OT) Best Turn Based Game: Fantasy or Space or War

[bostonrpgmania]

I would like to have your opinion about the best turn based game you played. Whether it be space, fantasy, war or civ. Please let me know

[oleg]

Hmmm... This a very cryptic message if I ever saw one. Please post more http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

[Fyron]

Well SE4, of course. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif After that, I'd have to say Civ2, then MOO2 (only later cause it is not moddable; only remotely hackable), then MoM, then BOTF, then... umm... others. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Baron Munchausen]

Hmm, if you mean 'best game of ALL' that's nearly impossible to determine. No single game can be best at everything.

In Fantasy I think Master of Magic was (and IS) the best to date. I hope they update it some day. The DOS Version from 1995 is buggy as hell and can leave you with an unfinishable game (crashing when you try to go on to the next turn...) The game design is fantastic, it's just rather poorly coded.

Of 'Space' games I'd say SE IV comes pretty close to being the best in Category. The MOO series were great in their time but are quite limited in scope. Even MOO 2 with access to 'protected mode' DOS and so able to have megabytes of memory only had a max or 80 stars or so? And the development possibilities of planets is very rigidly limited.
SE IV exceeds all of these limits and more. The one area where it falls down, other than AI where all games fall down, is where MOO shines. Tactical combat. The tactical combat system in MOO 2 is fantastic. If it were only on a somewhat larger scale (so you didn't START in range of enemy weapons) it would be just about perfect for a turn based combat system. Hopefully SE V will have turn-based combat with 'impulse/initiative' to break down turns into sub-turns and reduce or eliminate the one disadvantage of this system.

Now war games in general is a really big question. There are so many of them and so many variations in theme that I really cant't make a decent guess. Ancient, Medieval, or modern warfare? Strategic or tactical? Air? Sea? Land? Etc... it's just hopeless to sift through all the air, sea, and land combat games and try to pick one. And even then I've only played a small selection of them. TILT...

[ March 18, 2003, 21:57: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[bostonrpgmania]

Thank you for your opinion
Hmm
Master of magic.. I tried to learn it but with my limited computer knowledge, I failed to run the game under windows system..

Every body talks about master of magic...Is it that good? How it compares to, say, age of wonders two?

How about heroes of might and magic? or operational art of war?

I am just curious what kind of turn based game my friend here in this forum likes to play (other than SE IV)

Are you playing any other game at the moment? any genre?

[Fyron]

Once you get it working, MoM is a most excellent game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[bostonrpgmania]

Hi Fyron
What is BOTF you mentioned in the previous post?

Hmm Why master of magic is so special?
Customization?

[oleg]

Originally posted by bostonrpgmania:
Hi Fyron
What is BOTF you mentioned in the previous post?

Hmm Why master of magic is so special?
Customization?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hard to tell. It is just a very immersive game, you simply like to play it for no good reason http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[klausD]

Oh, MOO2 had really the best tactical combat I ever experienced in a 4x game. Formidable.

I hope too that SEV has a similar sytem, but I dont think so. Aaron is more tending to a real time tactical game (similar to his present game project) - not my taste at all. In this case I stay with SEIV gold the next years. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It seems there are no other interesting purely turnbased 4x space games in the works. (except maybe Space Ward ho 6.0 for windows in 2 years)

BTW: MoM was great. Now there are at least 3 turnbased fantasy games in the works. One is "MOM2" from Firaxis (yes Sid does it again) the second is "Elementals" from Stardock and the third is Warlords IV from I2. (former SSG)

KlausD

[ March 19, 2003, 13:36: Message edited by: klausD ]

[Five Angels]

Combat Missiom Barbarossa to Berlin takes up a good amount of my non se4 time. If you want a ww2 game I think it doesent get any better. Once you get past the infantry graphics it is an excellent game-also one of the best hot seat games around.

[Gryphin]

Since you did not specify computers I'd have to say
Impact! A miniatures game covering 1938 to 1950. Time Per turn - 30 seconds
Ground scale 1 mm=1 meter
Author Jorge Chavier

[PsychoTechFreak]

Age of Wonders II besides SEIV is my biggest time consumer. Still a lot to learn about magic and fantasy races in it, just the AI could be improved. I like to provide my heros and fantasy creatures with different combinations of spells and the large variety of different flying, creeping, swimming, elemental, undead etc. units to play with. It's just MAGIC http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

It can be setup as classical turn based or a kind of quasi simultaneous but still turn based mode, where the AI can process its turn whilst you are doing your turn, nice idea, I think.

[David E. Gervais]

For me, Heroes of Might and Magic 1, 2, 3, and 4 are among my personal favorite turn-based games. NWC Has consistantly improved each Version. I remember the first edition being one of the first games to take advantage of nice crisp clear SVGA graphics. When it came out the industry standard was still VGA 320x200 256colors!

