column 144. THE GROWTH OF REAL TIME STRATEGY

[Albert B]

DA, no one will ever change your mind in a single post but anyway...Personally I have not found many RTS games that I really get into as a single player game. Usually the starting spot of the human is vastly inferior to the computer (usually to make up for poor AI) and instead of needing good tactics to win, you have to find the appropriate 'trick' to get past the stage. What I personnally have found to be the most fun is MP games. However, the trick to having fun there is finding someone of similar abilities. In Total Annihilation, there is even the ability to play 'skirmish' games which is basically a MP, start from scratch game played with 1-3 CPU players. You can then start yourself with an advantage to help you get into the flow of the game at a competative level. Like I said, I know that I can't change your way of thinking, but under the right circumstances I think you could learn to enjoy RTS type games.

Also, it's a lot more fun to play over a network with your oppenent sitting across the room than playing some unknown 'super-clicker' half-way across the room. That being said, this is why I don't play as many MP games of anything any longer - I use to work for a company that let a group of us hang out for hours after work and play network games (Total Annihilation, Carmageddon, Duke3D and a slew of others). It was by far the most fun I ever had playing computer games but has ruined me for playing over the internet for two reasons: 1. I miss the face to face interaction of reviewing a just finished, closely fought game. 2. Having the LAN connection was so fast that even games with a low lag over the net appear to be slow and jumpy.

[lord of the mark]

I generally prefer TBS games, and within the RTS genre am more interested in the ones that are closer to TBS (like AOE) rather than the ones that are closer to action games, like, C&C.

I dont think Civ3 should be RTS, but i think that some RTS games have some interesting concepts that would be useful for civ3. I am thinking especially of seven kingdoms.

I also look forward to seeing how empire earth approaches the problem of making a game that is more civ-like than AOE/AOK, while playing in real time.

[Ken Hinds]

You all have me somewhat confused. When I think of Real Time Strategy games I think of Ceasar II, Sim City, Janes 688(I), Harpoon series, Silent Hunter, etc. Which are not all that fast and furiously paced, if you adjust the elapsed time settings correctly. I've never played any of the games that any of you have mentioned.

So just what are we talking about as being Real Time Strategy?

Ken
[This message has been edited by Ken Hinds (edited December 16, 2000).]

[My Wife Hates CIV]

I perfer RTS over TBS but both depend on the game. I love CIV but MP is just no good. It's a completely boring game (%90 of the time I'm just waiting). The game is too slow often times taking many hours of play to complete what in single play would take 10 minutes (or less!).

Now, with RTS you get action plus the added element of having to always be thinking about what your enemy is doing. Am I about to be attacked? Should I leave that planet undefended for a few minutes? You don't get this is CIV, a chess game more than anything else.

As far as RTS having 'tricks' that must be learned to win (perhaps I read that the wrong way) - tell me a game where this is not the case. As long as the computer controls the *other* guy this will always be the case, RTS or TBS.

I have 1602AD, AOE Kings and Imperium Galactica II. All are very good games and in some ways better than CIV II (overall I'd say each is better). In terms of graphics they blow CIV out of the water but I understand CIV is an old game. What they did to CTP and the other so-called new CIVs is beyond me.

I guess if I had to pick give me RTS. It's the way of the future anyway as PCs become more and more powerful. IMHO CIV is a relic of the past. It was the best for it's time.

[carnide_]

Now there is a 3rd option: Simul turns!
And its great!
Fast paced action, and not a click feast, as in AoE. LOL

[Juggler_Bob]

Greetings, All...

This is my first post here....

I have significant problems with both formats, but in the balance, find turn-based games (TBG) more to my liking.

My problems with RTS games is that often you don't have the time to make decisions that, in the real world, governments have months or even years to consider. Even basic movement becomes problematic. Often, you don't have sufficient time to prepare strategy in response to initial enemy threats, let alone long-range planning that real-world governments routinely engage in. Knee-jerk response is often the only effective response, and the only strategy involved is in anticipation...

