Turnless?

[slothman]

One reason I like civ is because of the turns. I actualy find that I play better in games when I can think. I like thinking for hours just on one turn. Near the begining where it is alread slow it matters less but once the map fills up I don't have to to click because I must think. Except for a few cases most countries leaders don't have to think fast to get stuff done.

 

[sir_schwick]

Actually there is one place I would want Real Time or Sem-Real Time. Since both the USSR and USA both gained nuclear parity, there have been many moments of tension. Whenever it appears there could be offensive nuclear action, a bomber out of place or nukes where they should not be, you are prompted. All sides involved are now under Damocles Sword because you don't have forever to think it out. YOu might have to make decisions on intuition rather than complete intelligence. Otherwise though, turn-based for everything.

 

[Hellfury]

The only place real-time has in turn-based game like civ is if the individual battles are real time (like total war) but if the combat system stays the same even that would fit right.

 

[sir_schwick]

So you are saying that for nuclear incidents it should stay on a, 'it-take-a-year-for-this-to-happen' basis?

 

[Hellfury]

yes I prefer the current system of set amounts of time for every thing, however your idea could work if it opened a dipomacy that would close when a timer ran out if a deal was not met.

 

[sir_schwick]

I don't think you understand what I mean. Imagine we are back in 1963 and you are the leader of Russia. You get a report that a secret US flight has been spotted deep in your territory near your nuclear silos. You don't know if its a spy-plane or a one of many nuclear bombers. If it is a bomber, the US could knock out many warheads and reduce your nuclear response. If you respond and it was just a spy-plane, then the US will automatically respond with its arsenal, resulting in MAD. You either have time to call the President and find out what happened, or assume the worst and launch your bombers and missles. If you call and it was an attack, they recieved the advantage and might win overall in the nuclear exchange. Maybe it could be a combination of turn-based, in the sense that actions are taken in turns, but it occurs between the normal civ turns. Think you can only order one action per sub-turn. Negotiations wouldn't be limited in time this way, but would be tense because you might have already lost.

 

[Hellfury]

Ok, now you have writen more I understand better.

 

[sir_schwick]

Thank you. This idea is further elaborated in a thread on Nuclear Missle Silos.

 

[Stid]

I wouldnt exactly cry if it wasnt implimented for civ4 bt it would be a nice option for when u just want a quick game

 

[KabeDerlin]

RON is tactical. Civ is a Strategic game. Please stop trying to turn Civ into another RON. RON is a good game and Civ is a good game. But when you put them together you have a game I'd rather throw out the window.

 

[croxis]

KabeDerlin said it best. Both are very different games. I think it was Sid who said eh would rather make one great game than two good games in one.

 

[sir_schwick]

Besides, Rise of Nations is the genius of Brian Reynolds and Civilizatin 3 was the child of Sid Meier. Although I heard rumors Sid was not as involved on Civ 3 as he was on Civ 2, but they are unconfirmed of course.

Personally I am not looking as forward to Civ 4 because of the change in development team. If Brian Reynolds could collaborate again with Sid and the Civ 2 team that would make a great game.

 

[Philips beard]

I bought "Hearts of Irons", a WW2 strategic game from Paradox. I was so disapointed it was in real time, but you seldom find strategic ww2 games, so I had to buy it.
When I came home it looked just great, and the complexity was real high, and the awesome and realistic tech three almost made me shiver.
What really ruined the game was the real time. It could be such a perfect game if it was made turn based, but of one or another reason all devolopers think they don't sell if it's not real time.
WHY!!!!????
I'm so bored of this. "Civ3" and "Heroes4", seems to be my only salvation, and these games are really, really great.
Real time should only be used in tactical games, or as a tactical part (combats for instance) in turn based strategy games. It's so obvious that I can't see why there are so few daring to make turn based games nowadays!
EA's "C&C Generals" is a tactical RT, and its really great, but real strategic, epic games like CIV would be really poor in RT!!!!!!!!!