Although not turn based IMHO Starcraft is Blizzards best Game by far. I am really really really surprised that it has not been followed by any sequel. (The upcomming GHOST game doesn't count as a sequel, it's a first person shooter!)

What am I looking forward to playing? SE:V of course. I think it's going to 'look great' http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif and play even better! (I'm also interested in StarFury, Privateer was one of my fav games way back when!)

nuf said! Cheers. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Edit:...well maybe not enough!... Anyone remember Starflight 1 & 2 that was a great game, but it wasn't really turn based either! Ah well, I love to digress! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ March 19, 2003, 14:38: Message edited by: David E. Gervais ]

[Foiden]

I definitely will throw in my vote for Heroes of Might and Magic. A very nice combination game spawned from a rather ancient one, one they made themselves. The funny thing is, before Heroes of Might and Magic IV, the Last predecessor I played was Kings Bounty for the Commodore 64. Talk about a major skip. It's like going from the original Space invaders to Ikaruga or Radiant Silvergun (Treasure's latest top/down scrolling shooting games) in one quick leap.

[oleg]

Originally posted by klausD:


BTW: MoM was great. Now there are at least 3 turnbased fantasy games in the works. One is "MOM2" from Firaxis (yes Sid does it again) the second is "Elementals" from Stardock and the third is Warlords IV from I2. (former SSG)

KlausD<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sid had no relation to MoM. MoM and Moo have been made by Steve Barcia !

[klausD]

"Sid had no relation to MoM. MoM and Moo have been made by Steve Barcia !"

Oh,you misunderstood me. I meant with SM does it again that he is developing a good game again. (after his civ series, colonization and pirates) Fact is that he announced MoM2 several weeks ago in an interview I read at "the wargamer".

klausD

[Baron Munchausen]

Argh... Sid Meier just re-does the same game over and over! MoM 2 will just be CIV with fantasy units if he's doing it. They already did that for Civ 2 'Test of Time' anyway...

We need Steve Barcia to come back for MoM 2 to be good.

[Foiden]

What's scary is that as of late, he has been doing Civ kind of games. I wonder what happened to the great leaps of gameplay divergence like he had going from Pirates to Civ. Kind of funny how Sid made Pirates so good and fleshed out, that he never went back and truly did a sequel to it. It's like he exhausted all of his ideas on the first one. Sure, we got updates, but those were simply graphical updates or updates so that it would run on newer machines.

Perhaps, Sid will notice that and realize he should stretch his bounds again and make MOM2 a true sequel to the first one, and take the series very differently.

[ March 19, 2003, 17:46: Message edited by: Foiden ]

[capnq]

Before SE IV came along, my favorite computer game was Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri/Alien Crossfire.

[Rexxx]

wargaming: TOAW (if you like the strategic level IMO there is nothing better), the same is true for SPWaW on tactical level.
CRPG: Wizardry 6 and 7
Sci-fi: Ufo, SE IV.

[Fyron]

One is "MOM2" from Firaxis (yes Sid does it again)<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sid needs to be forcibly retired (or better: shot) before he butchers yet another classic game...

hope too that SEV has a similar sytem, but I dont think so. Aaron is more tending to a real time tactical game (similar to his present game project) - not my taste at all. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This only stems from not understanding the goal of real time combat. It will not be anything like RTS games. A simple pause option and then being able to issue orders while paused makes combat IDENTICAL to turn-based combat because you can control the lenght of the rounds (whereas they are fixed in turn-based), except that you get rid of all of the absurdities inherent in all turn-based combat systems.

[ March 19, 2003, 21:40: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[stecal]

Warlords 3 Dark lords Rising. This was the 8 player email strategy game my friends and I got bored with after a few years and started a search for a new game, which turned out to be Space Empires! Now the 5 of us, since grown to over 10, all play SE4.

[spoon]

Originally posted by David E. Gervais:
For me, Heroes of Might and Magic 1, 2, 3, and 4 are among my personal favorite turn-based games. NWC Has consistantly improved each Version. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">HOMM I, II, III - I completely agree, my favorite fantasy games. HOMM IV was less fun, I think, because it was not balanced well.

Warlords III also a great game. (ditto the first two of the series).

MOM was fun, but, like SE4, requires you to behave and not exploit the imbalances for a fun single player experience.

[QuarianRex]

An old game that I just got is 'Stars!'. So far I love it. The race creation allows for amazing customization and remarkable balance. The traits also allow for some large benefits (as well as penalties) that majorly change the way the game is played.

My two favorite primary traits are Alternate Reality and Interstellar Traveller. Living in starbases or moving through stargates? Who could beat that? Maybe it's juct that they are two things that can't be done in SEIV.

[Pax]

Originally posted by bostonrpgmania:
[QB]Hi Fyron
What is BOTF you mentioned in the previous post?[QB]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">BOTF or BotF = "Birth of the Federation" a MOO2-esque Star Trek game.

