Real Time Civilization?

[Ari Rahikkala]

I agree DarkCloud. I'd say that Civ is holy. Do not make it RTSS. (Last S for shit). Though RTS is not always RTSS. Make other games that are RTS. And of course, the only thing that matters is to make Civ3 the magic game.
[This message has been edited by LightEning (edited August 10, 2000).]

[Urban Ranger]

I have an idea: SimCiv


A real time game where all you get to do is to make the top level decisions. If you want an explorer to explore, you don't get to direct the unit's every move. All you can do is either:

[*]point out a direction; or [*]select a destination[/list]

Cities grow by a set of rules and things just sort of happen.


That could be fun
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited August 11, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

Pretty good idea Urban Ranger.

Sim Civ or Civilization Manager or whatever it would be called could also be run in the way Shogun: Total War is to prevent tank rushes and such.

---

Check out the article in Computer Games Magazine's September issue (118) or on www.cdmag.com

---

Sorry for the ad but I would rather not type out their article, copyright laws and all.

[DarkCloud]

Urban Ranger-

So what about 'majesty' It could have been done better, look at Seven Kingdoms 2 or Shogun: Total War. Civ RTS would be better than all of those if we submit ideas instead of criticisms.
Who's with me?

[UltraSonix]

My first trip here in yonks, and what do I see? Can it be? RTS civ3?!

Frankly, my opinion is simple.

*RTS games are good, almost as good TBS.
*But it would be impossible to adapt civ3 into an RTS without having to change EVERYTHING.
*Then it wouldn't be Civ3 anymore. So you might as well be playing just another RTS game.

Good to be back, but unfortunately I won't be able to post as frequently as I used to

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[SWPIGWANG The Second]

Timed Turns.

Case Closed.

why?...having 100days passing though my fingers per secound is even more stupid the the Turn based emulation of time. Besides, it would become unplayable as you expand (either not enough time for late game micro or long and boring early game waiting for that settler to be build....)

The old TBS system is HELL for mutiplayer. Timed turns in MP and customlized automation should solve most of the problem and all is happy.

[Gord McLeod]

RTS Civ3? No, I think not.
RTS elements in Civ3? I'm more open to this. I could see the following being fun, even in multiplayer:

1) Extend the length of turns. You could define a turn as a given length of game-time in years. Each player plays until that number of years is up, then the 'turn' is over.

2) Include detailed time controls. My big issue with RTS Civ3 is the lack of micromanagement that would be possible; you'd be too rushed to properly manage the details of your empire. This would be greatly alleviated if you could speed up, slow down and completely pause time at will. This might also make it necessary to include a time limit on how long you can spend in real time for a given turn, in multiplayer games.

Using an idea like this, you'd end up with something of a hybrid; you'd have the turns, you'd have the pace, you'd have the management of a TBS game, with the flowing of action and events that RTS brings to the table as well.

[DarkCloud]

Hey GORD!

That is precisely what I was talking about in my earlier posts, you could adjust the time of your turns say from 1(slow)-5(humantime)-10(fast)

This would allow for an Age of Empires like system with elements of Seven Kingdoms, Shogun and Majesty thrown in.

Say your building governor or yourself tells your city to build a settler, the settler is built, you send him out to found a city. He encounters an enemy who wants to talk. Flash to diplo screen. You reason out a peace treaty and afterwards found that city.

Meanwhile your first city is building phalanxes in the build que you created or one that the governor created for you. Say the screen looks like this
Build Que
---------
1. Phalanx
2. Phalanx
3. Temple
4. City Walls
5. Settler
6. Chariot

meanwhile you can use a warrior which you built earlier to explore, you create a route by clicking on destanation points and 'viola!' the warrior explores.

Any Questions? Comments? Ideas (This would be best. All I get are comments, ideas would help more.)

Thank You.

[UltraSonix]

quote: The old TBS system is HELL for mutiplayer. Timed turns in MP and customlized automation should solve most of the problem and all is happy.

So how about totally TBS for normal single-player Civ3. But in multiplay, have elements (see other people's posts for ideas) of RTS?

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[DarkCloud]

Well that's a good idea Ultra, however what I propose is two completely different games.

What you propose would make the developement for Civ III longer than normal and would raise prices.

So I would rather have two different games.

[CornMaster]

DarkCloud:
So your saying that a few Multiplayer tweaks to a more RTS game will take longer to develop than 2 TOTALLY different games!!

And your also saying that a TBS and RTS Civ 3 will cost less than 1 hybrid Civ 3, are you crazy. 2 games are more expensive than 1.

DarkCloud, I think you should lay off the drink.

------------------
"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

[wernazuma]

Oh my god, that's tragic!! I refused to even take a look on this thread for quite a time but it seems that the ill-minded heresy of RTC gains followers.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
I like RT-games, before I bought Civ2 I played a lot of AoK.
I don't mean a RT-game that covers 6000 years of history is impossible or would be no fun, but I like Civ, because I can plan and accord movement and management properly.
In RT-Civ, complexity would suffer. In Civ you're constructing a society, RT makes it more tactical, you need more the ability of a general than of a ruler.
Sometimes I like playing a general but in Civ I'm the king, the manager.
We came so far with RTB-system, with a RT-Civ much of this development would be lost.

Maybe there should be a second civ in RT for those heretic freaks, but please no hybrid or entirely RT-Civ


------------------
The only good thing about Haider is, that we Americans don't confuse Austria with Australia anymore.

[DarkCloud]

If the hybird Civ didn't cost more than $50 dollars the company would probably lose money.

However, if you priced TBS Civ at $50 and RTS Civ at $50 the company would make money and Civ fans would have two (hopefully) great games to play.

Wernazuma-

If you read previous posts the game would be a mix of general/leader of a civilization.

You could automate one or the other. Say you don't want to fight, make the AI do it for you. It will fight itself such as it already does in Age of Empires etc.

Hmm. Seems like everyone on this forum has post in here at least once.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm against the RTS game based on Civ. I don't think I'll ever buy another RTS game. I hate them all, frankly. Just get me my TBS CivIII! It doesn't even have to be multi-player (never really played mp anyway).

[Talon438]

RTS would be awesome it's not imposible Imperium galactica 2 was real time and the micro managment was not that hard cause you could slow game speed down alot something like that could work for civ3 + real time batles are awesome you could like group units in to armys that you'd have to balance and go to a seperate screen like in imp-gal-2 then battlefield tactics would be important shogun total war had great AI they could do something like that.