Why do you like a turn based strategy game to a RTS one - or do you?

[sboog]

In trying to learn Civ2 after being hooked on AoE, I am seeing that Turn based games have quite a different feel about them from RTS ones. And I am trying to figure out just what the difference is.

Could some of you say why you like the turn based ones over the RTS ones (if you do)? and what you think the advantages/disadvantages are? What is the basic difference?

Of course there is room for both. But I am wondering if any of you who love Civ2 so much would ever go back to a RTS game with enthusiasm.

Thanks,
sboog

[Bereta_Eder]

Ah, sboog. This message seems to have been written just for my case.

After being alarmed for not having bought any pc game for months, I decide to raid the greek Silicon Valley. It is a street in down town Athens that has gotten this flamboyant name because it has dozens of pc game stores. (no relevance to the american chip manufacturing site then )

I spent nearly an hour in one of the biggest stores just trying to convince myself that there really are games worth buying

My eyes kept on falling upon Age of Empires II. The guy working there told me that this is the BEST strategy game that exists in this vain world.

I preceeded in insulting him heavily for having blurted out such blasphemy and forced him to acknowledge the supremacy of civ 2.
He responde by telling me that I am an «old timer» that does not live in the modern times but is stuck in past glories. Trying to control my meditaranean temper I kindly reminded him that CIV 3 is going to come out very soon so that he and his kind can crawl back into their petite holes and place AoE in a particular body part of theirs.

Still, I could not find any other game that was of any interest to me so, to the exhilaration of the guy in the store, I decided to buy AoE II. The guy at the store altered his attitide and treated me like I was Christopher Colombus on my way to discover the New World. He had teh same expression as the Orthodox monks moving North to spread Christianity to the slavs or the catholic missionaries that allegendly went South to preach christianity to the Africans. The same sense of fulfilment.

I sat down and installed AoE II. After I solved some problems with the screen flickering at the bottom edge, I played my first game - and became PHYSICALLY ill.

I mean I really wanted to vomit, and I started fearing that I might just be having one of these epileptic crises that can happen to you if you play some video games with fast changling lights etc etc.

But this was not the case since I have played halh Life and tfc without any ill effects.

I still don't know why this feeling of nausea overcomes me everytime I play AoE II. I like to believe that it's the high resolution and not actually the game itself.

It is obvious that I have not much playing experience of AoE II after that. I forced my self to play it for some time though.

My conclusions is that AoE has very little to do with CIV. It is a game of reflexes that actually seems more relevant to FPS than strategic gaming in that respect.

The strategy elements that I did discover have nothing to do with science advances, research, gathering of resources and the like. These are all elementary compared to CIV.
The only strategic element I did find in AoE is POSITIONING. Where do you place your units, castles etc etc.

Master this, have accute reflexes and take a nausea pill and I guarantee that you will enjoy AoE as I never did...

[John-SJ]

I played my first game of Civ (the original) in 1994-5 and have spent at least half of my gaming time playing Civ I and Civ II since then. I've played many other games as well, both RTS and TBS but Civ and Civ II are still the best of any I've played.

My first RTS game was WarCraft II, I played that a lot, especially multi-player. My favorite RTS was AoE II because it's a beautifully designed and well balanced game. But like paiktis22, I find a lot more mouse clicking than strategy in RTS games.

Why do I like TBS games over RTS? Well, first, I'm a meticulous planner. In RTS games I can plan all I want (or all I have time to) but if I don't have the dexterity to execute my plan before *whatever* happens, then I will likely fail. In TBS games I can gather information and lay my plans while the "clock" isn't running. I can take my time, I can analyze, I can try out ideas in my head before committing to them. If my plan succeeds I feel I've really accomplished something, and if it fails I know it's because it was a poor plan, not because I lack sufficient dexterity.

There is a lot to be said for some of the better RTS games, and I enjoy playing now and then, but what I enjoy most is the ability to think my game through in detail, and that is only really offered in a TBS game.

John-SJ

[Smash]

Real time is just too tense for me.You react.Then it comes down to who has the best connection and/or keyboard dexterity and controller.
I used to play a fair bit of close combat but found I was suffering muscle tension in my neck and shoulders which would become unbearable.