It's got a lot of good features -- the interface customises to which race you're playing, for example.

But IMO it's also a deeply flawed game.

To start, no self-designed ships; you get a given ship at a specified mixture of technology levels, and that's it, that partiicular ship class is locked in at those stats.

Next, defense early on is a matter of lining outPosts along the border. Even a basic outpost, against a half-dozen early cruisers ... you'll win, with a moderately damaged outpost, 9 times out of 10.

Later on, it's a "no hope" issue, as starships grossly outgun starbases at later technology ... some of the later ships have better sHIELDS, per ship, than the later-tech starbases! Two or three of those, and the best starbase around is gone before it can even get far (if at all) past one of the attacker's shielding.

For three ... the maps, even the big ones, feel ... claustrophobic, to me.

[bostonrpgmania]

*********************************

BTW: MoM was great. Now there are at least 3 turnbased fantasy games in the works. One is "MOM2" from Firaxis (yes Sid does it again) the second is "Elementals" from Stardock and the third is Warlords IV from I2. (former SSG)

KlausD

**********************************

Wow. MoM2 with Sid? That would be great!!

[Atrocities]

Before SEIV the game I played the most was Tribes and Tribes 2.

They both are MP first person based games, but are so very much more than any other game on the market in that classification.

You have to use strategy, cunning, tactics, and even a bit of bravery and cowerice to survive. Tribes made HL/CS look like childs play. The interaction, the chat, the players, the game play, and above all esle, the customizability of the game has only been equaled by SEIV. So ya, it is a damn fine game indeed and I am proud to say I love it.

They both are great games, but Tribes did a better job of drawing you into twelve hour gaming sessions better than Tribes 2 did so Tribes is by far my favorate with Tribes 2 coming in after SEIV. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

There is also Rebellion and BOTF for those who enjoy good turn based and RTS games.

I disliked Empire Earth and many previous cloans of AOE's. Starcraft was fun, but it got old real fast.

[ March 20, 2003, 02:18: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

[BadAxe]

Another vote for The Operational Art Of War!

Not turn based but much fun is Age Of Sail 2.

[Chronon]

For science fiction, my vote (if we're excluding SEIV of course) would be for Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. If they had just made one more patch, I would still be playing it.

For wargames, I like Combat Mission - an excellent blend of turn-based tactics and real-time action. If SEV executes tactical combat in the same general way (give ships or Groups orders, click "go," watch action, repeat) I'm all for the real-time turn-based hybrid.

PS. Personally, I don't understand the fuss about real-time combat. We essentially have that in SEIV with strategic combat in simulaneous games: give orders, watch action.

[Fyron]

Wow. MoM2 with Sid? That would be great!! <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would be awful. Sid lost his ability to make great games. Look at that pile of burning rubbish that is Civ3.

PS. Personally, I don't understand the fuss about real-time combat. We essentially have that in SEIV with strategic combat in simulaneous games: give orders, watch action. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is because some people have an unfounded fear of anything mentioning the phrase "real-time". They see C&C and Warcraft/Starcraft and think that is all that real-time is. They do not realize the possibilities, and how pauseable real-time (where you can issue as many orders and view whatever you want while the combat is paused) is better for combat than any turn-based system.

[ March 20, 2003, 03:01: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Phoenix-D]

"The funny thing is, before Heroes of Might and Magic IV, the Last predecessor I played was Kings Bounty for the Commodore 64"

Yes! I have that game for PC. Love it, but to this day I can never beat it..I always run out of time.

Phoenix-D

[bostonrpgmania]

Hi BadAxe

very glad to find another age of sail 2 player here.
I recently got privateer's bounty as well
and it works very smoothly

[klausD]

It is because some people have an unfounded fear of anything mentioning the phrase "real-time". They see C&C and Warcraft/Starcraft and think that is all that real-time is. They do not realize the possibilities, and how pauseable real-time (where you can issue as many orders and view whatever you want while the combat is paused) is better for combat than any turn-based system.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not at all, sorry. The problem is not the "understanding". Its the "not accepting". I do understand the concepts of real time, and I played not only command and conquer. I tested many real time games (even pausables like SFB etc.)

What you do not "understand" is that EVERY kind of real time game, if pausable or not, favors action to thinking. I am not willing to play a game in which it is important if I hit the mouse button at the correct second just to give some orders before he does the same a second later. And if he dont press his mouse button because he is thinking too slow, he will be annihilated. Very funny. This is not the game I want to play.

