the "once and for all!" topic

[AfterShafter]

KotOR has turn based combat no matter which system you use - in one case it's noticable, in another it's not. Regardless, having turn based combat does not change a game into a turn based strategy game.

Bh

I was hoping you'd say that.

So, how do you figure? If i turn off pauses between turns, you issue commands in real time, characters move across the field in real time, their attacks pop out in real time. How is it not real time?

Then, I wonder... It is turn based in the sense that there are so many seconds between actions? Because, if that's the case, you should be aware... Starcraft attacks work in exactly the same way - each character attacks, waits a set period of time, then performs their attack again. Like turn based clockwork - you just don't notice it because they're moving in real time, orders are issued in real time, and the attacks happen in real time... Go figure, just like KOTOR. But since that's likely not what you meant because that's just obviously wrong, how is KOTOR running smoothly with no pauses, commands issued in real time, etc, not real time in a way that Starcraft isn't?

Most RTS's have units acting in "turns"... It's just not noticeable because the game doesn't pause after turns. So again, how is KOTOR without any pauses, actions and commands happening and being issued in real time, not a real time game?

And in this case, the difference between "turn based strategy" and "turn based RPG combat system" is simply a matter of number of units controlled. NWN, which used a system similar to KOTOR's (allowing pauses after turns to make it "turn based") had several very interesting "turn based strategy" game mods made for it... Without changing the fundamentals of how characters worked at all. So if the fundamentals are, again, so bloody similar... How can there be no grounds for meaningful comparison?

Now look, I know that there are plenty of people who like to come into forums like this and say "Duhr, Starcraft is more fluid, more action packed, and more fun than Civ IV - it's obviously better, and RTS's are better! Why do TBS's even exist?" and they're just obnoxious pains in the ass. I'm not one of them. The genres are both hoots and hollers when done well, and Civ is one of the best franchises ever made. Do you think maybe you just resist the idea that these genres are in fact as fundamentally similar as they are because so many younger gamers are complete asshats about it?

 

[Diamondeye]

Those are all games that IGN rated better than Civ4. The only two of those that I think are better are MP3C and SMG, but here are some more games that were rated higher than Civ4 by IGN (who gave Civ4 a 9.4)

Homeworld (9.5)
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (9.5)
Fire Emblem (9.5)
WarioWare Twisted! (9.5)
Mario Kart DS (9.5)
Halo 3 (9.5)
Metroid Prime 2: Echoes (9.5)
Metroid Prime 3: Corruption (9.5)
StarCraft (9.5)
The Orange Box (9.5)
New Super Mario Bros. (9.5)
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (9.5)
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (9.5)
Unreal Tournament (9.6)
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (9.6)
Super Smash Bros. Melee (9.6)
Black & White (9.7)
BioShock (9.7)
Super Mario Galaxy (9.7)
Halo: Combat Evolved (9.7)
Halo 2 (9.8)
Super Mario 64 (9.8)
Metroid Prime (9.8)
Advance Wars (9.9)
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (10)

None of them. Maybe B&W, else, CIV is definately better. Although some of the Zelda at a 10 is good aswell, it's nothing compared to CIV.

While I don't think that LOTRO (Christmas present!! :dance) is better than Civ4, it is certainly more addictive.

So's WOW, and that's a turd game.

I was hoping you'd say that.

So, how do you figure? If i turn off pauses between turns, you issue commands in real time, characters move across the field in real time, their attacks pop out in real time. How is it not real time?

Then, I wonder... It is turn based in the sense that there are so many seconds between actions? Because, if that's the case, you should be aware... Starcraft attacks work in exactly the same way - each character attacks, waits a set period of time, then performs their attack again. Like turn based clockwork - you just don't notice it because they're moving in real time, orders are issued in real time, and the attacks happen in real time... Go figure, just like KOTOR. But since that's likely not what you meant because that's just obviously wrong, how is KOTOR running smoothly with no pauses, commands issued in real time, etc, not real time in a way that Starcraft isn't?

Most RTS's have units acting in "turns"... It's just not noticeable because the game doesn't pause after turns. So again, how is KOTOR without any pauses, actions and commands happening and being issued in real time, not a real time game?

And in this case, the difference between "turn based strategy" and "turn based RPG combat system" is simply a matter of number of units controlled. NWN, which used a system similar to KOTOR's (allowing pauses after turns to make it "turn based") had several very interesting "turn based strategy" game mods made for it... Without changing the fundamentals of how characters worked at all. So if the fundamentals are, again, so bloody similar... How can there be no grounds for meaningful comparison?

