vladmir_illych_lenin
King
If they want to make a real time game, call it something else, but definitely NOT civilaztion. Bad idea!
Real time instead of turn based for Civ 4, what do ya'll think?
- Thread starter woke25
- Start date
D
Dreadnought
Guest
I got a copy of the first AOE, I liked it OK, but one thing TOTALlY sucked, what was up with only being able to expand to 50 units!!!!!!
------------------
"Nothing in the world can endure forever"
-Roman Citizen
------------------
"Nothing in the world can endure forever"
-Roman Citizen
Instead of just shouting angrily NO, I'll tell you guys something usefull...
When Sid Meyer (you know, our GOD) came up with the original idea of civilization he himself wasn't sure whether the game should be real-time or turn based. One of the first prototypes actually was realtime and everything went pretty well. He founded a few cities and even managed to micromanage them (more or less), until... the number of cities became higher and higher. While micromanaging the cities he completely lost track of everything that happened outside in the open. He had to make a decision: more realtime action, or less action and more time for micromanagement and strategy.
Fortunately he chose the latter...
The fact that civilization is turn-based has been one of the main causes of its enormous succes. Civilization therefore will NEVER, even thought you'd want it, be turn-based. Let there be other to shoot THAT arrow...
When Sid Meyer (you know, our GOD) came up with the original idea of civilization he himself wasn't sure whether the game should be real-time or turn based. One of the first prototypes actually was realtime and everything went pretty well. He founded a few cities and even managed to micromanage them (more or less), until... the number of cities became higher and higher. While micromanaging the cities he completely lost track of everything that happened outside in the open. He had to make a decision: more realtime action, or less action and more time for micromanagement and strategy.
Fortunately he chose the latter...
The fact that civilization is turn-based has been one of the main causes of its enormous succes. Civilization therefore will NEVER, even thought you'd want it, be turn-based. Let there be other to shoot THAT arrow...
Hueristic
Chieftain
Not to bead a dead horse but NO. I like to stand aloof of all those scrambling in the trenches. I'll just order placemant and let them get stressed at thier prediciment.
andycapp
Grumpy Old Griper
Woke,
You must be into S and M!
Guess you've learnt a few more ways to say NO!!!
Here is one more - leah! (that is 'no' in Maltese, according to 'The Minister for War' - my Wife)
You must be into S and M!
Guess you've learnt a few more ways to say NO!!!
Hell-Raiser
Warlord
Just NO!
I like Turn Based!
I Ogt Unreal, Unreal Tournament, Red Alert (all) AoF (all) Quake I and II and many more
and STILL this game is WAY TO GOOD Compaird whit those games!
--------------
Your are not a prey until a predator knows of your existence.
I like Turn Based!
I Ogt Unreal, Unreal Tournament, Red Alert (all) AoF (all) Quake I and II and many more
and STILL this game is WAY TO GOOD Compaird whit those games!
--------------
Your are not a prey until a predator knows of your existence.
CoolUserName
Chieftain
I agree, real time would suck. But in multi-player they could put a realtime-style like they did in CivNet...
But it is frustrating when you know you will kick a bararian a$$ that is near but goes away before you can reach!!
That's why I prefer turn-based.
But it is frustrating when you know you will kick a bararian a$$ that is near but goes away before you can reach!!
That's why I prefer turn-based.
Håkan Eriksson
Commander of the Swedes.
Turn based games is wath civilization is all about for me. Without the turns it would be a whole new game for me. And nothing that I think of when I hear about civilization.
------------------
<IMG SRC="http://w1.316.telia.com/~u31613053/sign.gif" border=0>
Do you wonder were the bird went? Thunderfall have shoot it down!
------------------
<IMG SRC="http://w1.316.telia.com/~u31613053/sign.gif" border=0>
Do you wonder were the bird went? Thunderfall have shoot it down!
gjts00
Arrogant American
The scope of civ is much too big to be set in real time. I like real time games to a certain extent, but I like turn based systems better. The main advantage is that I can stop and take a break or answer the phone without loosing my place in the game. In closing it's my opinoin that the civ series changing over to a real time format would be a HUGE mistake. And it would cost Firaxis Games my business.
------------------
Thou who goes to bed with an itchy butt wakes up with a smelly finger.
------------------
Thou who goes to bed with an itchy butt wakes up with a smelly finger.
RKR
Chieftain
NFW!!!!
If you want real-time go buy Microsoft.
If you want real-time go buy Microsoft.
Actually there IS a real time game of the scope of civ on the market, and personally I think it's a cool game.
Europa Universalis. But the thing is, you can pause the "clock" and give orders at any time, and you can speed up or slow down the clock to your hearts content. (Generally 1 year=4 months works really well whenever you're not at war).
The game covers 300 years of European history 1492-1792. And it COVERS it.
I honestly can't decide which game is my favorite between civ and Europa. They're both incredible games in different ways.
