Real Time Civilization?

[DarkCloud]

I know that I'll probably get heckled for this but what would you think if Sid went and did a RTS Civilization in addition to a Turn-Based Civ, just like the Warlords folk are doing.

I can see a great game with real-time diplomacy, that is something I crave. I love turn based but real-time would add a whole new dimension to the game.

I believe that the diplomacy should work like "Diplomacy's" diplomacy, you sit in a room and plot with other leaders.

Meanwhile you set the cities on -Military Governor -City Build-up Governor -Expansion Governor etc. like in SMAC.

Well, what are your ideas on this?

[Hasdrubal]

OMG, there is a dark cloud rising over our peaceful civ-community...

------------------
Hasdrubal's Home.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam.

quote: Real Time Civilization

HERETIC!!!

[Christantine The Great]

NEVER!!!!!!!!!

Civilization II-class game could never be conditioned to be a RTS game simply because if you were playing on Eurasia you would be instantly be killed by an AI which would be killed... This would happen until all but one civ has killed everyone thah they can reach. The AI could order its one settler to scour the entire continent of Europe, Asia and Africa in one nanosecond because of its computing abilities to tell its settler to move over and over again. An older computer would have a heart attack, a younger one would crash.

Overtaxed CPU + RTS Civ III = Pile of ashes

TO ALL CIV FORUM MEMBERS, GATHER YOUR PITCHFORKS AND TOURCHES.
------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1
[This message has been edited by Christantine The Great (edited July 30, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Christantine The Great (edited July 30, 2000).]

[Napoleon I]

No! No! No!

The Civ series was built on a TBS engine and I hope it remains that way. There is absolutely no reason to shift to real time.

***Civers gathering around DarkCloud, chanting "Stake! Stake! Stake!".***

------------------
Napoleon I

[DarkCloud]

Sorry about the double post.
[This message has been edited by DarkCloud (edited July 30, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

I believe you misunderstand. I mean to clarify it for you now. I said (in addition to) this would only make the game history more rich.

Take this for example:
The governors produce (SMART) units and build (SMART) improvements while you fight a battle or you could automate the units to fight a battle for you while you micromange.

It would be a new genre, a new revolution in RTS gaming it would be the Strategic Conquest genre where you would act like a general.
Take Empire Earth for an example.

Well I knew this would initiate controversy but I thought it would be interesting to see peoples thoughts. Well in case any of you change your ideas on the subject I forgive you.

[Empress]

NOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooo

I will refuse to buy it if its Real Time *pouts*

well ok, maybe I would take just a sneak peek... but it wouldn't be my favorite!

[DJ]

Man, it's been sooo long since I posted, but I want to comment on this subject since DarkCloud seems to have no Allies.

I really like Civ the way it is, but real time strategy could make this game really cool. I've been on MSN Gaming Zone only to see about 27 people playing civ. Why? Well, when I play multiplayer civ I never get pass 1000 BC because turn-base is too slow when waiting for 7 other people to think out a strategy and fix up their cities! Making Civ real time strategy could really improve this problem and playing multiplayer would rock! I mean, check out sierra studios' upcoming game Empire Earth. Real Time Strategy with 500,000 years worth of history. Plus a climate generator so you can fight at night time as well. How cool is that for a civ game! Civ3 could also have these features which could probably make it even more popular then Age of Empires and Empire Earth! So consider real time strategy and how multiplaying could become very popular without 24hrs of playing before you actually reach 1000 AD.

[Par4]

I've already been shot, linched, hanged(same thing as linched ), strangled, burned and generally murdered after saying I would like to see Civ3 have RTS aspects a while ago. I like RTS games more than turn based, if Sid could implement it well I would love to see it. RTS! RTS! RTS!

Seriously a few RTS elements couldn't hurt the mildly stale TBS genre.

------------------
King Par4!!

There is no spoon
-The Matrix
Let's kick it up a notch!!
-Emeril Lagasse
Fresh Soy makes Tofu so silky
-Ming Tsai

[Steve Clark]

Real-time Civ 3 = pile of s***

Mildly stale TBS? Sounds like words from a whippersnapper who thinks those stupid console games are way cool and kick a**.

[Ferdi]

Real Time What? With a big PAUSE button...

[CornMaster]

I love RTS games but Civ 3 would have to be worlds different than any Civ game and would turn into something like StarCraft (Which I also like). But it should not be done.

Can you imagine playing a rush game of StarCraft with 15 bases!!!! It would be insane!!!!

