How to revive the TBS market?

Deornwulf · December 11, 2001, 11:43

As one picks through the threads on the various forums dedicated to the Civilization games, one can find a great deal af rancor and venom concerning the release of Civilization III. These posts instantly trigger a response from those who appear to believe its the greatest game of all time. That, in turn, generates attacks from those who hate the game and can't understand the fanatical attitude of the fanboys. I have some insights that may explain it.

Why is Civ III even selling if its such a bad game? Unfortunately, it happens to be the only TBS game in town. The fervor of the fanboys to defend the game can possibly be attributed to the belief that if Civ III doesn't sell, the Civ line will die and the Turn-Based Strategy game market will die with it.

The question is, are they right? Will all of the negative posts about the game kill any chance of a sequel? Will we be doomed to a string of patches that don't really solve the fundamental flaws of the game? Does one really attract more flies with honey rather than vinegar?

Ever since the misnamed Real-Time Strategy games started coming out, there has been a dearth of decent empire-bulding TBS games. Look what happened to the famed Empire line. Sequels to Master of Magic and Conquest of the New World have yet to be released.

BTW - There is no such thing as a "Real-Time" Strategy game, The correct term would be Real-Time Tactical Simulation game. Strategy would imply long-term goals. I have yet to see an "RTS" that involves anything more than Tactical responses and reactions to the actions of the A.I.

So, what is to be done to revive the TBS game market?

redstar1 · December 11, 2001, 11:55

Does it need revived?

Civ3 seems to be selling pretty well... but then again, would it have sold so many if it was named 'World Empire' or something like that?

It is selling because of hype, because people have been waiting for it and because there was no demo available. All the magazine reviews I have seen make NO mention of the bugs in the game. Granted the patch fixes a lot of the bugs but this isn't the basis on which the game was reviewed. Sure its still better than Civ2 but a lot of those people are now angry that what should have been an excellent gaming experience has been tainted by bugs that ruin complete sections of the game (air power for instance).

Here's hoping everything gets fixed, eventually.

Dave

Moraelin · December 11, 2001, 15:22

Well, much as I felt disappointed with Civ 3... If it manages to revive the TBS market, thumbs up to Firaxis.

UNFORTUNATELY, the whole reason I'm disappointed with Civ 3 is the exact same reason I'm annoyed with the RTS market. Not enough inovation, too much milking of what's already tried and proven to bring money.

I mean, really, it looks like every single RTS nowadays is a verbatim clone of Command and Conquer, only with changed unit and building sprites. It's not like C&C was a bad game or anything. I've enjoyed it a lot. But do we REALLY need the 1000'th exact clone? Isn't there anything that can be improved in that genre? (E.g., noone can make supply lines instead of harvesters, for crying out loud?) What started out as some highly innovative games that totally broke out from the usual patterns, ended up a stale genre with endless identical sequels. How low the mighty have fallen...

So, yes, I'd LOVE to see the TBS market revived. But if it means turning it into yet another genre of straight clones... is it worth it? Or maybe we should just let it die with dignity, instead of turning it into another zombie?

kc1000 · December 11, 2001, 17:01

Moraelin, I totally agree with you on the RTS market. I just made the mistake of buying Empire Earth because of my dissapointment with Civ III, and I completely regret that. What a waste of CD space that game was. S.O.S. in more ways than one. I am currently playing Civ III with the patch just for the heck of it, even though the joy has gone out of it. I am currently just waiting for Neverwinter Nights to hit the market and trying to kill my gaming time while waiting.

Nadexander · December 11, 2001, 17:03

Master of Orion 3. Its the magic bullet. Radically new game design. That thing that every other TBS lacked: detail without the tedium. If it works, then we will see a new golden age of TBS. Otherwise, hopes are not high.

Bilo · December 11, 2001, 17:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Deornwulf

BTW - There is no such thing as a "Real-Time" Strategy game, The correct term would be Real-Time Tactical Simulation game. Strategy would imply long-term goals. I have yet to see an "RTS" that involves anything more than Tactical responses and reactions to the actions of the A.I.

I disagree with that, "Sid Meier's Gettysburg" and "Shogun" are indeed strategy games in my opion. For C&C and its clones I use the term "Multi Unit Tactical Arcade" game. Because the word "Simulation" is an overstatement for games in which a tank uses 15 shels to kill an infantryman, while the infantryman is damaging the tank with his machine gun.

Moraelin · December 11, 2001, 18:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Bilo
I disagree with that, "Sid Meier's Gettysburg" and "Shogun" are indeed strategy games in my opion. For C&C and its clones I use the term "Multi Unit Tactical Arcade" game. Because the word "Simulation" is an overstatement for games in which a tank uses 15 shels to kill an infantryman, while the infantryman is damaging the tank with his machine gun.

Actually, you're more generous than I am. I use the term "Glorified Whack-A-Mole" for most RTS games. I mean, as much fun as they were back in the days of Dune 2, Warcraft 1 and Command and Conquer (i.e., before everyone and their grandma started making clones), in their own arcade way... there's definitely no strategy and not even that much tactics in one of those.

