Civ should be real-time

[shade]

Hmm, so you're saying RTS Civ would be more challenging, realistic (harder to maintain a large empire and to protect your borders) and interesting...

Euhmmm...please read again,Yes it would be challenging in the way that it would be impossible to maintain an empire,it would become a frustrating clickfest that you would/could only lose.Really,it would be no fun seeing your empire beeing wiped out while there's nothing you can do about it because you are just to slow to control such a hugh RT-empire.
RTS would only make it harder for you to control the game,the AI startigy would not change or get better,it would just attack 'en masse' and you would be run over.(try playing halflife/doom/... only using 2 arrowkeys,nothing more,it would probably have a same fustration factor).Just try to understand that Civ is just to BIGG to play RT(common how will you cycle through 50 units and 20 cities every minute???(that is even a small empire))


Shade

[Oligarf]

Online Fun

Multiplay has been skipped for the release of CIV III, would those Firaxis people have read this topic? Deciding they should implement RTS?

I have never intended to destroy the TBS feel of CIV, my intention was: make CIV Internet ready.

Civilization in RT on the NET is a potential AoE II, Starcraft beater.

BTW
People who call Quake RTS are ill.
And all they people that want to hang me, please in real-time. Imagine that in Turn-based.

[Oligarf]

Serious again

What my friend and others pointed out is right, large empires fell because it was impossible to handle them in the given time. Culture rating is a strange way to handle this fact. In real-time a playing with a small empire is far more interesting, your chances have grown, cause you can manage your empire better than that Goliathic empire. Making quick use of new technology becomes even more important. In RT it is possible to play a short game. Simultanious turns could be an option, but looks like RTS, takes a lot of time too. And I hope I'm clear now, RTS only as an option, with TBS as the main single-player challenge. RTS for the fast multiplay, maybe online, experience.

[joseph1944]

Just reading through. I voted NO.

[shade]

People who call Quake RTS are ill.

That's me you're aming at ,I guess???(In that case plz read again and you might notice that I just wanted to show how frustrating the game would be and how handicaped you would feel)

What my friend and others pointed out is right, large empires fell because it was impossible to handle them in the given time.

That's al right,but this is a game,No empire survives the test of time,and I think it would be rediculous that you would only be able to survive like say 1000 years while the game time is 6000 years.(don't expand=>you get whiped out,expand=>your empire collapses==>you only lose )

Shade

[lord of the mark]

whats with all the heretic bashing here

you people are not THINKING.

i have played aoe and found it not my cup of tea. And i certainly dont think much of warcraft, C&C etc.

But simcity, Sid's original inspiration for civ, was real time, and it si by no means a clickfest. Games like caesar 3, which introduce a combat element are also real time, and much closer to civ like games than to C&C clickfests.

I have not yet played EU, but until I do, I cant say that RT cant work on a larger historical scale. From all i have read of EU, it works quite well.

I rather suspect that we will get something along these lines in Brian Reynolds upcoming game. It will be RT, and i CANNOT see Brian releasing a mindless clickfest.

A speed variable, fully pausible RT game can give all the advantages of TBS, with a greater sense of immersion and without some of the combat inaccuracies inevitably created by TBS. (though it doesnt solve the MP problem) Its time to break out of the TBS vs RTS box.

LOTM

[Gramphos]

One more thin about why Civ not shall be in RT is the scale. If RT should work the mapsize would have to be increased more to allow the units to move slower over the map, and the would require very mush better computers. No Civ is not made for RT.

[Shadowstrike]

Look at things this way. We're a mostly turn based crowd here. So are most players of civ. From an economic standpoint, making civ3 realtime would be unwise due to:

a) added time patched civ3 over to realtime
b) additional time to fix bugs caused during patching over
c) driving away everyone, RTSers and TBSers alike because the former considers it a slow game, and the latter a fast game

Therefore, making Civ3 realtime is both illogical and stupid from a economists standpoint. And since our soceity revolves around money and the acqusition of wealth, that just makes it plain stupid.

