Discussion in 'All Other Games' started by Mercenary Gen., Sep 27, 2003.
Which one is better?
I usually play one for a week then switch. I like them both. What do you think?
I prefer turn based myself. I like to save my reflexes and speed for work and first person shooters.
EDIT: Should this even be in GD, it doesn't seem Civ related?
Both, play Civ III one hour, then the next play some Warcraft III...
Moved to Other Games.
I prefer turn based over real time, but unfortunately there aren't that many turn based games. I also like a lot of real time games, but I usually set the speed very low so that I don't have to rush and stress during action.
One of the reasons is that I'm a control freak, so I want everything to be right. That is of course easier with a TBS, then with RTS.
yeah like matrix said, also to me alot of real time games don't depend on how "good" you are but how "fast" you are, and that sucks
Yeps I agree with that Sabo10. I like TBS, and sometimes I enjoy some RTS........especially I love the Total War series....mixture of both, and gives you the sense of controlling a whole army...not just a handful of units
RTSs aren't 'real time' - since they make a year happen in, what, 30 seconds?? And I haven't found much strategy there either. Is there someone I can sue about that?
Overwhelmingly prefer turn based, if you didn't guess
TBS all the way!
It really depends... RTS goes too fast, but TBS can sometimes go way too slow, especially for multiplayer. So I guess both... or a mix. RoN still goes a bit fast for my taste, so I'll stick with Advance Wars.
And for those that say that RTS is not strategy, just reflexes, the same could be said about playing chess with timers. After all, if you are in fact a real good chess player you should already know all the possibilities shouldn't you?
Actually, 5 minute chess is regarded as chess 'lite' by most followers of the game, precisely because it encourages deviation from the underlying strategic thought towards more time-oriented strategies.
While clock management is important even at the 40 move/2.5 hour level, it is certainly not a game where your reflexes have any bearing on the result.
And a 'real good' playe can infact whip a roomfull of opponents precisely because he does 'know all the moves' and can afford to spend 1/100th of the time playing each game. Anyone who's seen a GM give a multi demo has seen that.
But no one is ever going to consider someone world chess champion because he can beat 100 players in a multi, and his rival 'only' beat 99.
TBS is better. Because it gives you more time to think your tactic. No rushing and in some games no resource management. Also TBSs are more addictive. You say I will stop playing next turn, but something happens `next turn` and you continue playing. It was the case for me in Heroes series, Civilization series and Panzer General series.
I'd have to say tbs, but not by much. I generally prefer to have more time to think about my strategy, while slowly building up. Its just unfortunate that there aren't many out there. Although Hearts of Iron is supposed to be pretty good, I'll have to give it a go.
As for which one is better overall, neither is. It just depends on your opinion.
Why not combine the two and make a great game
I'd consider the total war games that combination. Or at least damn close to it.
I perfer turn based.
I don't like RTS. TBS are the best games.
Well done you got what I was suggesting
For me TBS games give more scope for deep strategy whereas RTS is more focused on action. However sometimes RTS games can provide the depth of TBS - one brilliant example is Europa Universalis II which allows you to pause and play at a slow pace if you so choose.
Separate names with a comma.