1) I own Warcraft and 1602 AD, both of which I like playing, so what you say does not fall on deaf ears, even at a TBS gaming site.

2) Where exactly were you goign with this article? It's not quite like the other Columns where there is a debatable point.

- Rib -

My main critisism of RTS games is the lack of story, every supposed story element is just a boring way of setting up a tricky mission for you. You definately don't get a sense of perspective on what's going on, usually the missions are disjointed (they have to be, if the normal bullsh*t approach of forcing you to build a new base every mission is to hold true) and joined together by low-quality, second rate "story lines". In TBS games and in good RTS god-games, on the other hand, you're building a story yourself, you're definately getting a picture of the whole as you're building the whole. Use your imagination and there are millions of story lines available in a good TBS (or god-game).

The other thing I have to complain about is your support for StarCraft, which was a boring click-fest with outdated graphics and a more tedious "story" than usual, and AoE which was down to the tech tree essentialy a TC of WarCraft 2. It was not slower paced, that's just an illusion.

What? Are TPTB considering making Civilization III a real-time-strategy game? I hope not ... turn-based-strategy is just fine with me.

Also I woudl have to say that lattley they seem to be so repetative and boring, like AOE and Tiberium Sun.

That is another turn based strategy game which goes into real time for battles, raids etc.

As for me, I pretty much enjoy both. I have loved playing Civ for many many years and will continue doing so. I also started playing Total Annihilation (spelling?) several years ago and love it. It has nowhere near the detail of Civ nor anything close to the tech tree advance system but is still a lot of fun.

IMO, the RTS system makes for a more fun MP environment whereas TBS is better for single player games. (**PLEASE NOTE: I said IMO **). Why I believe this is true: I personally don't have the many hours (or days) it can take to play a MP game of Civ. Where a relatively long game of TA generally can be done in 2 hours tops.

What I wanted to talk about was the fact that although I like both types of games the problem I have is getting interested in new games of the same type. As an example, I loved Civ I but it took me forever to finally by and play Civ II, because I never wanted to take the time to learn the new parts of it and adjust my play style. Trying to get into other TBS games is even harder because I really can't get myself to take the time to learn enough about them to have fun.

The same is true for RTS games. Total Annihilation (spelling?) was the first one I really got into after a friend introduced me to it. I got into it and had a lot of fun with it and then tried to play other ones but always went back to TA because of the familiarity. I finally got into AoE some but only for very short periods of time.

I think a similar conclusion can be made for people that prefer TBS vs. RTS - the first one you really got into remains your favorite, just as Civ remains my favorite CPU game of all time.

quote: Originally posted by Albert B on 12-11-2000 01:41 PM ... - the first one you really got into remains your favorite, just as Civ remains my favorite CPU game of all time.

I guess Wumpus fixed my preference for TB games ...

I dont think Civ3 should be RTS, but i think that some RTS games have some interesting concepts that would be useful for civ3. I am thinking especially of seven kingdoms.

So just what are we talking about as being Real Time Strategy?

Now, with RTS you get action plus the added element of having to always be thinking about what your enemy is doing. Am I about to be attacked? Should I leave that planet undefended for a few minutes? You don't get this is CIV, a chess game more than anything else.

As far as RTS having 'tricks' that must be learned to win (perhaps I read that the wrong way) - tell me a game where this is not the case. As long as the computer controls the *other* guy this will always be the case, RTS or TBS.

I have 1602AD, AOE Kings and Imperium Galactica II. All are very good games and in some ways better than CIV II (overall I'd say each is better). In terms of graphics they blow CIV out of the water but I understand CIV is an old game. What they did to CTP and the other so-called new CIVs is beyond me.

This is my first post here....

I have significant problems with both formats, but in the balance, find turn-based games (TBG) more to my liking.

My problems with RTS games is that often you don't have the time to make decisions that, in the real world, governments have months or even years to consider. Even basic movement becomes problematic. Often, you don't have sufficient time to prepare strategy in response to initial enemy threats, let alone long-range planning that real-world governments routinely engage in. Knee-jerk response is often the only effective response, and the only strategy involved is in anticipation...

OTOH, in TBG like Civ II (which is still my favorite), certain aspects stretch believability to the breaking point, especially early in the game. I mean, seriously, why does it take 50 years for a unit of horsemen to travel a 100 miles or so? I could buy it for initial exploration (thorough mapping, terrain difficulties, local women(?), etc.) but not for travel along an established route (roads) during time of war, with the goal being to attack your enemies. "So, you think you can kill our settlers and get away with it, do you? Well, just you wait!(about 150 years or so...) Your great-grandchildren will be sorry!"
Even basic production suffers from this factor (especially early in the game). "Let us build a temple to properly exalt our gods. It will only take us 300 years or so!" Only the finest of medieval cathedrals took this long, and even then, the communities that undertook such an enormous project often enjoyed benefits long before the structure was completed.

I think that both formats have their weaknesses, but in the balance, I prefer a turn-based games for because you have the ability to think at leisure about what you wish to do. I know that you can always save or pause a RTS game in order to do this, but it's not the same.

I think that a possible solution would be a turn-based game that imposed limits upon movement based upon supply lines rather than an arbitrary movement rate. In the later stages of the game, Civ II lives up to this well. The presence of railroad lines insures adequate supply, and within the reach of the rail system, movement is unlimited. (Although I have other problems concerning enemies using each others rail systems automatically and with impunity).

What do you think?

------------------
Go Redskins!

I am suprised when I read your articles. I belive the fun of RTS game-like STARCRAFT-is multiplayer. it is made for multiplayer- i think. Speedy game play, simple
economy, tactical battle(not strategy), dynamic action and clear Victory & lost. They are all what we can find in RTS. Of course I like Civ best. However starcraft is also exciting. Frankly speaking, Civ2's
multiplaying game takes me a lot of time(too much!!)

Anyway, I would say that RTS also need "thinking".
Fast thinkin and judgement. Did you know that there is
PROGAMER about StarCraft in south-korea? Often I am
amazed at progamer's technic-It is a similar feeling to see soccer or baseball.