OTOH, in TBG like Civ II (which is still my favorite), certain aspects stretch believability to the breaking point, especially early in the game. I mean, seriously, why does it take 50 years for a unit of horsemen to travel a 100 miles or so? I could buy it for initial exploration (thorough mapping, terrain difficulties, local women(?), etc.) but not for travel along an established route (roads) during time of war, with the goal being to attack your enemies. "So, you think you can kill our settlers and get away with it, do you? Well, just you wait!(about 150 years or so...) Your great-grandchildren will be sorry!"
Even basic production suffers from this factor (especially early in the game). "Let us build a temple to properly exalt our gods. It will only take us 300 years or so!" Only the finest of medieval cathedrals took this long, and even then, the communities that undertook such an enormous project often enjoyed benefits long before the structure was completed.

I think that both formats have their weaknesses, but in the balance, I prefer a turn-based games for because you have the ability to think at leisure about what you wish to do. I know that you can always save or pause a RTS game in order to do this, but it's not the same.

I think that a possible solution would be a turn-based game that imposed limits upon movement based upon supply lines rather than an arbitrary movement rate. In the later stages of the game, Civ II lives up to this well. The presence of railroad lines insures adequate supply, and within the reach of the rail system, movement is unlimited. (Although I have other problems concerning enemies using each others rail systems automatically and with impunity).

What do you think?

- Bob

[SilverDragon]

I have found RTS fun against humans only. I would like it more if it were RT, but slow. I am wondering what a rt civ game would be like, but i dont think it would work in the endgame. Then it would be a clikfest.

------------------
Go Redskins!

Email me at
SilverDragon141@aol.com

[tomdy2k]

hi


i know what you mean by boring click fest when mentioning rts games. the best though for me has been zeus, while not strictly rts it has a lot of depth once you get into it. i would love to see a tbs game that captures the civ feel and scope come out.

[SNers]

Hello my friends. sure, you.

I am suprised when I read your articles. I belive the fun of RTS game-like STARCRAFT-is multiplayer. it is made for multiplayer- i think. Speedy game play, simple
economy, tactical battle(not strategy), dynamic action and clear Victory & lost. They are all what we can find in RTS. Of course I like Civ best. However starcraft is also exciting. Frankly speaking, Civ2's
multiplaying game takes me a lot of time(too much!!)

Anyway, I would say that RTS also need "thinking".
Fast thinkin and judgement. Did you know that there is
PROGAMER about StarCraft in south-korea? Often I am
amazed at progamer's technic-It is a similar feeling to see soccer or baseball.

sorry. my poor english.
HAPPY NEW YEAR~

[Hawkman]

I call them RT(-S), so you can tell where I stand. I haven't seen a real-time game that emphasized strategy, at most you need good tactics in the shootouts and a fast reaction time.

We used to have some wargames that had simultaneous turns, and those were very interesting. Seems like all the gamemakers forgot how to do that.

[Hawkman]

I was thinking of all the "Panzer..." games where you gave each unit it's orders, pushed the button and watched them perform.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by Hawkman on 01-03-2001 11:00 AM I call them RT(-S), so you can tell where I stand. I haven't seen a real-time game that emphasized strategy, at most you need good tactics in the shootouts and a fast reaction time. We used to have some wargames that had simultaneous turns, and those were very interesting. Seems like all the gamemakers forgot how to do that.

Combat Mission?

[Theoderik]

Historyline 1914-1918 from BlueByte also had an interesting simultaneous-turns style.

If Civ3 turns out to be just a rip-off of AoE I will never buy it. Sure RTS can be fun, but CIV can never work as a RTS-game. Not even with a Transport-Tycoon approach.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

If CIV3 turns out to be a cheap remake of CIV2 (turned based) with MP being play for 2 minutes and wait 20... I will not even look at the box.