Could some of you say why you like the turn based ones over the RTS ones (if you do)? and what you think the advantages/disadvantages are? What is the basic difference?

Of course there is room for both. But I am wondering if any of you who love Civ2 so much would ever go back to a RTS game with enthusiasm.

Thanks,
sboog

After being alarmed for not having bought any pc game for months, I decide to raid the greek Silicon Valley. It is a street in down town Athens that has gotten this flamboyant name because it has dozens of pc game stores. (no relevance to the american chip manufacturing site then )

I spent nearly an hour in one of the biggest stores just trying to convince myself that there really are games worth buying

My eyes kept on falling upon Age of Empires II. The guy working there told me that this is the BEST strategy game that exists in this vain world.

I preceeded in insulting him heavily for having blurted out such blasphemy and forced him to acknowledge the supremacy of civ 2.
He responde by telling me that I am an «old timer» that does not live in the modern times but is stuck in past glories. Trying to control my meditaranean temper I kindly reminded him that CIV 3 is going to come out very soon so that he and his kind can crawl back into their petite holes and place AoE in a particular body part of theirs.

Still, I could not find any other game that was of any interest to me so, to the exhilaration of the guy in the store, I decided to buy AoE II. The guy at the store altered his attitide and treated me like I was Christopher Colombus on my way to discover the New World. He had teh same expression as the Orthodox monks moving North to spread Christianity to the slavs or the catholic missionaries that allegendly went South to preach christianity to the Africans. The same sense of fulfilment.

I sat down and installed AoE II. After I solved some problems with the screen flickering at the bottom edge, I played my first game - and became PHYSICALLY ill.

I mean I really wanted to vomit, and I started fearing that I might just be having one of these epileptic crises that can happen to you if you play some video games with fast changling lights etc etc.

But this was not the case since I have played halh Life and tfc without any ill effects.

I still don't know why this feeling of nausea overcomes me everytime I play AoE II. I like to believe that it's the high resolution and not actually the game itself.

It is obvious that I have not much playing experience of AoE II after that. I forced my self to play it for some time though.

My conclusions is that AoE has very little to do with CIV. It is a game of reflexes that actually seems more relevant to FPS than strategic gaming in that respect.

The strategy elements that I did discover have nothing to do with science advances, research, gathering of resources and the like. These are all elementary compared to CIV.
The only strategic element I did find in AoE is POSITIONING. Where do you place your units, castles etc etc.

Master this, have accute reflexes and take a nausea pill and I guarantee that you will enjoy AoE as I never did...

My first RTS game was WarCraft II, I played that a lot, especially multi-player. My favorite RTS was AoE II because it's a beautifully designed and well balanced game. But like paiktis22, I find a lot more mouse clicking than strategy in RTS games.

Why do I like TBS games over RTS? Well, first, I'm a meticulous planner. In RTS games I can plan all I want (or all I have time to) but if I don't have the dexterity to execute my plan before *whatever* happens, then I will likely fail. In TBS games I can gather information and lay my plans while the "clock" isn't running. I can take my time, I can analyze, I can try out ideas in my head before committing to them. If my plan succeeds I feel I've really accomplished something, and if it fails I know it's because it was a poor plan, not because I lack sufficient dexterity.

There is a lot to be said for some of the better RTS games, and I enjoy playing now and then, but what I enjoy most is the ability to think my game through in detail, and that is only really offered in a TBS game.

I'm beginning to think that Civ2 could really unfold into something more than I first thought it was. Not just reflexes and reaction or adrenalin. But something deeper than that.

sboog

I second that one.

------------------
Scouse Git[1] -- git1@scousers.net

Now, of course there is a skill both in managing the building up process efficiently and in then using the troops in a way that exploits their particular characteristics. I particularly enjoyed working out which type of troops gave an AoE tribe an edge and, accordingly, when that tribe should aim to launch its attack. But try as the designers might they just haven't got enough depth in there. It all becomes mechanical after a bit.

Thief was a promising idea but, again, got repetitive.

So RTS games come a poor third, for me, after TBS and RPG.

