How to revive the TBS market?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: How to revive the TBS market?

Originally posted by Deornwulf
Why is Civ III even selling if its such a bad game? Unfortunately, it happens to be the only TBS game in town. The fervor of the fanboys to defend the game can possibly be attributed to the belief that if Civ III doesn't sell, the Civ line will die and the Turn-Based Strategy game market will die with it.

Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord is TBS (with real-time action phases, but all orders phases are pure TBS) and it rocks. Even non-wargamers in the Civ/SMAC mold have become addicts. Ask MOBIUS here for one. The game is good enough that I've dropped CivIII to "wait for it to show up in the bargain bin" status, and the "sequel" Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin is due at the end of the first quarter 2002. You can create lengthy on-going campaigns where attrition and resupply become critical issues, and connected metacampaigns which involve many more players and coordination and resource management between the groups of players.

At my site, I'm working on the initial setup for an Operation Market-Garden campaign that will involve some 60 or so separate battles, 12 or more players, and 2-4 senior commanders and command staff on each side. Many of the battle scenarios will be created on the fly based on strategic decisions by the respective commanders, and we'll have simulation of supply, reinforcements, time issues, and open-ended "what if" branching in the campaign. The game is perfectly extendable, has over 1000 third party battle scenarios, over 100 third party campaign scenarios, and has a replayability in single and multiplayer that beats any game I've seen in the last decade.

there has been a dearth of decent empire-bulding TBS games. Look what happened to the famed Empire line. Sequels to Master of Magic and Conquest of the New World have yet to be released.

There's a dearth now, but it has been a crowded genre in the past. The tough issue is how to do something new in a worked over genre, without making the gamer pay 40 to 50 bucks for something that feels like "more of the same."

So, what is to be done to revive the TBS game market?

Get Combat Mission. The game's been out for a year, is well patched and supported by the developers, has mods for everything from vehicles to faces to the total game interface, and has huge replayability and multiplayer value.

[Bilo]

Re: Re: Re: How to revive the TBS market?

Originally posted by Moraelin

In real tactics, thing is: you don't have one single brain for a whole company of infantry, an artillery platoon and a tank platoon. Each individual soldier relies on his own brains and training, to react apropriately, not sit there and get slaughtered if the commanding brain is looking somewhere else at the moment. IMHO turn based simulation is far better suited for tactics, too.

BTW, if you want an EXCELLENT turn based tactics game (well, most gamers would call it Turn-Based Strategy), try "Steel Panthers - World at War." You can actually download it for free from here:

I think the concept of "real time tactical simulation" is not a bad one, if implemented correctly; Microsoft's "Close Combat" is a good example for it. I don think it's as good as(maybe even better than) a company level turn-based war game can be. However, as the scope gets larger, real-time implemantation becomes impossible because even a 2GHz computer has difficulties making decisions for multiple soldiers simulteniously.

The terminology of tactics and strategy is little blurry, I think. Tactics means the methods used to achive objectives , while strategy is the process of making the correct decisions to achive a certain goal. It is stragegic decision for a company commander how to attack an enemy position.

Thanks for the game recomendation, I've downloaded it and will start playing as soon as my final exams are over.

[faded glory]

100% TBS games have a bleak future. Try the hybrids

Get EU and Defcon

[Urban Ranger]

I am really confused by this thread.

On one hand, there are a bunch of people frothing at their months trying to get in a dig at <em>Civ 3</em> like usual. They keep saying the game is bad, but can't seem to come up with any valid reasons.

Then we have another bunch of people pushing RTS as the next best thing after sliced bread. Of course, this quickly attracted a bunch of distractors countering this assertion.

Then we have MtG pushing <em>Combat Missions</em> like usual

If you haven't read Father Beast's new 'Poly column I suggest you go ahead and read that. I concur with his opinion that <em>Civ 3</em> is a great sequel to the series. By the same token, <em>MoO 3</em> is in real danger of turning into a dud.

Has any of you played any of the Koei games? They tend to be decent turn-based strategy games, particularly the <em>Romance of the Three Kingdoms</em> series. Maybe you can find the first version on an abandonware site.

The hallmark of a good game is addictiveness. For TBS this manifests as the One More Turn syndrome. Any game that makes you spend more time than you have planned can be rightfully called a good game.

If there are good TBS games out there, why does the genre needs reviving?

[Kautilya]

" Never said that EU isn't good, but you'll have to admit it's not a RTS. Or not the C&C kind of RTS
anyway."
Well technically it is an RTS with a pause feature and adjustable times.

Agreed it's not like C&C but that was kind of my point. It's better to just judge the game on its merits rather than worrying about whether it's RTS,TBS or whatever.

EU proved that an RTS game could be as deep or even deeper than TBS games. Defcon, which is hybrid, may well surpass Civ style games as well. Republic is also RTS I believe.

Pure TBS games are no longer king when it comes hardcore strategy games.