If you like to play games where it is important at which time I am hitting the mouse button play one of the myriad "4x" real time games out there. But dont try to convert one of the few remaining fortresses of good turnbased gaming, the SE series to trendy realtime. (trendy for me because I am playing games, computer and board, since 20 years now, and I was observing the upcoming of the real time mania first handed)

The problem is that pro real time opinions like yours (which are of course as valid as mine from a neutral point of view) are signalizing Aaron that its ok if he do SE5 with a Rt-tactical engine (instead of letting it as it is) Of course somebody (like me) has to do something against such lobbying. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

tschüß
Klaus

[ March 20, 2003, 10:31: Message edited by: klausD ]

[klausD]

use to think like you.... then I tried EU and EU2 and my world turned around. Europa Universalis 2 is labeled as a RTS and indeed in the game the days continously tick down. However there is a pause button which can be pressed and you can look over your empire and make all the orders you need. This game spans 400 years of history ticking one day at the time. The game includes over 100 independent nations which act each and every day. It would be impossible to make this game true turn based. IMO even if it is label as RTS it feels much more like playing a turn based game.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know both EUs, and and played them and I tried to like them, but I cannot. I am too much a pure turnbased player. And originally EU was a turnbased game - at least the swedish boardgame.

The boardgame was not that complex like the computer game but for an old wargamer (ASL, Streets of Stalingrad, Advanced 3rd Reich to name just a few) complexity has no meaning. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

So I think they could have developed a turnbased EU, but they decided to do not, because they feared that all those mainstream pseudo wargamers outthere didnt like the game. I am happy that there are at least some older wargame designs (and very few new ones) which are still turnbased. I have to restrict myself to these old games, but what should I do? Maybe sometimes the hyperactive RT action fashion is over and people come back and design real games, not real time games. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Klaus

[ March 20, 2003, 16:29: Message edited by: klausD ]

[sharp]

Starcraft takes a helluva lot more than "can I click before him?". Lots of thought there (though admittedly you have to think fast).

[tesco samoa]

TOAW (if you like the strategic level IMO there is nothing better), the same is true for SPWaW on tactical level.

my votes for those games...

also

steel panthers 1

panzer general
allied general
battles of destny
empire
mule
shogun total war
pacific war
any of the battle ground games
perfect geneal

[Saarud]

I love strategy games. Been playing games for 25 years now and computer games for almost 20 years. I can't really pick one but here are some of those that have ruined my social life....

Space Empire 4 (But ofcourse!) Master of Magic, Chaos Overlord, Colonization, Imperialism 2, Battle Isle (all of them), Conquest of the New World Deluxe, Reach for the Stars (the old one), Empire, Genghis Khan 1, M.U.L.E., Emperor of the Fading Suns (very buggy and flawed game but IMO best design ever), Medeival Lords, Stars!, Harpoon, Rise of the West, SMAC/X and a bunch of others.

If I had to vote for just one game it would be Chaos Overlord which is a gang strategy games with cyperpunk settings where you are trying to get control of a city. The AI are very good but when playing this game against 4 other humans is when it really shines.

Originally posted by klausD:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> It is because some people have an unfounded fear of anything mentioning the phrase "real-time". They see C&C and Warcraft/Starcraft and think that is all that real-time is. They do not realize the possibilities, and how pauseable real-time (where you can issue as many orders and view whatever you want while the combat is paused) is better for combat than any turn-based system.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not at all, sorry. The problem is not the "understanding". Its the "not accepting". I do understand the concepts of real time, and I played not only command and conquer. I tested many real time games (even pausables like SFB etc.)

What you do not "understand" is that EVERY kind of real time game, if pausable or not, favors action to thinking. I am not willing to play a game in which it is important if I hit the mouse button at the correct second just to give some orders before he does the same a second later. And if he dont press his mouse button because he is thinking too slow, he will be annihilated. Very funny. This is not the game I want to play.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I use to think like you.... then I tried EU and EU2 and my world turned around. Europa Universalis 2 is labeled as a RTS and indeed in the game the days continously tick down. However there is a pause button which can be pressed and you can look over your empire and make all the orders you need. This game spans 400 years of history ticking one day at the time. The game includes over 100 independent nations which act each and every day. It would be impossible to make this game true turn based. IMO even if it is label as RTS it feels much more like playing a turn based game.

[ March 20, 2003, 12:26: Message edited by: Saarud ]

[Taz-in-Space]

The Last turn-based game I've gotten is Battlefleet 1939. It is shareware.
You can get it at: WWW.BATTLE-FLEET.COM (http://WWW.BATTLE-FLEET.COM)

Registration is about $18 US

[Saarud]

Originally posted by klausD:
[QUOTE]The boardgame was not that complex like the computer game but for an old wargamer (ASL, Streets of Stalingrad, Advanced 3rd Reich to name just a few) complexity has no meaning. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">LOL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif yes I have those game and ASL is just one class itself when it comes to complexity. The reason I love ASL is because of it's complexity and I just love to sit and read the rules but I would rate it rather low on playabilty as it envolves more reading and rereading rules than actual playing. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Perhaps if you have played the AH boardgame Empire in Arms you might be glad to hear that a company is in process of converting it to PC. They are trying to keep it as true to the boardgame as possible.

