Do we think that Civ4 will incorporate a turnless mode for single player games? If this is to be so, it could vastly increase the speed and activity of larger games not to mention implementing a constant rate of human/game interaction thus increasing it's realism.
Turnless?
- Thread starter Captain
- Start date
juballs2001
The Sultan of Sweat
totally agree with u, im a huge fan of rise of nations, due to the turnless game.
-juballs
-juballs
LoughlinNR
Lurker Extraordinaire
Civ wouldnt look right without turns, it just wouldnt be civ anymore
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
IIRC, you can play an "MP game" with just you and AI civs in Civ 3.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
I thought you were responding to me at first. 
Elgalad
Bully!
I'm with Slothman, the Civilization series is one of the very few last stands for the Turn-Based Strategy Genre, and if it falls, that's all she wrote.
I've played RTS games, and while I find them enjoyable, they have never had the draw or replayability that drew me back again and again as Master of Orion, Master of Magic, Heroes of Might and Magic, and Civilization have. We already have numerous real time 'civilization' type games, do we need one more?
I still think "Real Time Strategy" is a misnomer and usually refer to them as "Real Time Tactics" or if I'm in a grumpy mood, "Clickfests".
-E
I've played RTS games, and while I find them enjoyable, they have never had the draw or replayability that drew me back again and again as Master of Orion, Master of Magic, Heroes of Might and Magic, and Civilization have. We already have numerous real time 'civilization' type games, do we need one more?
I still think "Real Time Strategy" is a misnomer and usually refer to them as "Real Time Tactics" or if I'm in a grumpy mood, "Clickfests".
-E
thescaryworker
Builder
why not make it an option where you could choose wheather you wanted to play turnless or reguar in the game setup? i wouldn't mind trying out a turnless game vs AI every once in a while.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
Nobody really uses it, so it's a waste of resources.
"But I'd use it!"
Yeah, you and 3 other people.
They don't have time for something like that. 
"But I'd use it!"
Yeah, you and 3 other people.
They don't have time for something like that. bob rulz
Prince
I don't agree with turnless, nobody uses it.
But a simultaneous moves option for single player (like they have for multiplayer) would be fine with me.
But a simultaneous moves option for single player (like they have for multiplayer) would be fine with me.
JennyRad
Chieftain
I'd hate to see it turn real-time - that's what Age of Empires is for. I wouldn't mind the damn things taking a bit less time, sure, but I still want them to exist!
There's a few features relating to them that I'd like to see - for instance, I've had a few cases where I've "spaced" a unit to skip its turn, then later found I'd wished I'd used it, but when I click on it, it's already "moved" - now that's not logical. I should be able to un-skip it ... But really, Civ is a game of turns, and should stay that way.
(No problem with it being an option for those who want it, of course!)
There's a few features relating to them that I'd like to see - for instance, I've had a few cases where I've "spaced" a unit to skip its turn, then later found I'd wished I'd used it, but when I click on it, it's already "moved" - now that's not logical. I should be able to un-skip it ... But really, Civ is a game of turns, and should stay that way.
(No problem with it being an option for those who want it, of course!)
Midnight Piper
The Final Tyrant
This is something I'll react as violently to as that vocal little "sci-fi haters" club - a resounding No! 
This would absolutely, completely, ruin Civ. Go to a realtime 'sub-screen' for the battles if you want - realtime tactics (which is what all those games that call themselves rts actually are) is always fun - but realtime has no place in legitimate strategic-level gaming.
This would absolutely, completely, ruin Civ. Go to a realtime 'sub-screen' for the battles if you want - realtime tactics (which is what all those games that call themselves rts actually are) is always fun - but realtime has no place in legitimate strategic-level gaming.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
I'll just register another vote for the "turn-based or I won't buy CivIV" ticket.
sealman
Hater of Babylonians
Two different genres types. Civ should remain a Turn based game and not get lost in the juimble of all the good and crappy RTS games on the market.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
If you want Civ to be turnless, play Rise of Nations.
Edit:
While I am not supporting the idea of turning Civ into an RTS, I thought Rise of Nations did a lot to reduce MM and increase strategic focus. 1) There was a penalty for focusing all your fire on one enemy unit rather then letting units find their own targets. 2) All research was global, and allocation of research per building was automatic. All research was also pretty easy to learn the hot-keys for. 3) There were resource collection caps and resource sites did not run out. Players who had previously won by stockpiling the fastest lost that advantage. Now what you decided needed to be collected first made a difference.
The point is that not all RTS are simply click-reflex skill based, although in many ways AOE was, and Starcraft is.
Edit:
While I am not supporting the idea of turning Civ into an RTS, I thought Rise of Nations did a lot to reduce MM and increase strategic focus. 1) There was a penalty for focusing all your fire on one enemy unit rather then letting units find their own targets. 2) All research was global, and allocation of research per building was automatic. All research was also pretty easy to learn the hot-keys for. 3) There were resource collection caps and resource sites did not run out. Players who had previously won by stockpiling the fastest lost that advantage. Now what you decided needed to be collected first made a difference.
The point is that not all RTS are simply click-reflex skill based, although in many ways AOE was, and Starcraft is.
Volstag
Chairman of the Bored
The inclusion of realtime would, more than anything, increase the MM aspects of the game. It would shift the focus away from "grand strategy" to "power clicking". Though, admittedly, a part of me would like to see it implemented -- provided the user can set the "speed" at which time passes.
Though, in the end, I'm more than happy with turns.
A nice compromise might be the "wego" system that's found in Combat Mission.
-V
Though, in the end, I'm more than happy with turns.
A nice compromise might be the "wego" system that's found in Combat Mission.
-V
Philips beard
Prince
juballs2001 said:
Are you crazy!!!! Civilization must never be a vulgar game like Rise of Nations!
If the developers of today thought more turn based we would have alot more great strategy games on the market, like "Heroes", and "Civilization". The only good turn based strategy game I know of is "C&C Generals", but really large epic games must be turn based!!!!! You can never have the same depth in a RTS game, it works best for a short campaign consentrated on war only!!!! Thats why "Generals" is a good RTS and why "Rise of Nations" sucks!!!
Please never destroy the Civ-series too, one of the few great turn based games left!
NB! I played RON once, never again! It took me just one hour to play it through, and I was so disapointed. Glad I never bought that crap!!!!
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
I also am a big fan of the WE-GO system. This would involve a change in how military operations occur, but could make for a much more intuitive and sensible logistics system. Also, negotiations would not be so screwy with the AI changeing its tax rates.
Similar threads