Now look at the depth in civ2. Over the years I have played and refined a classic strategy based on organic growth, keeping everything in my civ in balance, developing my land and cities in an orderly way and, typically, achieving a slow victory by the spaceship route; a speedy lage maps conquest strategy based on exploring forever before founding a capital; a small maps blood lust strategy based on achieving a series of military tech leads and exploiting each by a round of conquest; a trading strat built around the Lighthouse and Magellans; and half a dozen more. Each is widely different. Currently I am trying to work up a strategy based on switching back and forth from Monarchy to Republic exploiting the high shield production of Monarchy/the high arrow production of Republic/and Oedo's great discovery. This one turns out to involve very detailed micromanagment (the process of managing your cities turn by turn to get their production of shields, wheatsheaves and arrows to match with the quantities of those resources needed to grow, to build units and improvements and to achieve advances).

Along the way I have tried the One City Challenge, great fun and quite different again (really stern micromanagement there) and one or two scenarios - some of those take you into a totally new ball park - quite different objectives.

Oh yes, I have played one strategy where you just get to fundamentalism by fair means or foul and then pump out a ton of boring units which swamp everything. But that one lasted just one game - it had a boringly familiar feel to it.

And look, I've only scratched the surface. I haven't got around to MP (must be mad); I haven't played a fraction of even the universally acknowledged scenarios, let alone all of the others, and haven't tried the most successful strategy of all Infinite City Sle... I mean Sprawl, no Strategy, that's it, Infinite City Strategy.

The basic game still holds such attractions that I'd rather press "start new game" than mess about locating a scenario or sorting out my modem ready to play MP.

I think the "turn based" idea retains its power because so much of the outcome of other genres depends on the luck of the moment. So it's more difficult to know whether the strategy adopted was responsible for the success or failure or just the luck/speed of the player. If you replay a mission it may well be just the clicking that you refine, not the ideas. In civ, luck plays quite a part but not enough to confuse the strategic issues. Play out a strategy in two or three games in succession and you'll definitely expose that strategy's strengths and weaknesses. It is clear to me already in the one I'm trying at the moment that a food rich terrain is what it is mainly adapted to. In more difficult terrain the growth and extra profit achieved under Republicanism doesn't repay the lost production - from the brief periods in anarchy and from the compromises needed to sustain the alternating gov.ts.

Oh and I somehow overlooked the Russians (yes the bloody Russians) when I first explored my continent and now the bastards are after me with chariots and legions while I am having to defend with phalanxes (happily barracks bred) and horsemen so keeping them off my back while I do all this will be challenging too.

(And they are putting their bloody cities in silly places which I will be stuck with as soon as I take them )

Nevertheless you put your point very persuasively and your enthusiasm is infectious.

Maybe I'll just find five minutes before going home and look for a scenario or two to download (if the bloody firewall will let me). That Fall of Rome one sounds good.

Have you tried Red Front?

I usually set the speed to the slowest but it wasn't enough.
And the interface is a big problem (even in AOE II). I would like to control a mouse by my right hand and a keyboard by my left hand: no movement between different parts of the keyboard or between the mouse and the keyboard, no looking to the keyboard.

I really enjoyed Atlantis, Jules Vernes and The Dominion War (Star Trek). You two may not care for the fiction aspect of them, but they employ miniature goals which give the games a real fun twist. The Dominion War, I think, is especially fun because the goals not only have drastic, visible outcomes, they create an interesting storyline as well. It almost felt as if I was reading, and participating in, a novel.

The only downer about these type of games is that once you played them (successfully), you know where everything is and how to accomplish the goals more easily.

quote: Originally posted by East Street Trader on 04-10-2001 11:56 AM Oh and I somehow overlooked the Russians (yes the bloody Russians) when I first explored my continent and now the bastards are after me with chariots and legions while I am having to defend with phalanxes (happily barracks bred) and horsemen so keeping them off my back while I do all this will be challenging too. [This message has been edited by East Street Trader (edited April 10, 2001).]

If you are experimenting with the Italian Strategy - switching governments when there is an "r" in the month - you will find the quick change act from Democracy to Communism very helpful for dealing with the type of local difficulty you describe above.

The infrastructure built to sustain Democracy means that in Communism you can celebrate in most of your cities for a modest luxury rate, so maintaining the extra trade icon without corruption. In short, you keep your science rate virtually unchanged. Whilst the boffins continue to smile at their beakers, that guy who always tells you to "Build City Walls", starts singing!

------------

SG(2)