Turn-based strategy vs real-time strategy...

[VvGaMeRXvV]

After a long line of c&c/wc2 clones, there are some games starting to bend the genre towards a more empire-building game than a tank rush. Age of Empires and Seven Kingdoms seem to represent a new type of game in RTS genre. How well do you think Turn-based games will last against these games in the future? Yea maybe Civ games have more "depth" but what about the days when real-time gameplay can handle the far reaching depths of Civ games. Can turn-based games always be the kings of the empire-building genre or will real-time win eventually?

[Tolls]

But they'll have to have a button so that I can go and make a cup of tea...

[Octopus]

Noone can know. But *why* should good games be real-time?

Octopus

[ACEofHeart]

At least to this point, no RTS can substain "Strategy" like a turn-based game does.
Yes, games like Age of Empires all start off with you making strategy decisions but at some point later they all become a "click"-fest of organized choas. Mouse clicking speed becomes more important than tactics.
And with the emphasis on on making "early" rushes like in Starcraft, once again strategy becomes secondary to speed.
While RTS's are fun to play, they can't compare to Turn based games when it comes to
depth . It would be like comparing a Chess game to a quick game of Checkers.

[scipio]

You want to see a game that spans the time that civ does but it is real-time and not turn based? Check out www.empireearth.com.

[HolyWarrior]

Real-time is an ABOMINATION! It is a crutch for programmers who cannot program an acceptable AI.

[Delbaeth]

As far as click fest goes for RTS games, try TA. It has an interface that allows all kinds of tactics. AOE isn't bad when you add thr ROR improvements. I like both RTS games and turn based games. I think RTS games are much better playing against real people. Turn based are much better against the computer. I have tried CTP and HOMM 3 over the net and they are very slow. FOr net play, RTS is my preference. For single player, I play turn based.

[Colon™]

Well, if anyone's interested, here's my opinion:

I have C&C and played the demo of Ages of Empires.
They're good games, but I prefer "heavy" strategy games like Civ2.
I don't think that RTS deserves the T in it, it, the the average RTS game has few to do with long term thinking wich automaticly is a part of RTS games.

It's not th real time that makes me dislike RTS games tough, I have seen "real" strategy games who are in real time but still required long term thinking and stuff like that. (pressing the pause button is necessary at time stough)

[TNapoleon]

I am not an RTS fan. I don't like these "Think Fast!" games, where you can't plan a grand strategy and build a massive empire like in civ-series. I mean, AoE and Starcraft are good, but not state-of-the-art. As I usually don't play multiplayer, TBS is much better than RTS.

[AlexandertheGreat]

At current levels of programming complexity, TBG are much better in terms of long term strategy and development. RTS are now "arcade" type games. However, I believe in the long run, with more programming and faster computers (RISC based computers) a slow-moving real time game may be much better than turns.

After all, there is a forum about cheats, and to me, cheating also occurs when you decimate your enemy with 100's of units in a single turn, and the other player has no chance to respond until all his units are gone.

[jojo]

Er, RTS is a misnomer. There's little strategy involved. Actually, they should be called RTT, or real-time tactical, since the focus is on issuing orders effectively to several units at once. But in truth, the RTT games are step up from Doom-clones and one step down from TBS.

------------------
Your mileage may vary.

[St Leo]

Most of them aren't all that tactical either. No formations, unrealistic abilities, ridiculous scales, etc.

------------------
St. Leo
http://www.sidgames.com/imperialism/

[Jimmy Liu]

I like RTS Games. They're more realistic. Turn based games are too easy. A few times in Civ2 I got something like 50 howitzers and destroyed an empire in one turn before they had a chance to counterattack. I've got Dark Reign and it is the most in depth RTS I've played. It's not all about getting cash, cranking up units and beating the crap out of your enenmies, but you have more comands for your units. Like search and destroy, harass, scout, guard, tolerence and much more. Close Combat 1,2 and 3 were good, but the graphics weren't up to scratch for a RTS.

But still, TBS games are much broader and you can take as long as you want.

Overall, I like RTS better than TBS. But the Civ games rule all.

Btw, this is my half century of posts!

[Stoel]

There's a spectrum between Doom and Civ, with Starcraft stuck in the middle. It's not fair to Say that RTS games have no strategy, because they do, it's just that there's only 3 different strategies to pick from. That's a lot more strategy than any of the SimCities ever had, but they're still loved.

I don't know what's so wrong with Doom clones either. No matter how good Civ is, Half-Life or Thief are still going to be two great games.

And oh yea, Starcraft. Starcraft may easily turn into the Civ for RTS games. It's been alive for over a year now and I don't see anyone who was ever good at it stopping liking it.

Now to think of it, even Sid made an RTS game(at least I'm pretty sure it was Sid).

Delbaeth: what is TA?

I liked the original Dune 2. I could just barely suspend disbelief by imagining that the sand, wind, and battle shields made the screwy scale/range problems possible. That, and it was simple enough that it was fun. I got C&C Red Alert for Xmas 97 and… well I did beat it, but it was an unfulfilling victory. The very things that seemed to have potential were kludges. I've nnever played it since.

I can tell from the screen shots that AoE suffers from the very same scale/range problems that I found unacceptible. I'd rather play with a printed hex map and cardboard chits with silhouettes and numbers. That has more “realism” to me than any RTS game I've seen or heard of.

[goofydrew]

and remember... there are some out here who grew up on chess and bridge and go and... the list goes on and on. we were pre-puters. and, being one of the over fifty crowd, i no longer have the reflexes to compete at RT games. don't force TB games from the options of the future... if you live long enough, you'll lose your reflexes also, and welcome TB games with open arms.
the3.14rt

[TNapoleon]

Stoel: IMO, Doom is better than Half-Life. Atmosphere of the old game can´t be compared to nothing. I remember losing nights and nights, 4 or 5 years ago...

I have Starcraft, am reasonably good at it (finished human and zerg campaign) but I don´t play it anymore. Not usually.

------------------
"Politics are nothing but common sense applied to great things"
Napoléon Bonaparte
"The real is rational and the rational real"
Georg Hegel

[JohnIII]

don Don: TA is Total Annihilation, a great game. It had tactics, as "rushing" didn't work against hill-top defences. And the nukes were huge.
TNapoleon: Half-Life is much scarier. How many times did a Face Crab leap at your face or Bull Squid chuck you out of it's mouth in Doom?
John III

[Steenulf]

RTS is fun for whiz bang kind of games. ITs sort of Arcade-like TBS although stuff like AoE is pretty cool. What RTS lacks is the ability to lean back, tweak your civilization, and really plan out not just your next attack, but the next five or six turns. With battles and RTS, you are so busy watching our unit deployment that you forget about your homebase. They are still a lot of fun, but empire building and constant tactical combat are hard to mix.
And as to the overwhelming attack with 50 howitzers...look at the German blitkrieg..they did the same thing. The trick is maintaining adequate defenses, something the AI does very poorly sometimes.
I love strategy games!!