Nope. I got to agree with everyone else and say that no RTS Civ 3. It would be too different. If you actually fought the battles in RT then that would be cool but would take several hours to play 1 turn of the WW2 scenario from Civ 2 so that's out.

Anyway just my 2 cents.

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

[DJ]

Well, I can agree with CornMaster but I will only believe that it is a bad idea when I think that the new civ game coming out, Empire Earth, really sucks...

[Shadowstrike]

If you want to play a Real-Time Civ 3, go get Seven Kingdoms II. That's about as good as RT Civ 3 will ever get.

Seriously though, aren't you people getting a little medival?

[Adm.Naismith]

We already discussed this RTS topic, sometime with vehemence

RTS games get good results with tactical games, better if "scenario based". I think is unfair to compare how quick is a computer to click on units against a human, just to hidden how patetic AI is

In my opinion, the best replacement to TBS is still Simultaneous turn of play , as has been proposed into the Essential Civ III list some months ago.

It got some attention and support from other Apolytoner here (and some opposition, too), and let to build quite a good model for a multiplayer CIV.

Disclaimer: it was my proposal, so I'm not impartial about it

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

Real Time Civ? Not gonna happen. I'm not going to insult the idea because I'm a nice guy, but the idea wouldn't work out in the game. People who are long time civ fans would most likely pass up Civ 3 if it was RTS.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

yeah well turn based kills MP. MP sucks in CIV II - I don't play MP anymore. It's just simply boring. 1 minute of play for every 20 minutes of waiting. wow, got to have a game like that. The best to hope for is better (well, a good) AI.

Real time??? If done right it could work. I don't know why so many hate real time. Real time is a mans game. Sorry Empress, you know what I mean

With real time we could seperate the REAL GOOD player from the good players who are good only because they know every freakin loop hole in the old turn based piece of crap slow ass MP CIV II we have now...

I sure do hope the AI in CIV III is kick ass. If Fireaxis (or whatever they're called) has any brains (which they are lacking in the AI department) they will find someone who can program a little AI!

[Tom DeMille]

Sid should leave the RTS version of civ to Big Huge Games and stick with the more majestic scope that TBS affords.

[DJ]

Don't any of you people who like civ's turn-based feature play MP, or do you play with an AI all day? I am sure Sid see's this problem in multiplayer, I mean, he even suggested that his dino game become REAL TIME. For the young generation of programmers/gamers like myself, I want to see real time in civ games, it just creates a whole new realistic atmosphere to a strategy game. And for all the old fans who don't want change in the civ series,well, you can continue playing the AI since you still can't outsmart it because it finds ways to beat you. Haven't you figured out that the AI is programed to do a certain strategy yet... opps I gave the secret to winning away! Sorry

[Urban Ranger]

SSG can turn the Warlords series of TBS games into Warlords Battlecry - a RT game - because Warlords has avery simple gaming mechanism. It is far simpler than Civ. In some aspects it is even simpler than Starcraft.


Majesty is a very good example of what happens if you put a somewhat complex game into RT mold: a total fiasco.


I am not going to say it can't be done, just nigh impossible
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited August 01, 2000).]

[Tiberius]

NO NO NO NO NO

RTS is not good for Civ. I like to play RTS sometimes. I played a lot Dune2, Warkraft2, Age of Kings or somehow different RTSs like Rairoad Tycoon. These are all great games, but they are all very simple games compared with Civ.
There's no way to micromanage 20-30 cities, do research, fight war, make trade and diplomacy, and beyond all this THINK and PLAN your next move (whatever move it is: build city/make peace/build fortress/send spy/build caravan/make revolution/trade research/capture enemy city/...), all this in real time. It's a nightmare, not a fun game.

RTS simply doesn't fit with Civ. Please don't transform Civ into a clickfest.

[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited August 02, 2000).]

[rremus]

I was convinced that TBS is the only way for CIV. then I red in the Dino section the diary about TBS vs. RTS. I have to admit it changed some of my opinions.
I don't know if a game as complex as Civ can support RTS. It would require a LOT of AI into units (and I meand here the human player units!). If they can do it, they should provide a RTS version as well for the game.
RTS forces you to reconsider your strategy, it focuses you to the consider the empire as a whiole, rather than each individual unit. I like this.
Of course, I would expect the real time to stop while I'm in the City screen, or diplomacy or anything else. At least on a single player mode...
[This message has been edited by rremus (edited August 02, 2000).]

