LOL.... Thank you, my man.. Yeah, that all sounds great, you can add me on steam or skype, just send me your details and we'll get started
I'm Balkoth on Steam, the one with Civ V, Mass Effect (2), Half Life (2), TF2, L4D2, and some other stuff. Skype is balkothwarcraft, though I'm rarely on it (so let me know if you do add me).
In a normal duel it is war on sight so the game will literally take twice as long as normal.
Not in my experience. You keep taking this ultra-competitive-skirmish-map-must-rush-military-units idea into "normal" games where it doesn't apply.
Why would you want to spend twice as long to accomplish the same game?
Why would you ever take a side road rather than the highway? It takes twice as long to get someplace!
...except, y'know, sometimes you're actually trying to enjoy the overall experience. I'd rather play one game on Hybrid than two games trying to pretend Civ V is some sort of really crappy RTS.
What you, and a lot of people it seems, are playing is what (now, there are exceptions) casual gamers / kids who are used to playing starcraft / insert generic game title here type gamers want to play, a quick little match that you can play as if it were a round of Call of Duty.
Hey now, I like Starcraft 2! It's an excellent RTS -- which also means it's designed from the ground up to be played "simultaneously" and the units/control scheme/etc all reflect that (including crazy things such as being able to select multiple units and give all of them an order at the same time).
Y'know, unlike Civ.
I don't have time for this. I'm pretty sure he's trolling me.
Sadly, I doubt he is. His train of thought seems to be "the combat in Civ V is so broken that usually the optimal tactic is to spam Chariot Archers/Composite Bowmen/Crossbowmen and try to overwhelm the other guy before we hit the Renaissance Era...and therefore Civ is *supposed* to be all about combat and played like a really bad RTS."
Obviously, hybrid speeds this up a little, but some of us often don't even have 6-8 hours to play all that often.
In a surprise plot twist, in many games Hybrid can be *faster* than simultaneous because people don't declare war unless they're actually initiating an attack and people don't try to game the turn timer (so you avoid that whole thing where people wait out the turn timer as long as possible and THEN attack to try to avoid the opponent being able to respond). It makes open warfare a big deal...y'know, kind of like how it's supposed to be in Civ and how it is in real life.
I do play teamers and stuff though, and really saying the simultaneous turns bring zero order is kind of a shame. I mean do fast clickers have some advantage? Sure they do. But will they always win the game? Not if you know what you're doing and have better hammers, food, army, ect.
Let's examine your reasoning here...
1, if you're significantly better than your opponent then you'll still win in simultaneous OR hybrid.
2, if you're significantly worse than your opponent than you'll still lose in simultaneous OR hybrid.
3, if you're roughly the same skill level as your opponent then you could lose wars in simultaneous that you'd win in hybrid (or vice versa).
...do you realize how backwards that is? Situation 3 is supposed to be the situation that we're MOST concerned with since the outcome is actually in doubt (whereas it isn't in the other two cases).
And this is coming from a person who always plays FPS games and RTS games on the hardest difficulty.
Black Mesa on NORMAL mode was like Half Life on HARD mode...and I loved every second of Black Mesa on HARD. Ditto other things like
Someplace Else and
Minerva where the player is explicitly warned that if they're used to playing on "Hard" that they should choose "Normal" because those mods/campaigns are ramped up in difficulty. So, of course, I played on "Hard" and loved it (even when I died a few times in some of the hardest parts).
Hell, even in games like World of Warcraft I participate in the hardest PvE combat that often requires fast reaction times and a level head during a chaotic mess.
Here's a video of one of the zanier single person bosses (oh, and if you're not familiar with WoW then no, you don't simply have to dodge all those beams...you have to do it while still using your main 6-8 abilities reasonably well, which is *significantly* harder...which resulted in people sometimes literally resorting to asking a real life friend to help in the sense of one person controls the abilities (with the keyboard) and other does nothing but dodge the beams).
So I have no objection to games that require high APM or twitch-like reflexes or whatever -- but only when they're DESIGNED to be played that way (and Civ V was not).