NB! Why is all developers making games for brainless teenagers wanting a fast experiance, with a minimum use of long termed strategy. Hello, it's a market out there with more thinking people wanting other experienses.
The Civ-series has proven it, please don't ruin one of the last great turn based games in the world.
PLEASE!!!!!
Give me a real good WW2 turnbased strategy game instead!!!!

PS! I will buy the new Axis&Allies from Atari, I hope the turn based version there is cool, and it really looks like the real time tactical part there will be awesome. And please start the construction of a new grand WW2, strategic, epical game, at once......

 

[Taé Shala]

Does anyone remember Europa universalis.
It was "realtime" but you could stop it everytime to give orders. If this will be in Civ4 I can live with RT.

 

[Philips beard]

"Europa Universalis" is a good game, but when things are more complex, as in "Civ" or "Hearts of Iron", the system works bad. "Hearts of Iron" uses the same engine as "EU", but became a real disaster!!!

 

[sir_schwick]

I think the reason developers started shying away from Turn-Based games is because they are often associated by non-gamers and casual gamers as grognard games. The term Turn-Based suggests hardcore gameplay with tons of stats and rules, except for a few series which have the brand recognition to shake that perception(Civ). Total War is a good example, besides the fact it is a fairly hard-core game, even compared to Civ. It kept the parts that needed to be turn-based, turn-based(the strategic planning map). It also incorporated real-time where it made sense, the combat engine. This is not to suggest that Civ needs a real-time combat engine, the simplicity of Civ combat lends to its game style, just to say that real-time probably has its place only in tense conflicts(red button and phone conflicts, to prevent the first strike phenomenon which could not exist in real life).

 

[Jon Shafer]

Developers don't make turn-based games because they don't sell as well as real-time ones.

Companies aren't going to make games of a certain type just for the hell of it (not ones that stay in business, anyways). They have to cater to a certain market in order to stay afloat. So saying "why do all companies make RT strategy games instead of TB ones?" is essentially asking "why do companies like money?"

 

[sir_schwick]

Said much better then I. My point was that most game buyers associate Turn-Based with grognard. Since most companies prefer sticking with a safe market, this is not going to be their first choice.

Some companies try more experimental and less popular formats(mass market), or even new ones, in hopes of creating that new market and making a great product. They create products like the early civs(alhtough Sid was pretty famous by then).

 

[Philips beard]

Yeah! Of course I understand the business involved, but the ones that lose in the end are those making poor copies of others. If all games look the same, and are based on the same principles it will be boring to the costumer. It's also a point that it's a large market for good strategic turn based games if developers dares to take the chance. It's not only one market segment for computer games, and the segment liking action shoot em up, or real time strategy are soon getting to many games to choose from.
After buying 2 or 3 real bad games in his favorite category he will turn out to be more cautious in the future, before buying another!

The real sucsesses, making classics, are often those you wouldn't think of as a sucsess from the beginning. Games like Civilization, Heroes, Colonization and Pirates are all daring games in the market today, but they are all some of the greatest computergames ever made, and also moneymakers!

Thinking safe market is the worst baricade of creativity in a capitalist society! We would never have movies like "Star Wars", novels like "Lord of the Rings", or games like Sid's "Civilization", if people never followed their hearts, but just where doing the same that has been working before!!!!!!

 

[sir_schwick]

Unfortunately and fortunately the computer games market is starting to get mainstream enough it suffers from what the music market does, too many stupid consumers(read pre-pubescent girls) who like terrible products. How else can you explain the success of boy and girl bands?

I'm not saying computer games are doomed to producing cookie-cutter games that all look alike, its just that development requires real money. Also, Turn-Based games has many established brands which makes some companies hesitant to compete. Those with good products, like Creative Assembly.

Although shooter and real time strategy markets seem saturated, they have always been a good market to sell in over the past eight years. Those games appeal a lot more to the Halo and Counter-Strike crowd. Some developers will try to make a great turn-based game, but those are the developers which usually lead the edge anyway.