Now look, I know that there are plenty of people who like to come into forums like this and say "Duhr, Starcraft is more fluid, more action packed, and more fun than Civ IV - it's obviously better, and RTS's are better! Why do TBS's even exist?" and they're just obnoxious pains in the ass. I'm not one of them. The genres are both hoots and hollers when done well, and Civ is one of the best franchises ever made. Do you think maybe you just resist the idea that these genres are in fact as fundamentally similar as they are because so many younger gamers are complete asshats about it?

Well, in kotOR (and the same system is used in NWN, which is, imho, 1000 times better), there are few characters, but they can take many different actions (like healing, casting a spell/throwing a grenade, attacking, attacking in a special way, soforth). Each character has a "list" of things he will do next time he can get to, like attack enemy 1 (once) -> heal yourself -> heal your friend -> attack enemy 1 (until other order is given).
Also, when playing KotOR or NWN and there are very few people doing something, you do notice they might seem to stand waiting a bit after each move.

 

[AfterShafter]

Well, in kotOR (and the same system is used in NWN, which is, imho, 1000 times better), there are few characters, but they can take many different actions (like healing, casting a spell/throwing a grenade, attacking, attacking in a special way, soforth). Each character has a "list" of things he will do next time he can get to, like attack enemy 1 (once) -> heal yourself -> heal your friend -> attack enemy 1 (until other order is given).
Also, when playing KotOR or NWN and there are very few people doing something, you do notice they might seem to stand waiting a bit after each move.

Yeah, essentially waiting their "turn" to do something. Bioware has a turn based system operating in real time... Things move in real time, but actions happen in turns. Most RTS's actually work in a similar fashion, with units doing all of their actions in turns which are somewhat arbitrarily defined... Not like FPS's, where things happen just as fast as you can do them.

I really do believe the fundamentals of many TBS and RTS are extremely, extremely close. Heck a lot of RTS's (many Warhammer games come to mind) are basically an adaptation of a turn based game's system into a RTS, and the units still operate in turns which are quite true to the way they operate in their respective games. Anyone ever play Mech Commander?

 

[narmox]

Wow it's always interesting to see how a thread can deviate from the original intent or topic

 

[CivFan202]

#119 (maybe) If you're going to completely change the topic in a thread, consider just starting a new thread so that a thread started for the specific purpose of avoiding this is not considered a catch all for any thought that pops into your head.

 

[AfterShafter]

#119 (maybe) If you're going to completely change the topic in a thread, consider just starting a new thread so that a thread started for the specific purpose of avoiding this is not considered a catch all for any thought that pops into your head.

The purpose of this thread is to list things about Civ "once and for all"... When this discussion is done, we'll likely be able to say "once and for all" whether RTS's and TBS's can be compared in a meaningful way. As such, it does not completely change the topic of the thread, and potentially furthers it.

Care to argue the point?

 

[r_rolo1]

#120 Some people ( to be fair ,a good bunch of ) don't like to play Exp ,Pro and Imp leaders unless they have a good UU. That doesn't make the traits subpar..... just less popular.

 

[AfterShafter]

#120 People don't like to play Exp ,Pro and Imp leaders unless they have a good UU. That doesn't make the traits subpar..... just less popular.

I play Wang Kon, who has a pretty good UU that has little to do with protective... And I love the fact that he's protective.

 

[r_rolo1]

Ok ,some people ..... ( corrected above )

 

[Bhruic]

You, as well as that other poster, forget the first strike ability of Longbowmen. After a couple of promotions, they are pretty damned hard to beat. So frankly, I think your statistics are worthless.

Well considering that both I and the original poster included the first strike for the Longbow, I'm going to have to assume you are blind. Or you don't know what you are talking about. Or possibly both.

Bh

 

[Bhruic]

So, how do you figure? If i turn off pauses between turns, you issue commands in real time, characters move across the field in real time, their attacks pop out in real time. How is it not real time?

If you take a chess board and have two computers play against each other so quickly that there are no pauses in between the moves, does that change chess into a real time game? Of course not.

The same is true here.

And in this case, the difference between "turn based strategy" and "turn based RPG combat system" is simply a matter of number of units controlled.

