Suggestion: RTS/TBS Mix

[Hugo Rune]

I ask, why not? It solves the problem of having a large world as this can be played out in resource-friendly TB. It solves the problem of strategy as the vastly superior turn-based strategy elements with ample deliberation times come into play. It also gives the advantage that scenarios, the individual battles and so on, will feel like part of a larger scheme. It solves the problem of a good single player game and the good multiplayer game. It is the way to go.

What I suggest is this: A large tactical map is the core of the game, where the units move, turn-based, across the landscape. Here, the full tactical range of a Civ-type game is played out. The world is continous, and not broken up into scenarios (something which gives a great feeling of personal satisfaction on building your own future and not being hearded along a path). Each unit represents a heard that is broken into individuals in Real-Time mode.

Battles, base building, fortifications, strategic moves etc. are done on a smaller, real-time scale. Any "square" (or hex or whatever) can be entered into during a turn; Here the units hunt, mate, eat, whatever. Here they also do battle, if rivalling dinos meet up to face it off. The intensity of Real-time is here; yet it doesn't spoil the fun of controlling the big picture.

In multiplayer games, one can play the Real-Time part only for a quick, Tib Sun type bash, or play a full Turn-Based game to get the best of both. Sadly, PBEM and Hotseat is impossible. Oh, well.

[MarkG]

sounds good, but I have one question
isn't the whole idea of RT(time nevers stops) ruined when you'll switch to TB mode?

[Eggman]

I don't know. I think you could probably manage to merge the two successfully.

The key to a successful merge is a proper balance of strategic and tactical thinking. Turn based is great for strategic and OK but unrealistic for tactical. Real time is mediocre to terrible for strategic (AOE anyone?) and very good and realistic for tactical.

I don't want to need to rush strategic decisions (in real life, these sort of decisions are rarely made on a spur of the moment basis) or leave them to a moronic computer governor. However, I also realize that turn based combat and, to a lesser extent, movement is rather limited. Time, which is a vital resource normally, is reduced to a non-factor.

If they can pull it off, it will be awesome.

[Hugo Rune]

Well, MarkG, Since when was RTS continous? A scenario in Tib Sun or Starcraft usually lasts between 10 minutes and an hour! Remember, each "turn" will be several hundred if not thousand years (while any movement in "real time" inside a square will be in the timescale of months or years). Think like this. A unit is one square away from a stronger enemy unit. Instead of attacking, it echews it's turn of movement and enters the square it's standing in, where the player marks out a simple, one-turn fortification to be made (He could make more intricate fortification, but he'd have to wait several turns and doesn't. The units are also spread out in a strategic manner.

The next turn the fortification is completed, and lo, the enemy unit attacks. However, it is decimated due to the ingenious tactics of the player.

There will be "turn-based" improvements, like the fort above. There will also be "real time" improvements; Quick log piles, boulders, cut-down trees, etc. These can be done withing the course of a single turn.

[Kimmo]

It's really a little useless to discuss which ever will be good for the game since we know nothing about it yet, but I'd succest trying out a system they had in X-Com Apocalypse. There was of course the traditional turn-based system available, but there was also a real time system where time could be slowed as much as needed or even paused (fast forwareded also) if you wanted to give your orders in peace. This IMHO really effectively eliminates the "gotta click faster than the enemy" syndrome that many games suffer nowadays. It might turn out to be a little slow to play it like that in multiplayer, but anyway, I think it's worth a try. How about you?

[Biddles]

Sounds similar to lords of the realm. Play this if you want an idea of how it would work. I didn't think it worked too well.

[Hugo Rune]

Kimmo: Maybe. From what I know about firaxis's working methods, (Basically reading Loads of SMAC designer Diaries) they tend to go more for one hard-wired "killer" interface rather than a selection.

Biddles: I was thinking more along the lines of War of the Worlds, or alternatively the forthcoming Shogun.

[NoviceCEO]

Even though this post is now kinda old, this discussion is hot fresh.

Hugo, I agree that Sid should go for a TBS/RTS hybrid, but not the way you're proposing. I simply can't imagine a "fast-moving" (as Sid proposed) game that is a TBS game based on squares (or hexes or whatever). I can't also imagine a dino like my soldier, that I should control as if they were pieces moving over a tactical map (I can't imagine dinos on a tatical map too). I wanted to dino's to do things pretty much on their own.

Eggman, I don't think you're able to bury the RTS game. For what it seems to be like, you have a tiny experience about it. AoE is not the best RTS game ever, by far. The reason for its success is that when people play AoE they have fun, without exercising their brains. AoE's weak point is in the strategy field.

If only you had had some experiece about Starcraft... If you make a minimum mistake in the game you're dead. And it does requires plenty of thinking, not as Civ, but forethinking and mostly important, spending a lot of time on improving your "building order" (I don't remember if that's how those folks name it), which is the order of the units you're going to build, for example (but using Warcraft units): Train five 'peons', send them to mine gold, build a farm, train another two peons and send them to get wood, build a barrack, five more peons, etc, etc.

The main point in the game is that, but I think Civers are too smart to handle that.

[Qilue]

Anyone here ever played Lords of the Realm 1&2 which was a TBS/RTS hybrid? In this, county management was TBS and the battles were RTS.

[Narck]

Actually, I like that type of game... I had both of the Lord of the Realm games, and I remember that you could choose to have the computer take care of battles, thus making it a TBS only game (or do the battles yourself). If this game could be like that, it would be great.

[Hero Caesar]

Wasn't Cyberstorm 2 a kind of RTS/TBS hybrid? It sucked pretty hard.

[Hugo Rune]

1602 AD is all RTS, I'm afraid.

[djdhy]

i posted a while back on another subject about this. I was suggesting that if they had a hybrid of both, they could introduce some intersting aspect to multiplaying. They could have the turnbase only, hybrid, or with just the realtime. with the real time, (if any ones played myth or myth2) you could have a selected number of units to star of with( well actually you have kind of a "money" and everyone has the same amount and each unit costs a specific amount so you can chose how many of what unit u will start with)and not only play the usual(ala starcraft) or play king of the hill, capture the flag, etc.

[NoviceCEO]

GTinteractive is releasing a new game, that looks pretty much like in the history genre (as Civ) that is said to be a 'revolutionary' TBS/RTS hybrid. The is 1602 A.D, I believe, but I haven't played it or downloaded the demo.