Turnless?

[The homelessguy]

I can't beleive wut I'm deleted reading! Alright already, everyone has different oppinions THEN MAKE A GAME THAT MEETS THEM ALL!!!!!!! IT"S NOT A WASTE, WHOT THE deleted GIVES A deleted WHAT THE MARKET RELATION IS OR WHAT IS SAID. IF IT'S GOOD TO YOU THEN IT IS GOOD TO YOU. STOP THE GENERALIZATIONS, STOP THE BICKERING OF THE SMALLER PICTURES. BE TRUE TO YOURSELVES NOT UR ADDICTIONS AND THEN YOU WILL FIND THAT YOUR HOBBIES BECOME AS ENJOYABLE AS POSSIBLE NOT ANOTHER REASON TO deleted AND COMPLAIN ABOUT "Y THIS" AND "Y THAT". Th e game can be a turn based game, yet have the Optional element of realtime strategy occupation during each turn whenever desirable. This easily answers the most requests I've ever read TO DATE!

Moderator Action: 1 week ban for swearing, and ignoring previous warnings.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Jon Shafer]

I smell a ban coming on.

I think you're forgetting that implimenting a RT aspect to the game would require quite a bit of planning and resource that could go into other parts of the game.

 

[The homelessguy]

and i'm willing to plan them all for every one scine I got the whole thing mapt out already.Plus thats what their paid to do, satisfy the customers, whoever they maybe and with such consideration of help they should be so thankful and respectful to consider. IT"S THEIR JOB. Being as hear all these words of intelect and economic knowledge, well if theres one thing civ will teach you is that production isn't free. Ant to make the best of it, is to acheive the greater goal.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Who's to say that all the other fan's of Civ want what you want?

Of course they're satisfying their customers. But what if they don't want a RT game?

 

[sir_schwick]

I agree with Trip, they have only 'x' resources to accomplish their goal. Now a WE-GO system for turn execution is probably not a bad idea, but Real-Time is best left to Brian Reynolds and Big Huge Games. Besides, calm down a little bit.

 

[Elgalad]

You know what I'd really like to see? And yes, I'm Serious, this is no joke

A turn based Warcraft.

yep.

GIMME!

-Elgalad




Or I guess I could settle for Master of Magic 2, but then I've always been a dreamer <sigh>

 

[sir_schwick]

I think their used to be a turn-based resource gathering type game. It might have been called M.A.X. It had the same concepts as most RTS games, collect resources, build your way up the building tech tree, build units, unit caps and such, but at least part of it was turn-based. I have never been able to find a copy, but it was interesting when I played a demo. Of course this was six years ago.

 

[nothing here]

YARRRR, well mes was just wanderen lads, What if say the game should have a possible pop up box appear when you have a battle goin down. You can choose to take command like a noble warrior, OR YOU CAN CHOOSE TO LET YER MEN GO AT IT ALONE DEEPENDING ON THERESA STATES AND POINTS AND DIE LIKE A COWARD. Perhaps yersa not bein familiar with trigger possiblility. With a real time of execution to command your decisions precisely, during turns as you make them happen, may add some spice and flavor to the table of death on conquest.

 

[Owain]

Who's Theresa States?

I play FPS and PvP online games for an adrenaline rush and Civ when I want to relax and chill and think.

I despise RTS games because I find them stressful. To me, you can't have strategy without ponder time. That's wahts fun about Civ... The sitting and pondering and careful consideration... If I want an adrenaline rush, I want first person shooters against human opponents.

I miss the old SSI D&D games and their turn-based combat system. If civ 4 had any sort of RTS functionality, I wouldn't buy it. Thats my 2 cents.

 

[Dragonlord]

Add my voice totally against real-time in Civ!

Civ is one of the very last of the addictive turn-based games - don't spoil it!

There are already enough and more than enough RTS on the market - personally, I can't stand them! It's always the same nowadays - a new strategy or RPG game comes out, I see the box or read the review.... real-time again! One more game I won't buy...

I totally agree with Owain: in a strategic game like CIV I want ponder time. The great thing about Civ is the complexity and the variety of possible tactics and strategy. How are you supposed to make all those decisions in real-time? Without totally stressing yourself out?

Even a partially real-time solution as in Europa Universalis (yeah, I tried that too) gets too stressful, IMO. You're constantly stopping and restarting the action - I much prefer a simple turn-based system!

IMHO, the games industry concentrates far too much on the younger players with their often limited attention spans and 'need for speed'. There are quite a few of us older gamers (I'm 43) still around, thank you, and we mostly have the money to spend on a game that gets it right!

 

[Mr. Blonde]

RTS is the wrong way. Fast klicking and hotkey learning are rewarded primary, strategy has much lesser meaning than in turn based games. TBS is all about strategy and perfectionism. There are great RTS games, but I like to play civ because of strategy and perfectionism. I´d really hate it if they wasted just a single thought on making a real time mode, their resources should be spent for other features.

Otherwise...have a look at the community we are all potential civ4 customers and noone wants real time instead of turns

 

[Paradigne]

I bought RoN because I was looking fro something new. Played it. Enjoyed it. Searched the web fro sites to learn a little more on how to play better. Found this site and started playing civ again. Haven't picked up RoN since. My point? Civ needs to remain turned based. There are PLENTY of RT games out there, EVERYWHERE, and they will ALWAYS come and go. Civ is one of the few TBS out there (only one I know that's worth playing). If they want Civ4 to LAST until Civ5 comes out keep it TBS...

 

[Risbinroch]

Civ should be Civ, don't try to copy other games. Civ is one of my favorite games, been playing it since Civ1, and I would hate it if the game turned into the turnless crap as someone else mentioned here.

Also, it don't really need "exiting" graphics, it's the game that is good. Even though Civ3 series was a bit disapointing in some senses, because of the lack of options, eventualities etc. Anyone remember Civ1, Barbarians could actually capture your cities. Civ3 should expanded this idea, and have let the barbarians have a shot at making their own civilization...

 

[Midnight Piper]

Civ3 series was a bit disapointing in some senses, because of the lack of options, eventualities etc.

Have to agree. As much as I like Civ III, can't help but notice that it's been 'dumbed down' quite a bit, rather than being simplified. Removing legitimate challenges and obstacles - features - because they are, I despise this word, 'unfun', was a big loss to the series.

 

[Philips beard]

Why copy others when CIV is the best, and the others are at maximum bad copies?

 

[Jon Shafer]

Have to agree. As much as I like Civ III, can't help but notice that it's been 'dumbed down' quite a bit, rather than being simplified. Removing legitimate challenges and obstacles - features - because they are, I despise this word, 'unfun', was a big loss to the series.

Actually the reason Civ 3 didn't have as much detail as previous incarnations was because the lead designer and most of the programming team (aka pretty much everyone working on how the game functions) left about a year into development. Firaxis had to hire a completely new programming staff and the new guys had to take up the development of the series from where it had been left off. Not an easy task, and in order to get Civ 3 running and out within 5 years was a challenge in itself.

CIV won't have such problems...