Real time instead of turn based for Civ 4, what do ya'll think?

[Dutchgael]

You must see everything in Civ on a larger scale. A unit in Civ represents an entire army, a turn in Civ represents one or more years (sometimes months). You would cripple the whole idea of the game if seconds would count.

In real history wars were never lost because the leader of the nation was 5 seconds late with moving his army. But that's what would happen in Civ if you made it a RTS game.

 

[LeSphinx]

I agree with you for the war aspect. But what about all the stuff:
economics, cities contruction, diplomacy, Politics, ...

If you want to play on battlefield you got a lot of good games for that: Civ is not just making war.

LeSphinx

 

[DaEezT]

Originally posted by Dutchgael
In real history wars were never lost because the leader of the nation was 5 seconds late with moving his army. But that's what would happen in Civ if you made it a RTS game.

exactly
so the ppl have spoken, civ4 = turn based

 

[Chairman Qu]

Civ as an RTS? NO!!!
(Basically, all the arguments have been pointed out)

 

[Ironrod]

I am relieved that I don't need to rant against continuous-time games in this forum. I am not the last turn-based gamer on Earth! Hurrah! Carry on, then.

 

[WarandPeace]

if i wanted to play a rts, then i'd turn to Blizzard, since no one can make a better rts or anyother game they feel the need to make.

 

[jedi rat]

CIV4 – real time?
I can suggest only one thing. Both scenarios – real time or turn based where a player can choose - just like Xcom.
Those who like messy, quick without thinking game – go for real AND those who respect their time and energy put into the game – turn based.

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

NO

Talk about gravedigging...this one was dead the day it was posted!

 

[Kevorkian]

I think everyone is missing the point.

THERE WILL NOT BE A CIV 4.

Civ 3 will be so good that trying to improve on perfect would have only one outcome...

 

[shawng1]

Scout,

I've been on the EU forum a lot, and I've not seen more than 1 or 2 posts (at most) that suggest Eu should be turn-based.

As for the sugestion by someone else that wars were "never" lost for someone being late on the battlefield, tell that to Napoleon at Waterloo or Yamamoto at Midway.

Now I do NOT think Civ should go turn-based. What I am objecting to is that people say no "civ-type game" should be real time. Most of these people have never played Europa Universalis. As soon as someone says "Real-Time"to them they assume that means Age of Empires, Warcraft, Starcraft, or a similar click-fest. And I agree, those get old FAST. But EU is NOT like those games. In fact, as I mentioned, if you set the timer right, you can play it at a VERY leisurely pace.

There are two areas where EU is superior to Civ, (and this is NOT saying that Civ is an inferior game, I won't take EITHER off my hard drive, and I love both of them). They are 1) EU takes religion SERIOUSLY, it does not treat religion as "the opiate of the masses" but endeavors to show the positive effects of religion too. 2) The sheer scope of the game. 90+ playable nations, and they don't all start at one settler, but in a historical position of strength or weakness, full control of the relgion, economy, and military of the nation. It presents a more historical world than Civ does or can. That doesn't make Civ worse, it just means it is a different game, and each should be admired in its own right.

I would never try to make one more like the other, because that would destroy the near-perfection that each game has achieved in its OWN right.

 

[Panda]

Even thinking about a real-time Civ gives me the shakes... Nononononnononononononononono. No.

 

[Ironman]

No way do I want 'real time' Civilization! One of the great things about Civ 3 (and infact the whole series) is the turn based playstyle. Introducing real time would make the game virtually unplayable; real time is more suitable for 'shoot 'em up' games or simulation games which rely on a lot of action, eg. 'Age of Empires'. Personally, I am looking forward to 'Empire Earth' as an excellent example of a real time simulation - it should be great game. But Civ 3 cannot be converted into real time without it losing its playability - not good.

 

[TownsendVol]

work. I dont think they would want to risk such a successful formula. There are enough good Real Times games out there without making this one, one of them.

So I would vote no. But if anyone could do it Sid could.

 

[treadwin]

I think you are all being too harsh !

If they got it right and it wasn't a clickfest it would be great.

Just because no-one has done it yet, does not mean that it would not be good.

If there was enough time for strategy, so that being the quickest clicker was not important; and there was enough different resources, so that the game was not trivial; and if the battles penalised suicide charges wearing down the enemy, so you could have real tactics; it might be fantastic.

 

[Typo]

Its not just a question of a click fest problem, its to do with how much an individual thinks about a move, tactic or particular strategy. Nobody thinks in the same way exactly which is why speed controls and game pausing is a must if you turn Civ type games into realtime e.g someone may think a lot more about a certain situation than someone else might.

Someone said they played Europa Universalis at a certain speed then slowed it down for combat situations. Thats another problem with these type of games is that it requires different types of gameplay which cannot operate at a consistent speed. Another problem is if your playing Multiplayer you cannot change the speed to meet your own needs.

I wouldn't mind if they turned combat into realtime (if it was done well) but I hope the keep turn based gameplay going.

 

[boca]

I'm sorry, but in my tiny mind there's no way to do a RT Civ without ruining it.

Long live turn based!

 

[Platon]

It's my first post here (so hello everybody) and I haven't been playing civ for a long time. The main reason is that the game was to easy and the strategy very simple. I play AOE now and that is the best strategy game out there, but I have hopes for civ3 to be really challenging.
But to make it realtime I think its not possible.. it's a different kind of game. A game you want to play for days and not for 20-30 mins and it's over. Maybe they could have a realtime element during a battle (when opposite units meets in the same square) but thats all. I think even a turnbased system is more realistic than realtime in an empire-building-game. But during a single battle realtime would be more realistic.

 

[LKendter]

Again NO!

Why won't this thread die? What is great about Civ is turn based. Don't screw with a good thing

 

[shawng1]

Typo,

Why would changing the time setting be any different then taking longer on one turn instead of another. Do you sit there in all your Civ turns and say "OK, I have to be done in 1 minute!" If you don't you're changing the timing of the game in the same way.

As far as MP goes, you can't change time settings in MP. So normally it is set at 1 minute= 2 months, which is generally slow enough to do everything. But I don't have the time to play EITHER Civ or EU MP, so its a mute question to me.

Honestly I think you need to try the game before you come up with reasons why it wouldn't work. It does. And there's very few times I even notice the clock as anything different from what I would notice a "next turn" button.

 

[Typo]

I take your point it works for Europa Universalis and a few other games like Imperium Galactica 2. I don't think it would work that well for civ though as imagine being at war with 8 other civs or more.

It would be extremely hard to cope with all those civs attacking, dealing with cities, diplomacy and trade without slowing realtime to a snails pace or in fact just pausing it.

And this is my point why have a game in real time if you need to slow it down or in fact pause it in order to compete with the AI on a level playing field???

It may work in less complex games but if the game has a lot of depth and a lot of stuff requiring the players attention surely turn based is better???