I can see a great game with real-time diplomacy, that is something I crave. I love turn based but real-time would add a whole new dimension to the game.

I believe that the diplomacy should work like "Diplomacy's" diplomacy, you sit in a room and plot with other leaders.

Meanwhile you set the cities on -Military Governor -City Build-up Governor -Expansion Governor etc. like in SMAC.

Civilization II-class game could never be conditioned to be a RTS game simply because if you were playing on Eurasia you would be instantly be killed by an AI which would be killed... This would happen until all but one civ has killed everyone thah they can reach. The AI could order its one settler to scour the entire continent of Europe, Asia and Africa in one nanosecond because of its computing abilities to tell its settler to move over and over again. An older computer would have a heart attack, a younger one would crash.

Overtaxed CPU + RTS Civ III = Pile of ashes

The Civ series was built on a TBS engine and I hope it remains that way. There is absolutely no reason to shift to real time.

***Civers gathering around DarkCloud, chanting "Stake! Stake! Stake!".***

Take this for example:
The governors produce (SMART) units and build (SMART) improvements while you fight a battle or you could automate the units to fight a battle for you while you micromange.

It would be a new genre, a new revolution in RTS gaming it would be the Strategic Conquest genre where you would act like a general.
Take Empire Earth for an example.

I will refuse to buy it if its Real Time *pouts*

Seriously a few RTS elements couldn't hurt the mildly stale TBS genre.

------------------
King Par4!!

Can you imagine playing a rush game of StarCraft with 15 bases!!!! It would be insane!!!!

Nope. I got to agree with everyone else and say that no RTS Civ 3. It would be too different. If you actually fought the battles in RT then that would be cool but would take several hours to play 1 turn of the WW2 scenario from Civ 2 so that's out.

Anyway just my 2 cents.

RTS games get good results with tactical games, better if "scenario based". I think is unfair to compare how quick is a computer to click on units against a human, just to hidden how patetic AI is

In my opinion, the best replacement to TBS is still Simultaneous turn of play , as has been proposed into the Essential Civ III list some months ago.

It got some attention and support from other Apolytoner here (and some opposition, too), and let to build quite a good model for a multiplayer CIV.

Disclaimer: it was my proposal, so I'm not impartial about it

Real time??? If done right it could work. I don't know why so many hate real time. Real time is a mans game. Sorry Empress, you know what I mean

With real time we could seperate the REAL GOOD player from the good players who are good only because they know every freakin loop hole in the old turn based piece of crap slow ass MP CIV II we have now...

Majesty is a very good example of what happens if you put a somewhat complex game into RT mold: a total fiasco.

RTS is not good for Civ. I like to play RTS sometimes. I played a lot Dune2, Warkraft2, Age of Kings or somehow different RTSs like Rairoad Tycoon. These are all great games, but they are all very simple games compared with Civ.
There's no way to micromanage 20-30 cities, do research, fight war, make trade and diplomacy, and beyond all this THINK and PLAN your next move (whatever move it is: build city/make peace/build fortress/send spy/build caravan/make revolution/trade research/capture enemy city/...), all this in real time. It's a nightmare, not a fun game.

Let me say right up front that I personally have no use for RTS games, at least as they're currently done. I believe that RTS games currently available are more Real-Time Tactics games. One thing we are trying to do in The Clash of Civilizations is have an option for a real RTS* game where Strategic decisions must be made quickly against a resourceful opponent. This approach would torque the usual RTS genre into a regieme where the person that can formulate good strategy quickly, rather than play the interface like a piano, would have the advantage. This seems like an intriguing concept to me. To pull it off you really need good AI so that you can trust your orders to be executed well. We're working very hard to get AI that is much better than the industry standard.

Sorry for the infomercial... we now return you to your regularly scheduled flame-o-rama

* To avoid confusion, Clash is being designed Primarily as a TBS game, but with short timed turns it could approximate an RTS game.

Civ 3 RTS..?

1) Benefits the player who is best at clickfest;

2) Requires the game to be simple, not complex.

Civ3 should be complex. Therefore RTS will not work, if applied to the whole game as other standard RTS games are.

