stravaig
Stand Up Philosopher
Sacrilege!
Blasphemy!
Heresy!
Outrage!
- Stravaig
Real time instead of turn based for Civ 4, what do ya'll think?
- Thread starter woke25
- Start date
Sacrilege!
Blasphemy!
Heresy!
Outrage!
- Stravaig
Typo,
I've been at war with 20 other nations in Europa before. Carrying on diplomatic maneuvers, troop maneuvers, adjusting religious tolerance (yes EU actually treats religion, and does it fairly and well), and raising troops all in RT.
As I noted, do you take the exact same amount of time every turn in Civ? There is no difference between taking a little longer in a turn here and there than in dropping the time setting.
And EU is NOT a simpler game than Civ. it is different, but it takes into account factors that Civ does not (such as religion), plus it has more diplomatic options than Civ had. You don't do all the individual builds like one does in Civ, but in terms of overall game depth, there is no differnce. It has depth in different areas than Civ.
As I said previously, I don't want Civ to be RT. My point is that one does not need to make a RT game a click0fest, it can be a true strategy game.
I've been at war with 20 other nations in Europa before. Carrying on diplomatic maneuvers, troop maneuvers, adjusting religious tolerance (yes EU actually treats religion, and does it fairly and well), and raising troops all in RT.
As I noted, do you take the exact same amount of time every turn in Civ? There is no difference between taking a little longer in a turn here and there than in dropping the time setting.
And EU is NOT a simpler game than Civ. it is different, but it takes into account factors that Civ does not (such as religion), plus it has more diplomatic options than Civ had. You don't do all the individual builds like one does in Civ, but in terms of overall game depth, there is no differnce. It has depth in different areas than Civ.
As I said previously, I don't want Civ to be RT. My point is that one does not need to make a RT game a click0fest, it can be a true strategy game.
starlifter
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2001
- Messages
- 4,210
Civ should never go RTS. It would not be Civ at that point. I have AoE2AoK and AoE2Conquerors. I do not need AoE4Civilization (pun?! 
).
).
Le Petit Prince
Communist Comrade
NO!
Civ 3 is not out that people start talking about civ 4?!
Idiots...There will be upgrade of civ 3 before...
Civ 3 is not out that people start talking about civ 4?!
Idiots...There will be upgrade of civ 3 before...
JavalTigar
Overlord of the West
Not only no, but HELL F*@K NO!!!
While I agree that Civ should primarily be turn-based, having battles in real-time whenever opposing armies meet would certainly add more realism and strategy to an already fantastic game. And of course, there would be an option to turn off "real-time battles", similiar to Lords of the Realm.
For Civ3, NO WAY!
But this idea does have some advantages. Maybe for Civ4, there should be an option to turn on and off RTS mode. While most(if not all) of us prefer the leisurely pace of turn-based on single player, sometimes I would love to have the option of RTS mode during multiplayer games for having fun with my little brother.(we get bored sometimes because we play for fun) It's true that when I AM serious with it, I become somewhat of a madman.
Maybe with this option, because it's pretty simple to make a RTS multiplayer, Civ4 will actually be shipped with a MP function before another patch.:slay:
But this idea does have some advantages. Maybe for Civ4, there should be an option to turn on and off RTS mode. While most(if not all) of us prefer the leisurely pace of turn-based on single player, sometimes I would love to have the option of RTS mode during multiplayer games for having fun with my little brother.(we get bored sometimes because we play for fun) It's true that when I AM serious with it, I become somewhat of a madman.
Maybe with this option, because it's pretty simple to make a RTS multiplayer, Civ4 will actually be shipped with a MP function before another patch.:slay:
I dont think they should do civ4 at all, I for one would hate to see civ4 in 3-4 years as just a polished version of civ3.
Unless they make it very different.
I hope they will concider making a sequel to Colonization. That would be Great!
BTW I love the RTS genre, Starcraft tops my list of great games, ahead of civ2.
Unless they make it very different.
I hope they will concider making a sequel to Colonization. That would be Great!
BTW I love the RTS genre, Starcraft tops my list of great games, ahead of civ2.
Typo
The Rabid Prince
Shawng1 I do agree that real-time games do not have to be click fests although most of the ones available are.
You obviously feel RT works well for EU but would the game be better if it was turn-based?
If not then why would you not want CIV to become real-time in the same way as EU?
You obviously feel RT works well for EU but would the game be better if it was turn-based?
If not then why would you not want CIV to become real-time in the same way as EU?
Typo,
Neither EU should become turn-based nor Civ become real-time. Part of EU's "charm" is that you actually sense "history" passing. Monarchs come and go (you are actually the "grey eminence" behind the throne, and the different monarchs affect your realm for good or ill). Same with your leaders. You have a sense of "racing" for certain high quality potential colonies. The passage of time gives the game a flow distinct from any other game I've played. Take that away, and you take away part fo the charm.
Civ is not about that aspect of "recreating" history. You're one immortal monarch. That impossibility is granted to the leaders. Also there is a level of micro-management that EU does not have. In EU much of the growth (or decline) of individual provinces and cities is abstracted. You can influence these factors to aid the rapidity of the growth, but you do not tell people "what" to build (aside from troops, manufacturies, defenses, and political figures. So for Civ to go RT, it would have to drop the micro-management element. But in a real sense, that is part of Civ's charm.
They're distinct games, and for one to become "more like" the other would mean that what maks the one fun would be lost.
Neither EU should become turn-based nor Civ become real-time. Part of EU's "charm" is that you actually sense "history" passing. Monarchs come and go (you are actually the "grey eminence" behind the throne, and the different monarchs affect your realm for good or ill). Same with your leaders. You have a sense of "racing" for certain high quality potential colonies. The passage of time gives the game a flow distinct from any other game I've played. Take that away, and you take away part fo the charm.
Civ is not about that aspect of "recreating" history. You're one immortal monarch. That impossibility is granted to the leaders. Also there is a level of micro-management that EU does not have. In EU much of the growth (or decline) of individual provinces and cities is abstracted. You can influence these factors to aid the rapidity of the growth, but you do not tell people "what" to build (aside from troops, manufacturies, defenses, and political figures. So for Civ to go RT, it would have to drop the micro-management element. But in a real sense, that is part of Civ's charm.
They're distinct games, and for one to become "more like" the other would mean that what maks the one fun would be lost.
Similar threads
