Real Time Civilization?

[DarkCloud]

I know that I'll probably get heckled for this but what would you think if Sid went and did a RTS Civilization in addition to a Turn-Based Civ, just like the Warlords folk are doing.

I can see a great game with real-time diplomacy, that is something I crave. I love turn based but real-time would add a whole new dimension to the game.

I believe that the diplomacy should work like "Diplomacy's" diplomacy, you sit in a room and plot with other leaders.

Meanwhile you set the cities on -Military Governor -City Build-up Governor -Expansion Governor etc. like in SMAC.

Well, what are your ideas on this?

[Hasdrubal]

OMG, there is a dark cloud rising over our peaceful civ-community...

------------------
Hasdrubal's Home.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam.

[Christantine The Great]

NEVER!!!!!!!!!

Civilization II-class game could never be conditioned to be a RTS game simply because if you were playing on Eurasia you would be instantly be killed by an AI which would be killed... This would happen until all but one civ has killed everyone thah they can reach. The AI could order its one settler to scour the entire continent of Europe, Asia and Africa in one nanosecond because of its computing abilities to tell its settler to move over and over again. An older computer would have a heart attack, a younger one would crash.

Overtaxed CPU + RTS Civ III = Pile of ashes

TO ALL CIV FORUM MEMBERS, GATHER YOUR PITCHFORKS AND TOURCHES.
------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1
[This message has been edited by Christantine The Great (edited July 30, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Christantine The Great (edited July 30, 2000).]

[Andz83]

quote: Real Time Civilization

HERETIC!!!

[Napoleon I]

No! No! No!

The Civ series was built on a TBS engine and I hope it remains that way. There is absolutely no reason to shift to real time.

***Civers gathering around DarkCloud, chanting "Stake! Stake! Stake!".***

------------------
Napoleon I

[DarkCloud]

Sorry about the double post.
[This message has been edited by DarkCloud (edited July 30, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

I believe you misunderstand. I mean to clarify it for you now. I said (in addition to) this would only make the game history more rich.

Take this for example:
The governors produce (SMART) units and build (SMART) improvements while you fight a battle or you could automate the units to fight a battle for you while you micromange.

It would be a new genre, a new revolution in RTS gaming it would be the Strategic Conquest genre where you would act like a general.
Take Empire Earth for an example.

Well I knew this would initiate controversy but I thought it would be interesting to see peoples thoughts. Well in case any of you change your ideas on the subject I forgive you.

[Empress]

NOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooo

I will refuse to buy it if its Real Time *pouts*

well ok, maybe I would take just a sneak peek... but it wouldn't be my favorite!

[DJ]

Man, it's been sooo long since I posted, but I want to comment on this subject since DarkCloud seems to have no Allies.

I really like Civ the way it is, but real time strategy could make this game really cool. I've been on MSN Gaming Zone only to see about 27 people playing civ. Why? Well, when I play multiplayer civ I never get pass 1000 BC because turn-base is too slow when waiting for 7 other people to think out a strategy and fix up their cities! Making Civ real time strategy could really improve this problem and playing multiplayer would rock! I mean, check out sierra studios' upcoming game Empire Earth. Real Time Strategy with 500,000 years worth of history. Plus a climate generator so you can fight at night time as well. How cool is that for a civ game! Civ3 could also have these features which could probably make it even more popular then Age of Empires and Empire Earth! So consider real time strategy and how multiplaying could become very popular without 24hrs of playing before you actually reach 1000 AD.

[Par4]

I've already been shot, linched, hanged(same thing as linched ), strangled, burned and generally murdered after saying I would like to see Civ3 have RTS aspects a while ago. I like RTS games more than turn based, if Sid could implement it well I would love to see it. RTS! RTS! RTS!

Seriously a few RTS elements couldn't hurt the mildly stale TBS genre.

------------------
King Par4!!

There is no spoon
-The Matrix
Let's kick it up a notch!!
-Emeril Lagasse
Fresh Soy makes Tofu so silky
-Ming Tsai

[Steve Clark]

Real-time Civ 3 = pile of s***

Mildly stale TBS? Sounds like words from a whippersnapper who thinks those stupid console games are way cool and kick a**.

[Ferdi]

Real Time What? With a big PAUSE button...

[CornMaster]

I love RTS games but Civ 3 would have to be worlds different than any Civ game and would turn into something like StarCraft (Which I also like). But it should not be done.

Can you imagine playing a rush game of StarCraft with 15 bases!!!! It would be insane!!!!

Nope. I got to agree with everyone else and say that no RTS Civ 3. It would be too different. If you actually fought the battles in RT then that would be cool but would take several hours to play 1 turn of the WW2 scenario from Civ 2 so that's out.

Anyway just my 2 cents.

------------------
"I'm too out of shape for a long fight so I'll have to kill you fast"
"If the great Emperors of Rome, Egypt and Greece were alive today, do you think they would prefer Coke or Pepsi?"
Administrator of the CornEmpire Forum

[DJ]

Well, I can agree with CornMaster but I will only believe that it is a bad idea when I think that the new civ game coming out, Empire Earth, really sucks...

[Shadowstrike]

If you want to play a Real-Time Civ 3, go get Seven Kingdoms II. That's about as good as RT Civ 3 will ever get.

Seriously though, aren't you people getting a little medival?