It might work under 2 conditions:

1) RTS was actually timed TBS turns (as Mark E said);

2) It was limited to tactical battles in a sub-game battle map.

I am NOT saying that Civ 3 should be RTS, I am saying that they should release two games Civ 3 and Civilization Real Time Strategy.

This double release would make the Civilization Genre richer.

Also I like Turn-Base just as much as Real-Time.
My favorite games of all time are
-Rollercoaster Tycoon (Real-Time)
-Civilization II (Turn Base)
-Age of Empires (Real-Time)
-Alpha Centauri (Turn Base)

Also, listen to this.
CORNMASTER-

To cut down on the rushes imagine, a system like Age of empires, the units take time to build/recruit and based on the size of your city they will take either shorter or longer.
Cities grow the same way as before with agricultural supplies.

Your units would be produced and moved on the grid. Yes the screen would be a grid, I have considered other options and they would not work with cities and agriculture.

Diplomacy would stop the game and you would enter in to talks (A la Diplomacy) with 1-7 of the others and make worldwide decisions (A la Alpha Centauri) between yourselves.

TIBERIUS-

Of course you would be able to pause the game. Also the governors would be advanced AI, such as the type planned for Reach for the Stars, I believe, you could set them much like Alpha Centauri. With Grow, Build, Conquer, Explore, Espionage buttons.

Say for example Neighbor A declares war on you, you would send your units towards his borders (A la Alpha Centauri) where they might encounter his troops. The unit fighting would be much the same as Civ II's with the status bar and the units moving like Alpha Centauri's over hills etc, with three frames of animation. (Not too much) the units would not have time to retreat and recuperate if another enemy unit attacked. P.S. the AI would NOT move lighting quick, you see the AI could be controlled by a speed button 1-10 with 1 being slow and 10 being fast with 5 being normal human speed.

A real time game where all you get to do is to make the top level decisions. If you want an explorer to explore, you don't get to direct the unit's every move. All you can do is either:

• point out a direction; or


• select a destination

Cities grow by a set of rules and things just sort of happen.

Sim Civ or Civilization Manager or whatever it would be called could also be run in the way Shogun: Total War is to prevent tank rushes and such.

Frankly, my opinion is simple.

*RTS games are good, almost as good TBS.
*But it would be impossible to adapt civ3 into an RTS without having to change EVERYTHING.
*Then it wouldn't be Civ3 anymore. So you might as well be playing just another RTS game.

Good to be back, but unfortunately I won't be able to post as frequently as I used to

Case Closed.

why?...having 100days passing though my fingers per secound is even more stupid the the Turn based emulation of time. Besides, it would become unplayable as you expand (either not enough time for late game micro or long and boring early game waiting for that settler to be build....)

1) Extend the length of turns. You could define a turn as a given length of game-time in years. Each player plays until that number of years is up, then the 'turn' is over.

2) Include detailed time controls. My big issue with RTS Civ3 is the lack of micromanagement that would be possible; you'd be too rushed to properly manage the details of your empire. This would be greatly alleviated if you could speed up, slow down and completely pause time at will. This might also make it necessary to include a time limit on how long you can spend in real time for a given turn, in multiplayer games.

That is precisely what I was talking about in my earlier posts, you could adjust the time of your turns say from 1(slow)-5(humantime)-10(fast)

This would allow for an Age of Empires like system with elements of Seven Kingdoms, Shogun and Majesty thrown in.

Say your building governor or yourself tells your city to build a settler, the settler is built, you send him out to found a city. He encounters an enemy who wants to talk. Flash to diplo screen. You reason out a peace treaty and afterwards found that city.

Meanwhile your first city is building phalanxes in the build que you created or one that the governor created for you. Say the screen looks like this
Build Que
---------
1. Phalanx
2. Phalanx
3. Temple
4. City Walls
5. Settler
6. Chariot

meanwhile you can use a warrior which you built earlier to explore, you create a route by clicking on destanation points and 'viola!' the warrior explores.

Any Questions? Comments? Ideas (This would be best. All I get are comments, ideas would help more.)

What you propose would make the developement for Civ III longer than normal and would raise prices.