Real-time vs. Turn-based (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Sierra -> Real-time vs. Turn-based (11/6/2001 8:44:00 AM)

I am sorta new to the wargaming scene...well, thats not entirely true. I would consider myself a "novice" player, but have tinkered for 15 years...mostly with turn-based games. When Close Combat (ABTF) came out, I was amazed, and really saw how great real-time is for wargaming. As a matter of fact, if I remember correctly, a review for ABTF goes into some interesting detail about how real-time is preferable to the reviewer(GamesDomain.com, I believe). Just recently, I found myself with enough time to download the demo for an excellent real-time WWII game (I don't know if I should name it or not) and think it is totally awesome. I am also considering downloading version 7 of SP:WaW when it becomes available (I have a very very slow connection, so I would rather wait for 7 then spend 3 or 4 days getting 6.1). I was wondering from you turn-based hobby-ists, what are some of the pros and cons of turn based as opposed to real-time? I seem to have a strong preference for real-time, but am quite happy to download and play SP:WaW...so I am not really looking to be talked into it Just wondering...am I missing something obvious? Is there perhaps a FAQ or web-page that might discuss this very topic? Sierra



RichardTheFirst -> (11/6/2001 10:45:00 AM)

Well I'm also a fan of Close Combat and it is really a good game but very different. The major differences in my oppinion is that at Close Combat you need to plan your strategy carefully but then it more or less resumes to how well you master the controls of the game. Also you have only 15 units to manage againts other 15.
Fast reaction and attention are the key words. But the details of the units and formations are not even close to the level reached here by Matrix. Here there is lot more units to command and it is a much more reallistic game in the sense the units are closer to what they were, the formations, the weapons, etc, etc. Here you play scenarios that simulate real battles that actually were fought. Or you can just play a random map by e-mail. It is turned based but with the opportunity fire and other features you not that far from real time. I guess here all single actions have more though behind it without loosing the "action". I could write a book about this game for I'm in love with it but I think the best is for you to try. You will regret only you didn't know this game before. "Vini, vidi, vinci" - Iulius Cæsar



Tombstone -> (11/6/2001 12:12:00 PM)

There are some who are vehemently opposed to real-time games. I am not. I feel that most real-time games aren't about tactical combat, (which is probably why turn-based old-timers aren't into them) they tend to make an effort toward creating a game experience that is fun, enjoyable, and an interesting challenge. The last part is the tricky part since an 'interesting challenge' can be found in many ways. I'm not certain how the specific developers feel about their games, but from my standpoint most of the games rely on creating a situation that floods the players with an organizational task that goes far beyond what is reasonable and that this is a GOOD thing. It makes the most important element of the game the player's attention. You take a simple system where both sides follow the same rules mixed with some play-testing/balancing and you can get a decent result. This method goes counter to the concept of tactical wargaming, the behavior that wins is a product of the system rather than making a system that rewards the behaviors we're interested in practicing (mobile warfare, positional warfare, maneuver and fire, etc.) It's a complex topic, and taken from differing standpoints results in widely differing explanations, but I think in the end we'll end up with some bitchin' real-time war simulations...
(man, I hate typing that much and not re-reading for typos... hope it makes sense.) Tomo



nyarlathotep -> (11/6/2001 1:47:00 PM)

Sierra if you need a copy of SPWAW and it takes too long to d/l, email me postee0@netscape.net I can burn one for you and mail it. I assume you are in Austin, TX?



pax27 -> (11/6/2001 8:21:00 PM)

A short one. I feel that any realtime based strategy game in the end is just about who can move the mouse and click the most the fastest. Maybe I´m just slow, but this is the way it´s turned out for _me_ in most cases.



Tom Terror -> (11/6/2001 10:41:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by pax27:
A short one. I feel that any realtime based strategy game in the end is just about who can move the mouse and click the most the fastest. Maybe I´m just slow, but this is the way it´s turned out for _me_ in most cases.
Yes, thats the very reason realtime strategy doesn't turn me on.
I like to think about the next move and I usually spend a rather long time considering all possible options. That would make me probably a very poor commander in real life. (By the time I get my plans sorted out - all my men will be already overrun.)
For me its more like playing chess.
Turn based suits me very well - I just hate rash decicions.
TomT



halstein -> (11/6/2001 11:28:00 PM)

It is much easier to eat pizza when you play a turnbased game. I also feel that RTS is mor a test of dexterity (with the mouse and key-board), than of tactics/strategy.