No, it has nothing to do with the number of units controlled. You might as well claim that all FPS games are turn based because when you go into the menu system, the menu is all "turn based" instead of "real time". It'd be just as silly and incorrect a claim. Just because a minor portion of a game is controlled in a turn based fashion does not make it a turn based game.

Bh

 

[AfterShafter]

If you take a chess board and have two computers play against each other so quickly that there are no pauses in between the moves, does that change chess into a real time game? Of course not.

The same is true here.



No, it has nothing to do with the number of units controlled. You might as well claim that all FPS games are turn based because when you go into the menu system, the menu is all "turn based" instead of "real time". It'd be just as silly and incorrect a claim. Just because a minor portion of a game is controlled in a turn based fashion does not make it a turn based game.

Bh

s
Interesting how you ignore most everything but the example of chess, which you brought up. Well, let's deal with that then. Give this a try. Go to google, and look up "real time chess." You'll notice you get dozens of responses advertising real time chess. Now, why would they say such a silly thing since, as you're claiming, real time is so different from turn based strategy?

The answer is what I've said ad nauseam so far. "Real time strategy" uses the same fundamental rules as turn based strategy. A pawn on a chess board makes a move, or performs an action, and there is a break. An axemen in Civ IV makes a move or performs an action, and there is a break. What real time strategy games do is move while keeping actions on the "perform an action, take a break formula" almost identical to that of turn based strategy. All TBS does is break movement into increments as well - which Bioware does in their games simply by adding a "pause between rounds" function, and that very, very simple function turns RTS into TBS.

Honestly, Chess is further from Civ than Starcraft is from Civ. The type of map units navigate, their rules relative to each other, the types of actions they perform, the representation of distance they travel and how they travel it - Starcraft and Civ are MUCH closer in these areas.

Are you serious? "It has nothing to do with number of units?" There have been several mods made for NWN, a game that operates on the system I've been describing, which are turn based strategy games. No rules changes, no modifications to the system - a series of units are controlled with the pause after rounds option on, making the game turn based.

If you have two parties of 30 in NWN (it has been done quite a few times) and set them on a battlefield against each other, it is a turn based strategy. What the heck would you call it, when two players are sitting there using their warriors, rogues, mages, and clerics against other players' opposing "armies" in a turn based scenario, using their opposing forces abilities' to gain advantages over the opposing force? All this is NWN's system with larger parties pitting against each other... And yet you keep on insisting it's strakly different from TBS. I don't get it, and I'm wondering if you've ever played these games.

 

[CoolHandDan]

Ocarina of Time is the best game of all time, as far as platforms go. CIV IV is the best PC game of all time in my opinion.

 

[Bhruic]

Go to google, and look up "real time chess." You'll notice you get dozens of responses advertising real time chess.

Wow. Talk about dishonest posting. Are you really that stretched for an argument that you have to completely twist the concept of "real time chess" like that? "Real time chess" refers to two players engaging in a game at the same time, it's used to contrast with a correspondence game, where players make individual moves and then log out.

Really, if this is the level you're going to stoop to, there's no point discussing this, you're obviously not interested in an honest debate.

Bh

 

[Wodan]

The difference between "real time" and "turn based" is that RTS does not mandate that a piece (or player) has to wait on another piece (or player) before it moves again.

In Starcraft as well as most other games, each piece has a "speed". Another way to look at speed is that it takes X time increments for that piece to move before it can make another move. Even if all piece types had the same speed, then does that turn Starcraft into TBS? No, because each piece does NOT have to wait on another piece (player) before it can move again.

Chess, OTOH, does indeed have to wait. Those computers playing against each other cannot make 2 moves in a row. The first moves, then has to wait, indefinitely if necessary, on the second to move, before the first can move again.

Wodan

 

[Howard!]

Best games as far as I'm concerned:
Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Civilization IV
Age of Empires II... I always liked Empire Earth. This is a hard one.
Half-Life 2

And games that were overly . .. .. .. . (for what they were meant to be):
Empire Earth II (they got high on something and then wrecked the game!)
Age of Empires III... Awesome graphics, . .. .. .. . gameplay!

 

[AfterShafter]

Wow. Talk about dishonest posting. Are you really that stretched for an argument that you have to completely twist the concept of "real time chess" like that? "Real time chess" refers to two players engaging in a game at the same time, it's used to contrast with a correspondence game, where players make individual moves and then log out.