Theory proved.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Shadowstrike
Look at things this way. We're a mostly turn based crowd here. So are most players of civ. From an economic standpoint, making civ3 realtime would be unwise due to:

a) added time patched civ3 over to realtime
b) additional time to fix bugs caused during patching over
c) driving away everyone, RTSers and TBSers alike because the former considers it a slow game, and the latter a fast game

Therefore, making Civ3 realtime is both illogical and stupid from a economists standpoint. And since our soceity revolves around money and the acqusition of wealth, that just makes it plain stupid.

Theory proved.

Yeah, its kinda late to do something like this for Civ3, what with the game shipping in less than 2 months

The original poster did mention CIv4 as an option.

And its certainly true that EU, Shogun, Impressions city builders,etc havent achieved the success in the marketplace that Civ2 did achieve or that Civ3 is virtually certain to, if someone does make blockbuster in the mixed genre between now and when the desinging gets serious on Civ4, Sid may come around.
Again the dark horse is Brian. If anyone can take the EU approach, and make it successful I think its him.

LOTM

[Shadowstrike]

But remember, if the EU approach is taken, it risks serious competition with that game. That would also not be good for business. Why go try for another niche when one exists already?

[Skanky Burns]

I hate it when players play a game that they like, then a completely different game in a different genre that they also like, and then for some stupid reason think that the first game should be more similar to the second game. If you like a game such as AoK or Starcraft, get THAT company to make another game similar to it!! Dont ruin an entire series just for some dumb idea to change genres.

For an example, look at the XCom series. XCom 1, 2 and 3 were a combination realtime/turnbased strategy. It played well, and although it wasnt 100% balanced and had quite a few bugs, it built up a following. Then came XCom 4, around the time X-Wing and such were a hit. So the makers of XCom decided the next sequal would be a flight sim!?! Another more recent XCom sequal is a a FPS. Basically, they just made a new game and tacked on a previous hits name so it would sell. This constant genre switching has alienated their fan-base, resulting in fewer and fewer sales for each successive sequal...

Sure, you could make a real-time civ-based game. It might even be enjoyable. Dont ruin a proven balanced game-play style with an idea that may or may not work... Dont kill Civ off just like they did with XCom.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by lord of the mark




And its certainly true that EU, Shogun, Impressions city builders,etc havent achieved the success in the marketplace that Civ2 did achieve or that Civ3 is virtually certain to, if someone does make blockbuster in the mixed genre between now and when the desinging gets serious on Civ4, Sid may come around.
Again the dark horse is Brian. If anyone can take the EU approach, and make it successful I think its him.

LOTM

I think a campaign system that is lacking and Japans feudal wars being a nich theme is what held Shogun back. The online is basic deathmatch with no bigger picture at all. Its too bad single players campaign couldnt mesure up to at least Nobunaga's Ambition. Too bad Koei doesnt port games to english anymore but as I said "nich"

[Felch]

Talk about sheep. The consensus seems to be, "I don't like RTS because that's not how it ever was."

Well, if you want to play Civ1 play it. Don't kirk out on people who think differently.

[Oligarf]

Originally posted by Felch X
Talk about sheep. The consensus seems to be, "I don't like RTS because that's not how it ever was."

Well, if you want to play Civ1 play it. Don't kirk out on people who think differently.

Nothing to add for me.
You are right.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Shadowstrike
But remember, if the EU approach is taken, it risks serious competition with that game. That would also not be good for business. Why go try for another niche when one exists already?

and there are lots of games with unique factions/races/civs - almost all RTS, MOO,SMAC, EU, etc and Civ was the only important series with generic civs - yet they went for unique civs. Why? Because they thought it was a feature that would draw mainstream gamers, and was more important to their commercial success than generic civ diehards.

Clearly we are not in that situation YET for TBS vs mixed genres. There are far more pure TBS loyalists than generic civ loyalists (as witness these forums) and as yet little large scale commercial success for the mixed genre in a grand strategy game. BUT - IF that were to change, I think Friaxis would try to learn the lessons.

LOTM