[ March 21, 2003, 06:06: Message edited by: Saarud ]

[Saarud]

[/QUOTE]ASL is my favorite game of any sort, just can't find people to play against. As for complexity, did you ever play SL towards the end, I had played that since it first came out, and by the time they made ASL, SL was a nightmare and ASL is fairly simple.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Well I do own all the games in the SL series but I really only played the first one seriously. I still think the first scenario is one of the more fun ones. Not very complex if you play according to the rules in order they present it in the rulebook.

Personally I have stopped playing ASL and SL long time ago but I recently discovered HPS game series Squad Battles which resembles ASL system alot. I have to date only bought Squad Battles Eagles Strike (I plan to by them all) which deal with WW2 European front but the series also includes games dealing with the pacific theatre as well as other wars such as the Vietnam war. If you like ASL I can recommend Squad Battles. It's really great!

[Saarud]

Do you know if ADG has still World in Flames in its computer game conVersion pipeline? <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As far as I know yes. I haven't really followed that project for awhile. But I wouldn't hold my breath anyway... while World in Flames is an excellent boardgame I doubt that a good AI could be programmed for such an advanced game. Remember the computer Version of Advanced Third Reich? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Still World in Flames on the PC could be used as an excellent tool for multiplayer games keeping track on the boring things and allowing you to play against someone on the other side of the globe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Anyway the first giga WW2 boardgame system I invested in was the Europa by GDW later GDR. Phew is that a big game with big big maps and 10s of thousand counters if you have them all. Too much micromanagement for my taste with all those counters to keep track on. Though playing a small module against a friend could be very fun.

[Atraikius]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by klausD:
[QUOTE]The boardgame was not that complex like the computer game but for an old wargamer (ASL, Streets of Stalingrad, Advanced 3rd Reich to name just a few) complexity has no meaning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL yes I have those game and ASL is just one class itself when it comes to complexity. The reason I love ASL is because of it's complexity and I just love to sit and read the rules but I would rate it rather low on playabilty as it envolves more reading and rereading rules than actual playing.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">ASL is my favorite game of any sort, just can't find people to play against. As for complexity, did you ever play SL towards the end, I had played that since it first came out, and by the time they made ASL, SL was a nightmare and ASL is fairly simple.

[klausD]

Perhaps if you have played the AH boardgame Empire in Arms you might be glad to hear that a company is in process of converting it to PC. They are trying to keep it as true to the boardgame as possible.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thats fine. I played Empires in Arms 2 times and it was great. I am not so fond of the new Eagle Game Napoleon in Europe with pLastik peaces (not a bad idea but the game mechanics are not tested well) Do you know if ADG has still World in Flames in its computer game conVersion pipeline?

glad to hear that there is somebody out there which is also very informed about serious games. (maybe there are more at this forum, but they are probably not posting http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

Klaus

[Fyron]

Originally posted by klausD:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> It is because some people have an unfounded fear of anything mentioning the phrase "real-time". They see C&C and Warcraft/Starcraft and think that is all that real-time is. They do not realize the possibilities, and how pauseable real-time (where you can issue as many orders and view whatever you want while the combat is paused) is better for combat than any turn-based system.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not at all, sorry. The problem is not the "understanding". Its the "not accepting". I do understand the concepts of real time, and I played not only command and conquer. I tested many real time games (even pausables like SFB etc.)

What you do not "understand" is that EVERY kind of real time game, if pausable or not, favors action to thinking. I am not willing to play a game in which it is important if I hit the mouse button at the correct second just to give some orders before he does the same a second later. And if he dont press his mouse button because he is thinking too slow, he will be annihilated. Very funny. This is not the game I want to play.

If you like to play games where it is important at which time I am hitting the mouse button play one of the myriad "4x" real time games out there. But dont try to convert one of the few remaining fortresses of good turnbased gaming, the SE series to trendy realtime. (trendy for me because I am playing games, computer and board, since 20 years now, and I was observing the upcoming of the real time mania first handed)

The problem is that pro real time opinions like yours (which are of course as valid as mine from a neutral point of view) are signalizing Aaron that its ok if he do SE5 with a Rt-tactical engine (instead of letting it as it is) Of course somebody (like me) has to do something against such lobbying. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

tschüß
Klaus</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I still stand by my statement that you do not understand properly. I will try to alleviate your confusion.

There have not been many games that implemented real time properly. If the SE4 combat were taken and made into real time instead of purely turn based, it would still function exactly the same, except that the absurdities of turn-based combat are gone. A speed scale will easily allow you to slow it down enough to eliminate any alleged focus on "action instead of thinking".