Its the old chess vs checkers thing.You don't have to like Civ.Although I can't understand why,there are people that actually don't like to civ.Can you imagine?

[sboog]

Smash, I always loved chess. Just taking my time and planning and watching something beautiful (hopefully) play out. Got beat a lot, too. But I had great respect for the game and for my opponant.

I'm beginning to think that Civ2 could really unfold into something more than I first thought it was. Not just reflexes and reaction or adrenalin. But something deeper than that.

sboog

[Smash]

I feel a need to warn you if you "get into" civ anymore,you may have difficulty maintaining normal routines:
1.sleeping times
2.eating times
3.personal hygiene may suffer
4."Poverty:A Simple Solution" may not get written
5.Relationships...um..well..you need to lay down the law,encourage hobbies or "other" activities or be single.
6.Work/School-most likely will see a re-organization of prioritys
7.blending-ie-International Correspondence Schools becomes Infinite City Strategy(I don't like sleaze..makes it sound dirty or underhanded)
8.Time Distortion-one more turn becomes 4 more hours
9.increased isolation from society-ok cuz you have The Great Library
10.possible legal difficulties as you cannot attack your neighbors when they refuse to pay tribute



[This message has been edited by Smash (edited April 09, 2001).]

[Chris 62]

Turn based games like Civ-2 allow you to plan a real strategy, not react to a rampent AI bent on destruction. This game allows for long-term goals, and you can win it without wiping out the others through the Spaceship victory. RTS can be fun, but they are also unforgiving and extremly annoying. It is really a matter of taste, but as an old time wargammer, turn-based will always be my first choice.

------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.

[Bereta_Eder]

8.Time Distortion-one more turn becomes 4 more hours

I second that one.

After you start playing civ at the evening, you will think that 4.30 in the morning is not really that late any more, especially when you are about to do the key change of governement from Monarchy to Democracy and so on and so forth

[Dis]

well I suck at rts, and do fairly well at tbs games (not compared to some here though)

if I was good at rts's games I'd probably like them better. But I am too slow and not good at multi-tasking (perhaps I am playing them wrong? I probalby should concentrate my attacks rather than attack from several different places- this makes it difficult to control the battles for me). Put simply- I really suck

[Scouse Gits]

My excuse -- I'm simply too old for real time orc bashing!

------------------
Scouse Git[1] -- git1@scousers.net

"Staring at your screen in horror and disbelief when you open a saved game is one of the fun things of a succession game " - Hueij
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven

[East Street Trader]

I have enjoyed Warcraft, Command and Conquer and AoE among other RTS games. But in an awful lot of the missions there is just one strategy - to build up and hold in reserve a massive force and then unleash it.

Now, of course there is a skill both in managing the building up process efficiently and in then using the troops in a way that exploits their particular characteristics. I particularly enjoyed working out which type of troops gave an AoE tribe an edge and, accordingly, when that tribe should aim to launch its attack. But try as the designers might they just haven't got enough depth in there. It all becomes mechanical after a bit.

Thief was a promising idea but, again, got repetitive.

So RTS games come a poor third, for me, after TBS and RPG.

Now look at the depth in civ2. Over the years I have played and refined a classic strategy based on organic growth, keeping everything in my civ in balance, developing my land and cities in an orderly way and, typically, achieving a slow victory by the spaceship route; a speedy lage maps conquest strategy based on exploring forever before founding a capital; a small maps blood lust strategy based on achieving a series of military tech leads and exploiting each by a round of conquest; a trading strat built around the Lighthouse and Magellans; and half a dozen more. Each is widely different. Currently I am trying to work up a strategy based on switching back and forth from Monarchy to Republic exploiting the high shield production of Monarchy/the high arrow production of Republic/and Oedo's great discovery. This one turns out to involve very detailed micromanagment (the process of managing your cities turn by turn to get their production of shields, wheatsheaves and arrows to match with the quantities of those resources needed to grow, to build units and improvements and to achieve advances).

Along the way I have tried the One City Challenge, great fun and quite different again (really stern micromanagement there) and one or two scenarios - some of those take you into a totally new ball park - quite different objectives.

Oh yes, I have played one strategy where you just get to fundamentalism by fair means or foul and then pump out a ton of boring units which swamp everything. But that one lasted just one game - it had a boringly familiar feel to it.