Just for the sake of leading the thread astray: back in the army, we used the term "Strategy" for campaigns that span a whole continent, or comparable sizes, and months or years. E.g., the invasion of Europe in WW2 including the drive to Berlin, would qualify as "strategy". What's in a RTS barely has the span, both time and space, to qualify as tactics. But then what we called "tactics" is far more complex than what any RTS offers, too.

In real tactics, thing is: you don't have one single brain for a whole company of infantry, an artillery platoon and a tank platoon. Each individual soldier relies on his own brains and training, to react apropriately, not sit there and get slaughtered if the commanding brain is looking somewhere else at the moment. IMHO turn based simulation is far better suited for tactics, too.

BTW, if you want an EXCELLENT turn based tactics game (well, most gamers would call it Turn-Based Strategy), try "Steel Panthers - World at War." You can actually download it for free from here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/Games/SP-WorldAtWar/

Yes, it's completely freeware. No nags, no registration, and an excellent game. It actually takes into account the exact penetration of each gun (so no hurting tanks with a SMG), armour thickness, slope, distance, visibility, terrain, suppression (machinegun fire may not hurt that tank, but it can cause the crew to button up inside), damaged or destroyed equipment (a direct hit can for example destroy your tank's main gun or break a thread and immobilize it, although the rest of it is still perfectly functional), contact or lack of contact with the commanding officer, and so on.

It also ships with a unit editor that's really useful, unlike Civ 3. You can make your own main guns, machine guns, whatever, mount them on a your own vehicle (with user defined armour thickness, slope, crew, whatever) and give it to either side. Make your own formations, too, while you're at it. Either for historical accuracy or for the sake of making your own totally fictive scenario.

Blackadder667 · December 11, 2001, 18:38

Quote:

Originally posted by kc1000
Moraelin, I totally agree with you on the RTS market. I just made the mistake of buying Empire Earth because of my dissapointment with Civ III, and I completely regret that. What a waste of CD space that game was. S.O.S. in more ways than one. I am currently playing Civ III with the patch just for the heck of it, even though the joy has gone out of it. I am currently just waiting for Neverwinter Nights to hit the market and trying to kill my gaming time while waiting.

How come you think EE was bad ??

It's better than ages of empire (admittedly it's a further development of the series)

DarkCloud · December 11, 2001, 21:06

Deornwulf- I don't think that Firaxis would care whether we complain- as long as the game sells well, there WILL be an expansion pack and at least the complainers can get them to fix certain flaws in the game before the x-pack is released.

Kautilya · December 11, 2001, 23:33

Actually 2002 could be a rather amazing year for strategy games. There is MOO3.
Then there is the geo-political simulator Defcon.
www.golemlabs.com

Then there will be two games released by Paradox makers of Europa Universalis. BTW those who think that RTS can't be as deep as TBS have probably never played EU.

Then there is the political simulation game Republic which also looks special.

I think we may find that the main problem will be finding the time to play all those games.

DaShi · December 11, 2001, 23:43

I think a lot of the die-hard fans ignore the bugs and claim CivIII is the greatest game ever is because they don't want to admit to themselves that they wasted fifty bucks. It's understandable, it took me awhile to fess up to BlackandWhite as a collosal failure.

I don't think that CivIII will mark the end of turn based games. It has sold well, and a CivIV is likely. Personally, I don't think that Firaxis will actually revive TBS. TBS needs some originality. SMAC offered that a bit, but really was a CivII clone. Stars: SG looks like a good candidate. Overall, TBS isn't dead, just wheazing a lot.

Kautilya · December 11, 2001, 23:48

"TBS needs
some originality."
Well at the risk of sounding repetitive, just check out Defcon. It's one of the most original game in years. MOO3 is supposed to be ground-breaking as well. And though it's not TBS Republic is amazingly original. With some luck we will be in for a treat.

DaShi · December 11, 2001, 23:51

I haven't checked out Defcon yet. And I'll look into MOO3 when I moderate its forums.

Moraelin · December 12, 2001, 04:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Kautilya
Then there will be two games released by Paradox makers of Europa Universalis. BTW those who think that RTS can't be as deep as TBS have probably never played EU.

Never said that EU isn't good, but you'll have to admit it's not a RTS. Or not the C&C kind of RTS anyway.

Zealot · December 12, 2001, 09:50

Quote:

Originally posted by kc1000
Moraelin, I totally agree with you on the RTS market. I just made the mistake of buying Empire Earth because of my dissapointment with Civ III, and I completely regret that. What a waste of CD space that game was. S.O.S. in more ways than one. I am currently playing Civ III with the patch just for the heck of it, even though the joy has gone out of it. I am currently just waiting for Neverwinter Nights to hit the market and trying to kill my gaming time while waiting.