I personally hate RTS games. They are not strategy games, but tactical games. It is not hard to create a real time engine for SE5 that makes combat exactly like SE4, except without the stupid quirks that only appear by having disjointed movement and firing phases. Real time would essentially be identical to se4 combat, except the turn processing is done in real time, instead of one ship, one weapon at a time. This is in no way a bad thing. Pause after a few seconds, issue new orders. There is no focus on "action instead of thinking" unless you make combat have a really fast pace.

It has absolutely nothing to do with fitting some hyped up RTS phase. It has everything to do with making combat balanced and more realistic, and eliminating all of the problems of all turn based combat systems. You can not ever get rid of them, except by making the impulse phases continuous. Real time combat is essentially a turn based combat system that has lots of impulse phases each turn, but has those phases continuous instead of segmented.

Real time does not equal pop-culture RTS games. The two things are not similar in any way.

glad to hear that there is somebody out there which is also very informed about serious games. (maybe there are more at this forum, but they are probably not posting )
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am going to have to ask you to stop wrongly associating the term real time with "unserious games". This only hurts your case (and by quite a bit). Using a proper real time system in no way makes a game not "serious". Again, RTS is not all you can do with a real time engine. This is why I said you do not understand; you have constantly and consistently confused this issue.

[ March 22, 2003, 01:39: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

mom 2? can somebody provide a link to the article?

maybe it's to small.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^

[ March 26, 2003, 07:10: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[dogscoff]

I'm jumping in here without reading the entire thread (just the Last page) but here's my 0.02...

The strategic elements of se5 (ie all the action on the galaxy map) MUST stay in turn-based, or simultaneous, or basically whatever system we have now.

For combat, a real-time system might be made to work, but I'd prefer to see this done entirely by the AI with indirect human guidance, ie like strategic combat from se4 (although the strategic combat Ai=I would have to be improved considerably). Even with a "pause" mode in realtime tactical combat, you'd still miss opportunities if you weren't quick enough on the pause button, and the whole thing would be a horrifically slow mess with multiple humans anyway.

What I'd absolutely *love* to see- and this would be so cool with Starfury's classy new 3D graphics- would be an option to save a combat replay to a file which can then be emailed to and played back by anyone else who owns the game.
A number of cool features could be added to this including:
- option to define and change camera angles throughout the combat
- option to popup ship & fleet information windows during the replay, to show damage etc.
- option to add musical score, voice commentary and/or text/ graphical captions.
- option to save to mpeg or some other common format (perhaps with a "made in se5" logo ever-present in one corner.)

Now just consider the possibilities for a minute, and think how cool it could be. There would be SE5-built mpegs all over web in no time, and people would want to buy the game just to make their own space battle scenes. I mean you could practically make your own episode of Bab5.

Also, imagine that you've just pounded your human opponent's fleet in an epic battle. Two hours later he gets a combat replay file by email, replaying every Last hit in slow-motion, all backtracked by some suitably triumphant piece of music... it's the ultimate gloat. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ March 25, 2003, 11:12: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[klausD]

Remember the computer Version of Advanced Third Reich?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, it was not that good. It had an inferior AI and the rest - well.

Imp Fyron
I will try to alleviate your confusion.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks for helping me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It is not hard to create a real time engine for SE5 that makes combat exactly like SE4, except without the stupid quirks that only appear by having disjointed movement and firing phases. Real time would essentially be identical to se4 combat, except the turn processing is done in real time, instead of one ship, one weapon at a time. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">IMO its not only not hard its fully impossible. The spirit of tactical SE4 combat lies in that what you call "stupid quirk". What you dont like -the "disjointed movement and firing phases" are very important and nice to play (at least for turnbased fans) This kind of sequence is not a quirk, it a achievement of long standing gaming traditions. (computer and board)

I personally hate RTS games. They are not strategy games, but tactical games. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then I dont understand why you are for a real time engine in SEV ship combat. If I hate something I am not for it.
BTW - RT games could be both strategic and tactical in scope. As TB games could be. The mode of play has nothing to do with the scale of game.

It has everything to do with making combat balanced and more realistic, and eliminating all of the problems of all turn based combat systems. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe you have a different approach what "balanced" and " realistic" mean than I. Maybe you an explain when a game is for you realistic and balanced.
Secondly there are no problems at all with "all turn based combat systems". They are fine as they are. (at least if they are good designed)

tschüß
KlausD

[Phoenix-D]

"IMO its not only not hard its fully impossible. The spirit of tactical SE4 combat lies in that what you call "stupid quirk". What you dont like -the "disjointed movement and firing phases" are very important and nice to play (at least for turnbased fans) This kind of sequence is not a quirk, it a achievement of long standing gaming traditions. (computer and board)"

What Fyron's refering to as a "stupid quirk" is the way an -entire side- moves and fires at once. All your ships can be destroyed before they even do anything. Even turn-based systems can get rid of this, through initiative and not letting one side move all its units at once, and/or having phases of "Player 1 moves, Player 2 moves, both fire".

