Poll #1: REAL TIME OR TURN BASED?

[St Leo]

RT would then mean 1 Mio. years per second.

Not unless you want the whole game to end in less than five minutes.:-)


Hunting Mode

Tactical combat as demonstrated by Birth of the Federation (Microprose) would be perfect for hunting. We would order the hunting party(?) to circle, charge, etc. the prey through lush environments. The orders are given in simultaneous turns and action between turns is then 3D rendered.;-)

------------------
St. Leo
http://ziggurat.sidgames.com/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/

[marc420]

I have to admit that I'm prejudiced in terms of Turn-based games. I guess the shortest reason I can give is that I play these sorts of games so that I can test thought and strategy....I fire up my race-car games when I want to test reflexes.

Some mix of turn-based and real-time might not be bad. Turn based strategic game with a real-time fighting system might be ok. But particularly, I'd rather have the overall decisions made at a pace where the player has time to think. I'll say this, if two companies released "Dinosaur Civilizations" and "Age of Dinosaurs", I'd buy the Dinosaur Civilization game.

Every once in awhile I pick up a real-time game (from a discount bin) because I've heard what a great game it is. For example, I picked up Age of Empires a while back. It was OK for a while, but it doesn't take too long till I get sick and tired of having to keep checking on those serfs to make sure they are all cutting down their little trees. Gets old quickly and game then gets uninstalled.

To me, a real-time system would have to have controls for controlling your forces that are an order of magnitude better than anything I've seen yet.
BTW, you could do a turn-based, phase-based combat game that would work very well....and which would reflect the speed of the dino's. For example, I like MOO2's combat system a lot.....and speed of ships does play an important role there. Speed ends up controlling how far you can move in a certain phase/turn. This allows speedier forces to combine on an enemies wing, get around to their flanks, and control the range of the combat. And it works very nicely in a turn-based combat system.

[MxM]

Try Imperium Galactica II demo. It shows how real time could be implemented for civ type game. It is done pretty good, though I believe, it could be done much better. I would like Sid to try RT for Dino game, I have seen enough Civ TB clones (including SMAC). Moreover, Brian is working on Civ III now, which is probably TB.

MxM

[yin26]

As has already been noted, other TBS games that had "dynamic combat" also had the benefit of ranged weapons, which inherently change the dynamic of the fight.

But dinos won't have that, so in TB mode you'll likely end up with a blob of dinos vying to stand next to or away from a target (like an old Ultima game, or something). The tedium of such a thing would be hard to describe.

But if at least the combat were in RT mode, not only would claw-to-claw combat feel more realistic, it would go a long way toward keeping the game from simply becoming a number cruching test of map positioning. To take such ferocious (or just big and dangerous) creatures and slow them to the crawl of TBS would indeed be a shame.

However, the overall tactical side of things could still be done in TB mode.

[NoviceCEO]

My vote is for RTS, but I'd like to discuss some points.
First of all, we (or maybe only me) don't even know for sure what will be Sid's focus in the game.
Are we going to have a gene planning game? Or a quick scaring action game, were tactical battles are the point (and dinos are your army)?
I believe the game may be something more like "change the environment and see what's the difference in the dinos". If that's the case, why worry so much about the battle system?
I think that the RT system would be better. Not only because it simply smashes TB in multiplayer, but because it makes the game much more dynamic.
A TB may be needed if the number of option to control your dinos grow too big. In Civ, it would be nearly impossible to control all your units and check all your bases production and population by the same time you take the researching and diplomatic decisions.

novice

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, novice, I don't (and some others don't) give a damned about multiplayer! We want a good TBS game with great AI. That is how I'd like to see Dinos! It'd have to be a gene-developing mass-world scale TBS, with many random factors and wierd things happening... Of course the combat could be optional RT, but if the whole game is RT, then I probably won't buy it, and neither will most of Sid Meier's fans...

[yin26]

Imran, didn't you think SMG! was brilliant? Sure, it had limited replay value for me, but that was a VERY well done RT game from Sid. He'd be the first to tell you he's not only about TBS. He's about making games fun to play, but as Novice notes, we don't know what kind of game this is yet. If it's an Age of Dinos, RT is almost a foredrawn conclusion. If it's deep game with lots intricate decisions to be made, well, then, you'll be happy!
[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited January 18, 2000).]

[MxM]

BTW, I do not agree with Sid's opinion (he-he, look at this ) stated in the diary's table that RTS does not have "deep thought" instead it has "fast action". Take city building games for example (Sim City or Cesar III) they are not fast action games. I think that the key point is game design. If you want you can make TBS as a "fast action" game, which is may be a little bit difficult, but take for example turn based combat in Jagged Alliance 2. And RTS game could be really long. Take, again, Sim City as an example. So, I do not see a reason why civ type game can't be of a "deep thought" and RTS. Again, I think that Imperium Galactica II is a good step in that dirrection.

I do not see huge difference in what to use for the game. With 2 exception: 1) multiplayer is better in RTS (which personally I do not care) and 2) RTS typically looks better and feels much more realistic (which I do care). Notice also that there no much civ type RTS on the market, and I would like to try one.

So again my choice is RTS!!!

[This message has been edited by MxM (edited January 19, 2000).]

[Biddles]

SimCity and Ceasar aren't true RTS games because you can pause them and do stuff.

[NoviceCEO]

I give a big damn about multiplayer.
BTW, you people should check the post Multiplayer if you can, Glak.'s got some excellent posts there, I think maybe the best ones in this forum.

novice

[MxM]

Biddles: "SimCity and Ceasar aren't true RTS games because you can pause them and do stuff."

You can also do it in the games like Age of Empires II: AOK and in many other games, so what is you point? If they are not true RTS, then let the Dinos be "not true" RTS.

MxM
[This message has been edited by MxM (edited January 19, 2000).]

[Qilue]

MxM, how many TBS games have you played?

[Master Marcus]

It should be TBS in the grand tradition of the CIV & SMAC engine. In my mind Real Time is for 3D strategy shooters.

[NoviceCEO]

MxM, I must disaggree with you.
If you pause an AoK game you'll be able to cycle around the map, but youn't be able to give your units orders.
By the way, AoK doesn't have a good represantation of the 15th century warfare, not at all! The 15th century is marked by the rise to the power of the portuguese, that marked that century by great technological advances on the ships construction and navegations, and found a new way to the India and reached Brazil. That's why native inhabitants of America are called Indians, because when Colombo (now riding for the Spanish) reached America, he thought he was in India and called the native inhabitants by Indians.

I study the American Independence and the French Revolution, WTF don't you study it?

[MarkG]

and the final results are...

Real Time or Turn Based for a Dinosaurs game?

Real Time	102 / 20%
Turn Based	252 / 51%
Mix of RT and TB	107 / 21%
Not sure/No opinion	30 / 6%

491 total votes

[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited January 30, 2000).]