I personally don't like RTS.

But suppose we find out that Firaxis is taking a RTS build of Dinos to heart, and has decided to do the same with Civ III?

Gord! TBS might be fun? Aaaugh! But because we both live in great provinces who hold Bob and Doug MacKenzie so dear, I will defend your right to beer-calibre ideas.

I any case, I think we can say for certain that Civ3 will NOT be RTS. After all, one of the reasons Tim Train said he left Firaxis was because he was burned out on Turn Based games. That kinda implies Civ will be turn based, no?

Civ II and CTP1 simply use diamonds on a 2D plane. The tiles are made to simulate 3D. I think the same could be done on a zoomed-in globe

And something wierd:

-My point was that civ3 wouldn't be civ, if it was RTS or without tiles. Tiles are critical to it's feeling like civ.

What does everyone think about simultaneous turns? It didn't make the top 5 new ideas of EC3, but it was close IIRC.

I played a hex board game of tactical combat using shorthand simultaneous turns, and it was terrific.

And as far as a spherical map goes, it would be nice but I don't think it's essential. Not for me, anyway.

I checked the link and I FEEL PHYSICALLY SICK! Sorry.

Seriously, I would not buy a 3D Civ. No way. 3D is overrated and ugly and Civ is not some Quake or something...

3D and RTS, overrated and overhyped, sure. Let's give you a couple of examples.

1. X-COM. The first one was mindblowing (and had a round globe ). The game was in real time, but the missions turn-based. I think it must be the most strategically challenging game I ever played. X-COM: Apocalypse introduced real-time missions. A lot of the strategy was lost, but with varying speed control and exellent control system, it didn't harm the game. Even if you didn't like that, there was the option to play turn-based.

2. AOE: I liked the first one, but got bored by the second one after a couple of missions. I had waited for the game for over a year, and when it came out, I played it for less that a week. Why? The only thing you do is build buildings to build units to crush the opponent. Civ has so much more.

3. Airport Inc.: A business simulation, you are in charge of an airport. You build, set prises and do the usual stuuf required by an airport manager. Quite an absorbing game, but the one thing people find groundbreaking about it is that it's in 3D. Sure, you can zoom, pan, fly around, see everything from any angle... but the fact of the matter is that 3D is not very pretty. Also, it is very heavy and you need a monster PC unless you want to play the game in real time (1 year takes 1 year to play). I would have preferred normal isometric view, a la Sims and X-COM.

Point being? RTS can be cool, but not everywhere. 3D should not be used for 3D's sake. If it enhances the playing experience, fine, but I don't think it would do Civ any good...

As with X-COM, the game would ask you which mode you prefer as you enter the battle.

(Heck, that's what keeps us all together!)

But face it. There must be mounting pressure to deliver a RTS version of Civ. Think of Big Huge Games!

So we owe it to those confused and somtimes impressional programmers to once again pave the way to a glorious gaming future.

I am scared of a RTS version of Civ as well.

I am more scared of RTS fans making it than I am of TBS fans doing the work.

That can not be emphasized and repeated enough.

you seem a bunch of folks allergic to 3D RTS to me

ok, TBS is what unites us together here in this forum,
but just face it, RTS has conquered the world, it is VERY VERY popular !

About civ3, the whole thing is about TBS of course, but:
3D is ok for me,
RTS battles, I am not reluctant

Civ should not be 3D. CTP showed how good a Civ game can look. You will never reach that detail in 3D.

Playing in 3D demands some practise with the mouse and getting used to, but when skilled it is and remains great IMO. (and in civ's case it won't be a "click-fest", since you can take your time for everything (except perhaps the RT-battles))

Just my thoughts...