I'd prefer a system like Combat Mission's myself; give orders, clcik go, watch them play out.

Phoenix-D

[QuarianRex]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
What Fyron's refering to as a "stupid quirk" is the way an -entire side- moves and fires at once. All your ships can be destroyed before they even do anything. Even turn-based systems can get rid of this, through initiative and not letting one side move all its units at once, and/or having phases of "Player 1 moves, Player 2 moves, both fire".<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This problem isn't really present in SEIV. You tend to start far enough away that niether player can get the "jump" on the other. By the time you close into combat distance your fleeet is broken up enough due to varying ship speeds and different ship strategies that the benefits of your fleet acting in unison tend to be minimized. At least it's not like in MOO2 where your fleet was often wiped out before it could break battle formation.

The only situation where this isn't the case is with something like warp-point defense. In this case the fleets begin in combat range and the defender gets to open the gates of Hell upon the attacker. As it should be. If it was switched to an initiative based system you wouldn't be able to pull that same thing off, at leadt not without giving the attacker some kind of "surprise" penalty, but that just wouldn't be the same.

Besides, without the quirks of turn-based satellites would be virtually useless.

[Chronon]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
I'd prefer a system like Combat Mission's myself; give orders, click go, watch them play out.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree - that's exactly what I would like to see (especially for simultaneous games). Including, as Dogscoff suggested, the 3D camera that can be moved around and a playback option (I'm not sure about the ultimate gloat idea, though http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) It might be even more fun if there were Admirals for each fleet - perhaps with special bonuses for movement, combat, capture, or experience.

Alternatetively, something like Homeworld's combat system would also work well (but not for simultaneous games).

[Fyron]

KlausD:
IMO its not only not hard its fully impossible. The spirit of tactical SE4 combat lies in that what you call "stupid quirk". What you dont like -the "disjointed movement and firing phases" are very important and nice to play (at least for turnbased fans) This kind of sequence is not a quirk, it a achievement of long standing gaming traditions. (computer and board)<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it is not an achievement, it is an old limitation. I am a turn based fan; I do not like how se4 handles movement and firing phases.

Then I dont understand why you are for a real time engine in SEV ship combat. If I hate something I am not for it.
BTW - RT games could be both strategic and tactical in scope. As TB games could be. The mode of play has nothing to do with the scale of game.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As I have said repeatedly, real time combat for se5 has no correlation with RTS games. There are no similarities at all.

Maybe you have a different approach what "balanced" and " realistic" mean than I. Maybe you an explain when a game is for you realistic and balanced. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The "quirks" of turn-based combat are what makes it unbalanced and unrealistic.

Secondly there are no problems at all with "all turn based combat systems". They are fine as they are. (at least if they are good designed)<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, they are not fine. The disjointedness of them causes absurd possibilities like a ship being able to move within range (and range of the enemy too), fire its weapons, then run away, with absolutely no possibility for the defender to do anything (assuming the attacker is faster, same range of weapons). Please tell me how situations like this are balanced or realistic. Real-time processing of orders eliminates these sorts of "quirks" of turn-based combat.

P-D:
What Fyron's refering to as a "stupid quirk" is the way an -entire side- moves and fires at once. All your ships can be destroyed before they even do anything. Even turn-based systems can get rid of this, through initiative and not letting one side move all its units at once, and/or having phases of "Player 1 moves, Player 2 moves, both fire".<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Even phased systems are imperfect. They can often create needlessly-complex rules systems, and still have many of the "quirks" of "normal" turn-based combat. What real-time combat is is a phased movement/firing system, but with continuous phases instead of segmented phases.

I'd prefer a system like Combat Mission's myself; give orders, click go, watch them play out.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is exactly what pausable real time combat is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

QuarianRex:
This problem isn't really present in SEIV. You tend to start far enough away that niether player can get the "jump" on the other.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It has happened in every se4 combat I have ever seen.

Dogscoff:
For combat, a real-time system might be made to work, but I'd prefer to see this done entirely by the AI with indirect human guidance, ie like strategic combat from se4 (although the strategic combat Ai=I would have to be improved considerably). Even with a "pause" mode in realtime tactical combat, you'd still miss opportunities if you weren't quick enough on the pause button, and the whole thing would be a horrifically slow mess with multiple humans anyway. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Most MP games of SE4 are done with strategic combat. Only hot-seat games can use tactical anyways. Real-time execution of strategic combat would not pose any problems. Hot-seat games already take a long time as it is. Real-time tactical combat would not be much slower, as long as you limit the number of pauses each player can make (so you don't get the combat paused every 2 seconds- which defeats the purpose of real-time anyways).

