AM ET
Steel_Dragon (what's up with the underscore?): First of all, let me say that I'm not that much into computer games, so there are probably a lot of games out there that I haven't seen. I've been trying Warcraft, Red Alert and Age of Empires though.
Reasons to hate'em:
1. Things move too fast, or not fast enough.
2. If I want to play fast and get the adrenalin running, some Quake-style game is more fun anyway.
3. Tactics. If I try to do something sneaky like attacking from two sides simultaneously, nobody is confused except myself.
4. Yeah, well, I'd come up with more if I had some time to think...
So, even if things move simultaneously in real life, I think turn-based games are better simulations when we're talking large-scale strategy and logistics.
Steel_Dragon posted 11-20-98 01:15 AM ET
The underscore is a habit, inorder to form more informative var names. I guess it wasn't nessary.
Atvar posted 11-20-98 06:58 AM ET
I think games like civ 2 or SMAC,should be turn based(beacuse you have time to think and organise things better)
in real time everything is in a hurry!
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Real time verus turn based
Steel_Dragon	posted 11-19-98 12:32 PM ET Why not have a realtime game where disiosions are turn based?
dushan	posted 11-19-98 12:58 PM ET I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Funnily enough, I was thinking about starting a thread with the same name after reading the interview with Sid, but thought better of it at the time :-) I personally like turn based games, but real time might add new twist to the civ style of games. I thought that you could have two main speed settings, one for combat missions/civ management and one for when nothing much happens. MOO2 had a similiar feature, i.e. you could let the turns flow if nothing much happened (if I remember well). The 'slow' setting could vary, for example: -real time: enough time for micro management/diplomacy, etc. and for precise management of armies. -range of different rates of time flow, kind of like XCom, with some upper limit imposed by the graphics engine (as the position of armies, etc, would have to be continually updated). The fast speed setting would be used when things would get boring, you might say something like 'skip next 40 years'. The graphics wouldn't be updated so the computer would be able to evaluate this very quickly. You'd see a window with years slipping by, until a specified year is reached, you cancel it or something interesting happens (war declared, major starvation, civil war, etc) This would lead to an XCom style of play -> you organise things, and speed the game a bit until the next event occurs. There might be a problem with multiplayer, as different people might want different speed settings, and the game might drag. The quick speed setting might help a bit when everyone is fed up with the current units, so they all skip 100 years during which new techs are researched, etc. - the game can then enter a new stage. Hmm, thinking about it, a lot of Civ mechanics would have to be dropped - I'm not sure if I'd like that. What do you think? What other RT solutions are there? (RT, as we know it now, lends itself nicely to a short campaign games like Red Alert, I think completely new concepts would have to be invented for a civ like game)
Steel_Dragon	posted 11-19-98 01:27 PM ET Make all the decisions with your cities, then tell each unit where to go and what to do if the enemy is contacted a then let everybody move at once. The best of both worlds time to think and Realtime playing. With "timeouts"(maybe limited in Multiplayer mode) to regroup troops after an excepted event.
dushan	posted 11-19-98 02:16 PM ET Isn't that a bit similiar to what I ve suggested? Anyway, either proposal won't work on terrain where a unit has to be either on one square or another. The way I see it, RT needs the units to move smoothly on the map, like Red Alert. Dushan
Steel_Dragon	posted 11-19-98 02:35 PM ET Yeh it pretty much the same thing, however I was just clairify what I said. Smooth movment would be important
BigER	posted 11-19-98 02:36 PM ET I think you are both on drugs ;'] Everyone who is right minded knows Real time = bad game Turn based = good game Leave the twitch fest games where they belong - on the garbage heap! "The only reason to make a stategy game real time is to hide the bad -graphics, AI, or lack of game balance." This should stir up some controvercy.
DCA	posted 11-19-98 02:44 PM ET Yeah, I hate real-time strategy games!
Steel_Dragon	posted 11-19-98 02:48 PM ET DCA I hate realtime becuase there is no time to think, however I in Real life everyone moves at the same time. Why do you hate real-time?
WAS	posted 11-19-98 03:05 PM ET I think if you converted Civ II into RT you would lose half of the fun from the game. Before I start a game of Civ II I look forward to the challange of a long and drawn out game. I am a micro manager type when I play Civ II. I adjust every thing I can every time the city screen pops up (and sometimes in between) If I get a hankering for a RTS game I will play Starcraft or Warcraft. I usually get tired of these quickly and come running back to the TBS games (specifically Civ II) I would vote not to turn Civ II into a RTS game because I believe you cannot improve upon perfection!
Gord McLeod	posted 11-19-98 04:09 PM ET As I understand it, the game is already a hybrid of realtime and turn based. It's mainly turn based, but within each turn everyone moves simultaneously. I could be wrong about that, but that's the impression I've gotten from the various interviews and details released. BTW, Age of Empires is a realtime empire building game. Check that out if you want to see what Civ would be like in realtime. For my take on it... well, "Real-Time Empire Building" is an oxymoron of the first order...
Spoe	posted 11-19-98 04:33 PM ET Eh. There is one RT Strategy game that actually is. However, it doesn't fit well into the current genre. Harpoon, from 1989. Rarely hit a clickfest, though sometimes in large scenarios where you were trying to control a theatre-wide air battle with a couple hundred planes in the air you could hit something close.
DCA	posted 11-20-98 01:06 AM ET Steel_Dragon (what's up with the underscore?): First of all, let me say that I'm not that much into computer games, so there are probably a lot of games out there that I haven't seen. I've been trying Warcraft, Red Alert and Age of Empires though. Reasons to hate'em: 1. Things move too fast, or not fast enough. 2. If I want to play fast and get the adrenalin running, some Quake-style game is more fun anyway. 3. Tactics. If I try to do something sneaky like attacking from two sides simultaneously, nobody is confused except myself. 4. Yeah, well, I'd come up with more if I had some time to think... So, even if things move simultaneously in real life, I think turn-based games are better simulations when we're talking large-scale strategy and logistics.
Steel_Dragon	posted 11-20-98 01:15 AM ET The underscore is a habit, inorder to form more informative var names. I guess it wasn't nessary.
Atvar	posted 11-20-98 06:58 AM ET I think games like civ 2 or SMAC,should be turn based(beacuse you have time to think and organise things better) in real time everything is in a hurry!