Tombstone -> (11/7/2001 12:44:00 AM)

I disagree that it is a genre who's skill is BASED on dexterity. Certainly it helps, and all things being equal a faster, more accurate mouse handler has an advantage, but RTS games are about what you choose to pay attention to. If your opponent is spending time dealing with more important matters more of the time he will win. It's not so much that a person is going too slow as much as it is an issue of not dealing with the most important situations first. Tomo



Sierra -> (11/7/2001 1:20:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by pax27:
A short one. I feel that any realtime based strategy game in the end is just about who can move the mouse and click the most the fastest. Maybe I´m just slow, but this is the way it´s turned out for _me_ in most cases.
First, thanks guys for your responses I was worried about posting this question...afraid it may be a catalyst to a flame war. With regards to pax27's post, the game demo I downloaded is more of a "we-go" rather then a turn-based game...sort of a nice mix between real-time and turn-based...no dexterity involved. That, for me, is the biggest draw, and I believe I read somewhere that Matrix's next offering will be "we-go". I find that much preferable to some turn-based games where it is quite easy to abuse the system. So, that, really is what I am looking for an answer to: in what ways does SP:WaW prevent (or penalize) attempts to take advantage of the system? Like, running a jeep around absorbing as much of the enemy's "target-of-opportunity" shots before moving some more valuable assets forward... Sierra



Tom Terror -> (11/7/2001 4:45:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Sierra:
First, thanks guys for your responses I was worried about posting this question...afraid it may be a catalyst to a flame war. With regards to pax27's post, the game demo I downloaded is more of a "we-go" rather then a turn-based game...sort of a nice mix between real-time and turn-based...no dexterity involved. That, for me, is the biggest draw, and I believe I read somewhere that Matrix's next offering will be "we-go". I find that much preferable to some turn-based games where it is quite easy to abuse the system. So, that, really is what I am looking for an answer to: in what ways does SP:WaW prevent (or penalize) attempts to take advantage of the system? Like, running a jeep around absorbing as much of the enemy's "target-of-opportunity" shots before moving some more valuable assets forward... Sierra
As easy as that: a jeep simply doesn't absorb any "target-of-opportunity" shots because it gets blown by the first hit. Usually.
And you still don't know where it came from. TomT



generalrichmond -> (11/7/2001 7:32:00 PM)

Hey Sierra, I understand what you are getting at. First, they have placed a few things in the game that will hurt a player for doing some of that. But it is still possible to some extent. I think the player that attempts to portray and utilize accurate tactics in this game is rewarded more often than not. They don't get that feeling of 'cheating'. So there are various levels of playing out there and I'm sure they'll still be people who try to do all that.



pax27 -> (11/7/2001 8:44:00 PM)

To some extent the op-fire absorbation can be justified. An anti tank crew wouldn´t just hang around to wait for a Tiger to appear if they have some PzIII´s to fire at, and I wouldn´t spearhead my most valuable troops and equipment just for the fun of it.
And SPWaW just throws op-fire around anyway, I´ve had tanks fire five or so times of op-fire on my troops quit often.
Look at it this way, the old ´n slow pizza eaters like turn-based and the square eyed crowd born in the 80´s can cope with real-time



melcer -> (11/7/2001 9:47:00 PM)

I must say that I preffer turn-based games over real-time ones since I want some time to plan and make my moves. As Sierra mentioned there's some problems with turned based systems as nothing happens simultaneously (SP?), this combined with OP fire results in some strange situations and tactics.
I realy look forward to try a real good We-Go tactical wargame since I think that combined with good troop AI (for troop reactions during action phase) probably removes some of the problems I see in turn-based systems. As General mentioned thay have introduced many good things that limit some of the OP fire problems the major one I think is the OP-fire confirmation. The problem is that that function doesn't work in PBEM which hurt me a lot in my last battle (and some bad tactics/decisions ).
In all: I like turn-based games but don't like that things doesn't happens simultaneously. See forward to try a WEGO game. Melcer