I totally agree about Age of Empires, BTW, a waste IMHO. I don't need to play a click-fest. I want a STRATEGY game. BTW, Shogun is cool too, but it's turn based with real-time combat.
Europa Universalis. But the thing is, you can pause the "clock" and give orders at any time, and you can speed up or slow down the clock to your hearts content. (Generally 1 year=4 months works really well whenever you're not at war).
The game covers 300 years of European history 1492-1792. And it COVERS it.
I honestly can't decide which game is my favorite between civ and Europa. They're both incredible games in different ways.
I totally agree about Age of Empires, BTW, a waste IMHO. I don't need to play a click-fest. I want a STRATEGY game. BTW, Shogun is cool too, but it's turn based with real-time combat.
Typo
The Rabid Prince
I hope civ is never made into real time, I think it would be too much to manage and I think pausing games to issue orders etc just doesn't makes sense because your then just turning it back into a turn based game!!
I do think however that combat should become real time, but I repeat but, it should be tactical based not reaction based (meaning your not running your mouse round at 100 miles an hour clicking frantically but slower moving units taking advantage of terrain, weapon types, tactics etc.)
This type of combat has never been seen in a real time game (or at least done well) yet as far as I know (plz don't say games like sudden strike or AO2 do cause they are just click fests). MOO3 is going to be using this for its combat for the first time, should be interesting to see how well it plays...
I do think however that combat should become real time, but I repeat but, it should be tactical based not reaction based (meaning your not running your mouse round at 100 miles an hour clicking frantically but slower moving units taking advantage of terrain, weapon types, tactics etc.)
This type of combat has never been seen in a real time game (or at least done well) yet as far as I know (plz don't say games like sudden strike or AO2 do cause they are just click fests). MOO3 is going to be using this for its combat for the first time, should be interesting to see how well it plays...
DaEezT
Civ, Pizza, Spam, Repeat
Yeah, I am very curious too. I just hope they don't kill MoO
To Civ4: lemme get my hands on Civ3 and then we'll talk again
I think there are many other things that can be added to civ to make it better that are much more promising than real time (e.g. from squares to hex). But I can hardly imagine Civ in real time. A game like civ has to be turn based IMO, just like MoO, HoMM etc.
And mor often than not turn based games are better than real time
I say: let civ stay turn based and leave real time to those games which are made for it (warcraft/starcraft, C&C, AoE)
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2001
- Messages
- 20,058
TURN BASED 
Turn based games are the style I like. I have played "real-time" and basically got frustrated. They are two different style of games. The choice for turn based sucks, and there is no way I want to lose the best turn based game.
Turn based games are the style I like. I have played "real-time" and basically got frustrated. They are two different style of games. The choice for turn based sucks, and there is no way I want to lose the best turn based game.
jc011
Rider of Rohan
sorry, but i'm an idiot,
what is IMO, MOO, and HOMM?
what is IMO, MOO, and HOMM?
DaEezT
Civ, Pizza, Spam, Repeat
HoMM = Heroes of Might & Magic
Typo,
No you're not turing it back into a Turn based game because nothing can happen on the map until you "unpause" the clock.
As far as being "too hard to manage" goes. It really isn't because the time can be adjusted to whatever you're comfortable with. All the way to 5 minutes = 1 month! I normally play at 1 min= 4 months and that's more than enough time for most decisions except during war. Then I click down to 1=1.
I personally do not want Civ 4 to go to Real Time, but I do think you should try Europa. People assume Real-Time = click-fest. But it doesn't have to be that way.
No you're not turing it back into a Turn based game because nothing can happen on the map until you "unpause" the clock.
As far as being "too hard to manage" goes. It really isn't because the time can be adjusted to whatever you're comfortable with. All the way to 5 minutes = 1 month! I normally play at 1 min= 4 months and that's more than enough time for most decisions except during war. Then I click down to 1=1.
I personally do not want Civ 4 to go to Real Time, but I do think you should try Europa. People assume Real-Time = click-fest. But it doesn't have to be that way.
I agree on both points. I cannot think of any reason to change Civ to a real time (the term should really be "continuous time") game. However, for those who want such a game, Europa Universalis already exists -- and it is a great game in its own right. But their forums have always contained plenty of posts saying they should go to turn based.
LeSphinx
Bachogwa
I think real time is not adapted with the civ like series.
For me, real time (as Warcraft x, Age of xx, ...) : after a small time, playing, you are tired of it.
The solution is production, production, production and production...And then, WAR !!!
There is no strategy for me... Or it is not the strategy I like.
LeSphinx
For me, real time (as Warcraft x, Age of xx, ...) : after a small time, playing, you are tired of it.
The solution is production, production, production and production...And then, WAR !!!
There is no strategy for me... Or it is not the strategy I like.
LeSphinx
Similar threads