[Phoenix-D]

"That is exactly what pausable real time combat is"

No Fyron, it's not. In combat mission you give your orders, hit go..and then wait for one minute. No matter what happens in that minute, there is -nothing- you can do. Pauseable real time you can adjust your orders at any time, combat mission only at the begining of each turn.

Phoenix-D

[Fyron]

Ok. So you get to pick how long you wait instead of it being forced at 1 minute intervals. This is bad how?

[alchemy]

I would also love to have a combat resolution system similar to Combat Mission's! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

If Aaron called it Gold Plus and charged money for it, I would gladly purchase it, in a heartbeat. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Phoenix-D]

"Ok. So you get to pick how long you wait instead of it being forced at 1 minute intervals. This is bad how?"

Because it works better that way. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif More fun.. Minor benifits like PBEM working much better- i.e. at all, since both players don't have to be there. Even regular multiplayer tactical works better, since you don't have the other player pausing and unpausing combat all the time. It better represents combat, as well; units don't respond instantly.

Phoenix-D

[Fyron]

PBEM uses strategic combat, so there is no concern about both players having to be there for combat; it is run by the AI.

since you don't have the other player pausing and unpausing combat all the time.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is why you have a configurable limit on the number of pauses per combat (including a no limit option as default, of course). The game could easily be set up to function in either method. All it needs is a few toggleable options. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 26, 2003, 23:55: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[SgtBigG]

Before I got SE IV, I filled my free time with The Operational Art Of War.

G

[narf poit chez BOOM]

yeah. the link to that article, anyone? a responce?
^
^
^

[Phoenix-D]

"PBEM uses strategic combat, so there is no concern about both players having to be there for combat; it is run by the AI."

Which means there's no difference between the two systems. I was really thinking about tactical-style PBEM, which is irrelevent to SE4..

"That is why you have a configurable limit on the number of pauses per combat (including a no limit option as default, of course). The game could easily be set up to function in either method. All it needs is a few toggleable options."

Defeats the purpose of being pauseable in the first place.

[ March 28, 2003, 04:29: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]

[Fyron]

Defeats the purpose of being pauseable in the first place.<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well what would you do?

[Phoenix-D]

"Well what would you do?"

Already told you. Combat mission style or initive based turn-based. Pure real time is fine if the AI is running both sides (as in Strategic mode)

Phoenix-D

[Fyron]

An initiative based turn-based combat system still has the same problems of se4's combat system.

[Knightsaber]

Well, as for the original intent of the topic, right now I'd pick Civilization II for Windows, Line in the Sand for DOS http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif , and likely when I get the full SEIV, that will take the lead.

[Phoenix-D]

"An initiative based turn-based combat system still has the same problems of se4's combat system."

But reduced in scale to the point where it is almost irrelevent.

Phoenix-D

[Fyron]

What sort of initiative system would you propose?

[Phoenix-D]

Fairly simple one.

At the begining, all ships make a check, based on whatever factors you like. Say its out of 100, all modifers equal (same ship design, whatever)

Lowest numbers move first. A tie for any particular ship, the defender goes first.

ex:
6 ships, 3 side A 3 side B. B defends.
A1 rolls 50
A2 rolls 25
A3 rolls 80

B1 rolls 80
B2 rolls 10
B3 rolls 30

So the order would go:
B2
A2
B3
A1
B1
A3

Another:
A1 rolls 85
A2 rolls 57
A3 rolls 87

B1 rolls 76
B2 rolls 47
B3 rolls 94

Order:
B2
A2
B1
A1
A3
B3

[Saarud]

Yeah Line in the Sand was very fun. heh with the action in the middle east right now it might perhaps be fun to install again.

As most I have played Civ 2 and like it. However it's the 400+ highly quility scenarios I have for Civ 2 that makes it so much much better than it otherwised would have been.

Went through my vast collection of games and discovered SSIs Definitive Wargame Collection... can't believed I forgot it but the game --- Sword of Aragon --- must be considered one of the best ever. Being a Strategic RPG Tactical combat quest it got it all. Highly recommended for anyone!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I am sure I have forgot a bunch of other great games... bound to happen when you are a big time fan and collector of Strategy and RPG games.

[Fyron]

P-D, that still has the unrealistic factor of some ships being able to fire at and destroy enemy ships before they can do anything. In most situations, both sides would be able to fire at about the same time. It also looks like it would get very messy when you have 100s of ships on each side. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Erax]

Time to revive another thread...

Have any of you played one of the games by Schwerpunkt (http://www.ghg.net/schwerpt/) ? I played one of their demos some time ago (OK, a long time ago) and kind of liked it, but I'm not sure if they're still in business. Their web site looks like it hasn't been updated in quite a while.

[deccan]

I'm with Imperator Fyron on this. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Medieval: Total War so far. Its strategic system may be weak, but it's real-time pausable tactical system is by far my favorite.