Play MoO 2. I strongly recommend it. You have so much to explore that you could ever imagined. Of course, you may need to play on MP to see how deep that game can go.

MichaeltheGreat · December 12, 2001, 16:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Deornwulf
Why is Civ III even selling if its such a bad game? Unfortunately, it happens to be the only TBS game in town. The fervor of the fanboys to defend the game can possibly be attributed to the belief that if Civ III doesn't sell, the Civ line will die and the Turn-Based Strategy game market will die with it.

Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord is TBS (with real-time action phases, but all orders phases are pure TBS) and it rocks. Even non-wargamers in the Civ/SMAC mold have become addicts. Ask MOBIUS here for one. The game is good enough that I've dropped CivIII to "wait for it to show up in the bargain bin" status, and the "sequel" Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin is due at the end of the first quarter 2002. You can create lengthy on-going campaigns where attrition and resupply become critical issues, and connected metacampaigns which involve many more players and coordination and resource management between the groups of players.

At my site, I'm working on the initial setup for an Operation Market-Garden campaign that will involve some 60 or so separate battles, 12 or more players, and 2-4 senior commanders and command staff on each side. Many of the battle scenarios will be created on the fly based on strategic decisions by the respective commanders, and we'll have simulation of supply, reinforcements, time issues, and open-ended "what if" branching in the campaign. The game is perfectly extendable, has over 1000 third party battle scenarios, over 100 third party campaign scenarios, and has a replayability in single and multiplayer that beats any game I've seen in the last decade.

Quote:

there has been a dearth of decent empire-bulding TBS games. Look what happened to the famed Empire line. Sequels to Master of Magic and Conquest of the New World have yet to be released.

There's a dearth now, but it has been a crowded genre in the past. The tough issue is how to do something new in a worked over genre, without making the gamer pay 40 to 50 bucks for something that feels like "more of the same."

Quote:

So, what is to be done to revive the TBS game market?

Get Combat Mission. The game's been out for a year, is well patched and supported by the developers, has mods for everything from vehicles to faces to the total game interface, and has huge replayability and multiplayer value.

Bilo · December 12, 2001, 16:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Moraelin

In real tactics, thing is: you don't have one single brain for a whole company of infantry, an artillery platoon and a tank platoon. Each individual soldier relies on his own brains and training, to react apropriately, not sit there and get slaughtered if the commanding brain is looking somewhere else at the moment. IMHO turn based simulation is far better suited for tactics, too.

BTW, if you want an EXCELLENT turn based tactics game (well, most gamers would call it Turn-Based Strategy), try "Steel Panthers - World at War." You can actually download it for free from here:

I think the concept of "real time tactical simulation" is not a bad one, if implemented correctly; Microsoft's "Close Combat" is a good example for it. I don think it's as good as(maybe even better than) a company level turn-based war game can be. However, as the scope gets larger, real-time implemantation becomes impossible because even a 2GHz computer has difficulties making decisions for multiple soldiers simulteniously.

The terminology of tactics and strategy is little blurry, I think. Tactics means the methods used to achive objectives , while strategy is the process of making the correct decisions to achive a certain goal. It is stragegic decision for a company commander how to attack an enemy position.

Thanks for the game recomendation, I've downloaded it and will start playing as soon as my final exams are over.

faded glory · December 12, 2001, 18:15

100% TBS games have a bleak future. Try the hybrids

Get EU and Defcon

Urban Ranger · December 12, 2001, 22:58

I am really confused by this thread.

On one hand, there are a bunch of people frothing at their months trying to get in a dig at Civ 3 like usual. They keep saying the game is bad, but can't seem to come up with any valid reasons.

Then we have another bunch of people pushing RTS as the next best thing after sliced bread. Of course, this quickly attracted a bunch of distractors countering this assertion.

Then we have MtG pushing Combat Missions like usual

If you haven't read Father Beast's new 'Poly column I suggest you go ahead and read that. I concur with his opinion that Civ 3 is a great sequel to the series. By the same token, MoO 3 is in real danger of turning into a dud.

Has any of you played any of the Koei games? They tend to be decent turn-based strategy games, particularly the Romance of the Three Kingdoms series. Maybe you can find the first version on an abandonware site.

The hallmark of a good game is addictiveness. For TBS this manifests as the One More Turn syndrome. Any game that makes you spend more time than you have planned can be rightfully called a good game.

If there are good TBS games out there, why does the genre needs reviving?

Kautilya · December 12, 2001, 23:55

" Never said that EU isn't good, but you'll have to admit it's not a RTS. Or not the C&C kind of RTS
anyway."
Well technically it is an RTS with a pause feature and adjustable times.

Agreed it's not like C&C but that was kind of my point. It's better to just judge the game on its merits rather than worrying about whether it's RTS,TBS or whatever.

EU proved that an RTS game could be as deep or even deeper than TBS games. Defcon, which is hybrid, may well surpass Civ style games as well. Republic is also RTS I believe.

Pure TBS games are no longer king when it comes hardcore strategy games.