Really, if this is the level you're going to stoop to, there's no point discussing this, you're obviously not interested in an honest debate.

Bh

You haven't even given a definition of "real time" so we have a point of reference while trying to discuss this and you're criticizing me for dishonest posting? I've been going at lengths to describe the functional differences between real time and turn based so we have said frame of reference. The fact that so many places are advertising Chess as real time draws into question something you have not even considered - that "real time" gaming is a somewhat vague definition that needs to be hammered out. If Starcraft is real time, why do units attack in turns? And if Civ is tun based, why do me and my buddy move simultaneously in our Saturday Night sessions? And if there is no meaningful basis for comparison, why are there these tremendous points of contacts between these two genres? And lastly, do you even really care about the differences, or are you just set in your viewpoints and want to state them, rather than discuss why you hold them and what their content is?

You've been paying lip service to my points, or ignoring them altogether, while comparing a turn based board game to a turn based computer game. Frankly, it's difficult to argue against such vague points as the ones you're offering, because there is virtually no argument, just statement and a "ha ha! You're silly!"

I seriously doubt you're interested in an honest debate judging by the sound-byte nature of your posts.

 

[AfterShafter]

The difference between "real time" and "turn based" is that RTS does not mandate that a piece (or player) has to wait on another piece (or player) before it moves again.

In Starcraft as well as most other games, each piece has a "speed". Another way to look at speed is that it takes X time increments for that piece to move before it can make another move. Even if all piece types had the same speed, then does that turn Starcraft into TBS? No, because each piece does NOT have to wait on another piece (player) before it can move again.

Chess, OTOH, does indeed have to wait. Those computers playing against each other cannot make 2 moves in a row. The first moves, then has to wait, indefinitely if necessary, on the second to move, before the first can move again.

Wodan

Now this isn't a bad post. I like this.

Here's my response... The lines between these two genres, on these definitions, are extremely blurred. In Civ, units operate on turns... But simultaneous movement means that for most of a given turn (which as everyone knows, can last minutes and represent hundreds of individual moves), things are moving in real time on the definition you've given, between the two players. This isn't Chess, where's it's one quick move, and you're done, this is moving entire empires, and on simultaneous moves you may move more units in one turn than you do in an entire chess game in "real time," in so far as you don't have to wait for another turn. Heck, for the slower player (usually me), you don't even end up having to wait for the other player.

Now, back to my original point... These genres operate on many of the same fundamental principles. Simply dismissing them as having no meaninful points of comparison isn't thinking it through, particularly when companies like Bioware have clearly shown turn based and real time mechanics to so similar as to have a simple pause at the end of turn function which switches between the two.

 

[Ur_Vile_Wedge]

#121 (I think)


Watching a few movies on a subject that is tangentially related to Civ, (Say, military science or cultural advancement.) does *NOT* make you an expert in the field. Just because you saw 300, does not mean you can dispute Hansen on hoplite warfare.

 

[Diamondeye]

#120 Some people ( to be fair ,a good bunch of ) don't like to play Exp ,Pro and Imp leaders unless they have a good UU. That doesn't make the traits subpar..... just less popular.

Pro is a good trait. I don't mind playing Pro/something other nice with a bad UU.

Well considering that both I and the original poster included the first strike for the Longbow, I'm going to have to assume you are blind. Or you don't know what you are talking about. Or possibly both.

Bh

Ooooh We're getting tense?

Now this isn't a bad post. I like this.

Here's my response... The lines between these two genres, on these definitions, are extremely blurred. In Civ, units operate on turns... But simultaneous movement means that for most of a given turn (which as everyone knows, can last minutes and represent hundreds of individual moves), things are moving in real time on the definition you've given, between the two players. This isn't Chess, where's it's one quick move, and you're done, this is moving entire empires, and on simultaneous moves you may move more units in one turn than you do in an entire chess game in "real time," in so far as you don't have to wait for another turn. Heck, for the slower player (usually me), you don't even end up having to wait for the other player.

Now, back to my original point... These genres operate on many of the same fundamental principles. Simply dismissing them as having no meaninful points of comparison isn't thinking it through, particularly when companies like Bioware have clearly shown turn based and real time mechanics to so similar as to have a simple pause at the end of turn function which switches between the two.

That, my good man, is a rubbish argument. Wodan's argument is still viable. No matter that players move at the same time, the one player still have to wait for the other to move. You aren't moing your musketman again, you're moving dozens of different units once.