Does Civ4 required Internet?

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That's how most people play civ, or any game. They think about strategies outside the game, and implement them in the game.

They do, but playing turn-based games they are not forced to do it exclusively outside of the game. You can actually think about your strategy, modify, develop, and refine it while playing the game. In a RTS you either get thrashed or not — there is no time for improving, except after the game is over.

During a RTS match, all you do is click as fast as possible. The skill used is close to that needed for playing Quake against humans (I know, I played a lot of Q2 deathmatches.) It requires only a slight shift of attention, really (less targetting, better use of keyboard shortcuts). The problem is, as Solver noted, a part of the players' stregth (and a big part!) is his skill with mouse, keyboard shortcuts, and the speed of his/her basic reflexes. This is very far from what you use in turn-based games.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Solver
And application of those resources is where speed kicks in. If you have played a reasonable amount of time online, you should know that the deciding factor between two players if often the speed at which one acts.

Between two players of comparable skill.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Modo44
They do, but playing turn-based games they are not forced to do it exclusively outside of the game. You can actually think about your strategy, modify, develop, and refine it while playing the game. In a RTS you either get thrashed or not — there is no time for improving, except after the game is over.

During a RTS match, all you do is click as fast as possible. The skill used is close to that needed for playing Quake against humans (I know, I played a lot of Q2 deathmatches.) It requires only a slight shift of attention, really (less targetting, better use of keyboard shortcuts). The problem is, as Solver noted, a part of the players' stregth (and a big part!) is his skill with mouse, keyboard shortcuts, and the speed of his/her basic reflexes. This is very far from what you use in turn-based games.

I still don't see how it doesn't deserve to be called a strategy game.

[Solver]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Between two players of comparable skill.

Skill as in knowledge of tactics takes very little there. Almost every player above 1750 has the same knowledge of strategy - he knows all the strategy there is, which is not much. The difference is speed. I do myself know a lot about strategy in AoE series games, including unit effectiveness numbers and many other things. Yet, I never got a rating above an intermediate one because of my inability to click and do stuff fast enough.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I still don't see how it doesn't deserve to be called a strategy game.

It is the level of strategy compared to the level of furious button-pushing and mouse-clicking you do in the game. In Civ, I can do that any way I like, taking literally all the time I need for one turn. Most RTS games allow that only in SP, if at all (not all give you the ability to issue orders when paused). They have little to do with strategy once the crap hits the fan (i.e. you start playing MP games, and can not just pause when needed). In those games, it all boils down to a major clickfest.

You could call Doom a strategy game by your definition. One needs to know what weapons to use, what power-ups or ammo to save for later, and which monsters need to be dealt when (the "how" being the tactics part). The thing is, even if you do know all of this, the most important skills remain: quick reflexes, and perfect mouse/joystick control. Hardly anyone would call Doom a strategy game...

[Kuciwalker]

You could call Doom a strategy game by your definition.

No. Doom is a tactical game. RTS are strategy games, because they involve resource gathering for future conflicts.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
[No. Doom is a tactical game. RTS are strategy games, because they involve resource gathering for future conflicts.

Like getting better weapons, and storing ammo for the really bad guys? Sorry, but the simplicity of many a RTS seems evenly matched with the one of Doom.

Anyway, the level of complexity of a RTS is lower by far than that of Civ. And so is its thought to clickfest ratio. Really, the difference is obvious if you just care to open your eyes..

[Zero]

Originally posted by Modo44



They have little to do with strategy once the crap hits the fan (i.e. you start playing MP games, and can not just pause when needed). In those games, it all boils down to a major clickfest.

Thats what draws that THICK line between someone who's actually good and someone who copies how other people play. People who are actually good constantly adapts and readjusts his play realtime. Most mediocre scrubs just have an idea of how experts play, try to emulate its success and have no friggin clue of how to play strategically when **** does hit the fan.

The problem with these copycat scrubs is that they dont consider their opponent to put them in that position. In MP PVP style games, the goal is to screw the other guy's tactics. So who's to say that your opponent is gonna just sit quietly and watch you prepare to deliver your strategy? They're just the same as you are with ideas and counter ideas in order to win.

You could call Doom a strategy game by your definition. One needs to know what weapons to use, what power-ups or ammo to save for later, and which monsters need to be dealt when (the "how" being the tactics part). The thing is, even if you do know all of this, the most important skills remain: quick reflexes, and perfect mouse/joystick control. Hardly anyone would call Doom a strategy game...

It doesn't take THAT much dexterity and reflex to play games well. Most of the time people make really stupid choices. Yes in RTS fighting and shooting games dexterity and reflex is a factor and it sets 2 good players apart when one has significant adv in reflex and dexterity, but most of the time people's scrubby problems are because they just make REALLY bad tactical choices.

Anyhoo, going back to what i originally came to poly for....

How is the MP gonna be handled? i heard there was gonna be some rts like mode? is that how it was like in ptw? cause that would be lame.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Solver


Skill as in knowledge of tactics takes very little there. Almost every player above 1750 has the same knowledge of strategy - he knows all the strategy there is, which is not much. The difference is speed. I do myself know a lot about strategy in AoE series games, including unit effectiveness numbers and many other things. Yet, I never got a rating above an intermediate one because of my inability to click and do stuff fast enough.

Even if 2 players are at a high lvl where they know pretty much everything there is to know about, I see players losing because they make that one small stupid move that the opponent just takes full advantage of. Everytime I watch WC3 or Tekken5 replay matches, I see things that make me say "why the hell did he decide to do that" kinda things. But of course its easy for me to say this after watching the replay a couple of times at my pace, slowly rewinding and playing and having plenty of time to consider what each opponents were thinking about.

Now I dont play AOE, but I can say for sure that in WC3... yeah speed does matter too, but its often the speed in which player can adapt to ****ty situation, handling pressures and not making errors, even if opponent tries to put you in to a stressful situation. not clicking fast enough.