[Deathwalker]

Well, personally though I think it is something that could be done i.e. Star Wars Supremacy. But much better, it would be a betrayle of Civ, maybe a new civ type game cpould try it. Supremcy proved the concept though in a bad game.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[Mark_Everson]

At least with real-time Civilization the AI would be able to put up a competent game if the timer were sent fast enough

Let me say right up front that I personally have no use for RTS games, at least as they're currently done. I believe that RTS games currently available are more Real-Time Tactics games. One thing we are trying to do in The Clash of Civilizations is have an option for a real RTS* game where Strategic decisions must be made quickly against a resourceful opponent. This approach would torque the usual RTS genre into a regieme where the person that can formulate good strategy quickly, rather than play the interface like a piano, would have the advantage. This seems like an intriguing concept to me. To pull it off you really need good AI so that you can trust your orders to be executed well. We're working very hard to get AI that is much better than the industry standard.

Sorry for the infomercial... we now return you to your regularly scheduled flame-o-rama

* To avoid confusion, Clash is being designed Primarily as a TBS game, but with short timed turns it could approximate an RTS game.

------------------
Mark Everson
Project lead for The Clash of Civilizations ( clash.apolyton.net )
(That means I do the things nobody else wants to do ;-) )
This Radically different civ game needs your suggestions and/or criticism of our design.
Check our our Web Site & Forum right here at Apolyton...
[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited August 02, 2000).]

[Theben]

RTS:

1) Benefits the player who is best at clickfest;

2) Requires the game to be simple, not complex.

Civ3 should be complex. Therefore RTS will not work, if applied to the whole game as other standard RTS games are.

It might work under 2 conditions:

1) RTS was actually timed TBS turns (as Mark E said);

2) It was limited to tactical battles in a sub-game battle map.

BTW I like the suggestion for simultaneous turns.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

I agree that real time helps the AI. We all can thrash the CIV AI having forever to think about our next move.

Now dont get me wrong. For single play i guess i'd rather have tbs (IMHO it's 50/50), rts is just as good. but, for mp give me rts... i just dont have the time for tbs over modems.

[Seeker]

I have a friend with a big home LAN so lag is not an issue for me, I only play there.


Civ 3 RTS..?

NO.

[DarkCloud]

Well this topic has taken on a life of its own but let me clarify something first.

I am NOT saying that Civ 3 should be RTS, I am saying that they should release two games Civ 3 and Civilization Real Time Strategy.

This double release would make the Civilization Genre richer.

Also I like Turn-Base just as much as Real-Time.
My favorite games of all time are
-Rollercoaster Tycoon (Real-Time)
-Civilization II (Turn Base)
-Age of Empires (Real-Time)
-Alpha Centauri (Turn Base)

Also, listen to this.
CORNMASTER-

To cut down on the rushes imagine, a system like Age of empires, the units take time to build/recruit and based on the size of your city they will take either shorter or longer.
Cities grow the same way as before with agricultural supplies.

Your units would be produced and moved on the grid. Yes the screen would be a grid, I have considered other options and they would not work with cities and agriculture.

Diplomacy would stop the game and you would enter in to talks (A la Diplomacy) with 1-7 of the others and make worldwide decisions (A la Alpha Centauri) between yourselves.

TIBERIUS-

Of course you would be able to pause the game. Also the governors would be advanced AI, such as the type planned for Reach for the Stars, I believe, you could set them much like Alpha Centauri. With Grow, Build, Conquer, Explore, Espionage buttons.

Say for example Neighbor A declares war on you, you would send your units towards his borders (A la Alpha Centauri) where they might encounter his troops. The unit fighting would be much the same as Civ II's with the status bar and the units moving like Alpha Centauri's over hills etc, with three frames of animation. (Not too much) the units would not have time to retreat and recuperate if another enemy unit attacked. P.S. the AI would NOT move lighting quick, you see the AI could be controlled by a speed button 1-10 with 1 being slow and 10 being fast with 5 being normal human speed.

The major problem with RTS games is fighting one front while being attacked from behind. Allowing the game to have 'former' units which can build walls and battlements (A la Age of Empires) would decrease this problem also an alert would sound and a corner of the screen would blink red if you are attacked in another area (A la Age of Empires)

[Shadowstrike]

I'm not too sure about RollerCoaster Tycoon as a strategy game. Sure, its fun (one of my favourites) but using it as a basis for making a real time Civ would produce a lackluster game. The real-time Civ idea is a good way for Firaxis to compete with the others in that field (AoE, Seven Kingdoms, etc.) but would have to par down detail, making it less Civ-like.

[This message has been edited by Shadowstrike (edited August 10, 2000).]