Croaker -> (11/8/2001 12:08:00 AM)

I have a long hstory with turn-based including some of the incredibly complex multi-p;hase turn-based board games that SPI and others used to make. I like turn-based because I can deal with more complex situations. I have attempted to get with the modern times and have bought five highly rated RTS games over the past year. All of them are too much like arcade games for my taste. I find myself running here and there to try to keep the different actions going. Ultimately I am limited by my span of control: how much I can be aware of and hold in short term memory at once. Possibly I am just to damn old to get into them but they all seem like Pac-Man with swords or bazookas. I have never really had a definitive experience with a simultaneous movement game. Possibly these will be more realistic or fun. I am looking foreward to some of Matrix releases. It would seem that you could actually run a strategic-level game on simultaneous moves if you had enough time between turns to make sure all the details were going right.
In the long-term however people tend to look for more and more complex toys. I believe that the RTS players of today will want something more challenging in the future.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (11/8/2001 6:31:00 AM)

I think RTS games were made with Chiropractors in mind for my money. I have played a few "mouse games" and my wrists always end up losing out. And guys my wrists get lots of exercise in other ways, so them mouse games have to be damn abusive to hurt me. As for real world attention levels, well real world is a poor anology. All them real world people being people after all, all come with their own individual operating systems called brains hehe. Training also helps as well. Now it would be nice if them pixel people all came with previous training and self controlling autonomy that I could give orders to when I thought my ideas were better. Thats it in a nutshell why I support Turn Based. Its not because I am into micromanagement, I just accept that those pixel people wont think for them selves independently consistently and constantly. Its perhaps dull to some and slow. But at least you the User get to limit random acts of stupidity or inactivity (because you told them nothing).



AmmoSgt -> (11/8/2001 8:05:00 AM)

I tend to think of RTS games as human assisted AI vs AI when playing against the computer and assisted AI v assisted AI when against humans .. I prefer human on machine or human on human and let the computer handle the bookkeeping which it is actually good at .. Realism is not even an issue in RTS games unless the Human span of control is observed ..and in Military Terms Span of control is 3 to 5 elements depending on the level and experience of the leader ..anything more is considered detrimental to effective command ..realistically speaking



Sierra -> (11/9/2001 1:36:00 AM)

Just to be clear: I don't consider most "highly rated RTS" games to have anything to do with strategy wargaming. I am more interested in simulating a battlefield....complete with the pressures and stresses of command. A battlefield commander doesn't have all day to make the decisions that a turn-based game gives him....which is why I enjoyed CC:ABTF so much. I have very high hopes for the we-go system...while it does offer tons of time for the decisions to be made, it offers the opportunity for simultanious movement, which is a step closer to "realism" in my opinion. So, back to the question: is there perhaps a FAQ or web page that discusses the details of this argument from both sides? I don't feel like my opinion is "mature" enough, being such a novice at wargaming...but I also take the complaints regarding "RTS" games with a grain of salt, because I consider them to have little or nothing to do with real wargaming. In my experience, there are always ways of pausing them or slowing time down to the extent that you can avoid the "click-fest" feel to it, anyway. The game demo I was referring to was Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord. Anyone have any opinions on that title? Sierra



Tombstone -> (11/9/2001 3:16:00 AM)

Combat mission is a great game. I don't know if there is a website devoted to the objective analysis of the argument "RTS vs. Turn based". The discussion floats around here occasionally, but usually people are for or against and just kinda rant. The entire paradigm of the standard RTS just doesn't have anything to do with wargaming as we know it. It's two different languages altogether. I dream of a game that supports large scale multi-player where each person controls a company of troops/tanks/etc and you get to participate in a big battle in real time... I think it would be great. Real-time wargames have to be created from the ground up with the concept of being a wargame rather than a real-time strategy game. Tomo Tomo



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.375