And look, I've only scratched the surface. I haven't got around to MP (must be mad); I haven't played a fraction of even the universally acknowledged scenarios, let alone all of the others, and haven't tried the most successful strategy of all Infinite City Sle... I mean Sprawl, no Strategy, that's it, Infinite City Strategy.

The basic game still holds such attractions that I'd rather press "start new game" than mess about locating a scenario or sorting out my modem ready to play MP.

I think the "turn based" idea retains its power because so much of the outcome of other genres depends on the luck of the moment. So it's more difficult to know whether the strategy adopted was responsible for the success or failure or just the luck/speed of the player. If you replay a mission it may well be just the clicking that you refine, not the ideas. In civ, luck plays quite a part but not enough to confuse the strategic issues. Play out a strategy in two or three games in succession and you'll definitely expose that strategy's strengths and weaknesses. It is clear to me already in the one I'm trying at the moment that a food rich terrain is what it is mainly adapted to. In more difficult terrain the growth and extra profit achieved under Republicanism doesn't repay the lost production - from the brief periods in anarchy and from the compromises needed to sustain the alternating gov.ts.

An idea that has been discussed in Apolyton which I think may be the future, lies in the games that have a turn based, developmental phase but switch to real time for combat. Hideously flawed as it is, Braveheart lives in my memory and that approach (unlike so much else in the game) works very well in it.

[Chris 62]

EST: You should really give some of the better scenarios a try. They present aspects of the game that I never would have imagined in just the basic game. Some of the best and brightest people make them, and they get better all the time. You can't really experience the age of exploration, and the colonization of America, unless your doing it with accurate Conquistador units! Or the desperation of Honorious as the Barbarians overwhelm Rome, and you only have a handful of Limitani to stop Gothic heavy cavalery! These are things that only come alive through scenarios. The ones that come with the system are not much, but when you look at all new terrain and units, and you are busy researching Templers before the Franks get them, it's a whole new world.

------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.

[East Street Trader]

Well, cpoulos, I know you're right. But at this exact minute I'm itching to get back home and continue a game where my gov.t switch strat has got off to a good start and I am about to make the first switch so as to deliver a first batch of high yield caravans. Last time at this stage I was getting 250g to 450g a time but I have refined the idea by realising that if I park the caravans beside their destinations and wait till the growth phase peaks out I can get more. But you have to deliver over a couple of moves or lose the beaker bonus so I need to work out yet more timing so as not to prolong un-necessarily the period in Republican gov.t.

Oh and I somehow overlooked the Russians (yes the bloody Russians) when I first explored my continent and now the bastards are after me with chariots and legions while I am having to defend with phalanxes (happily barracks bred) and horsemen so keeping them off my back while I do all this will be challenging too.

(And they are putting their bloody cities in silly places which I will be stuck with as soon as I take them )

Nevertheless you put your point very persuasively and your enthusiasm is infectious.

Maybe I'll just find five minutes before going home and look for a scenario or two to download (if the bloody firewall will let me). That Fall of Rome one sounds good.

Have you tried Red Front?

Pity there's not an extra few hours in the day.
[This message has been edited by East Street Trader (edited April 10, 2001).]

[Dis]

what are some other scenarios besides red front? that was a decent scenario- but I find that many units very tedious. and the map was too big for my tastes- it was a pain moving units from the east to the west.

yeah I know I should just check out the rankings, I usually find a few there. but sometimes the good scenarios are not here at apolyton

[Chris 62]

What era are you interested in, Dis? Tell me what time period you like, and I can tell you a good scenario for it, more then likely. In fact, I know a rather fun one that might appeal to your morbid side: Dawn of the dead. You play as a human in the United States, with only a few cities and units, but you are surrounded by Zombies (the walking Dead), and you must destroy them and rebuild American society. Tons of fun, and a real laugh when the Zombies attack, they moan! Apolyton's scenario database is not the place to get good stuff. It has a lot of old things that have few if any new units or terrain. The hosted sites of Apolyton, The Scenario League, The Spanish Civilization site, and the Civilization Scenario Collection site have many fine scenarios, as does Civfanatics and the European Civilization site.

------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.