RTS thoughts (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

wodin -> RTS thoughts (3/27/2005 12:09:37 AM)

Ive been considering why some gamers prefer turn based to realtime.

The reason why I think some strategy gamers can't get to grips with RTS is that they prefer a more structured game. RTS really has no structure at all. HTTR is a great game but I find myself playing turn based games rather than HTTR. I boot it up and then just stare at the screen and think can't do it. CC and HTTR run at a perfect pace that has never been beaten and also have the BEST tactical elements. Far better than any other RTS game's before or since. So good they actually played aswell as a turn based game. Infact HTTR and CC are in effect less abstract than turn based so are more realistic, unfortunately this major PRO is destroyed by every other RTS game which degenrate into click fests and have no real tactical emphasis nor realistc settings i.e. LOS and view range in BLITZ for example.

I know that both HTTR and CoTA are and will be superb wargames. The most revolutionary wargames to hit the market for years. I also know I crave the structure of turn based games. Such a shame.



Hanal -> RE: RTS thoughts (3/27/2005 12:53:35 AM)

I am basically inept at RTS games as I do not have the patience for it, so I readily admit that I prefer the more cerebral and measured pace of a turn based game, than the frantic click fest that many RTS games turn into....



Goblin -> RE: RTS thoughts (3/27/2005 1:24:37 AM)

RTS thoughts

Never thought I would see those two words in a sentence together....[;)]



Sarge -> RE: RTS thoughts (3/27/2005 1:31:15 AM)

The BIGGIST problem I have with RTS is the use of tactics employed in the games, Totally unrealistic

HTTR does not suffer from the even being a RTS title,this maybe due to the scale of the game[;)]

As for the CC titles I was never a huge fan , being in the Military during the release and for the most part during the popular years. I have CC5 but find CMAK and CMBB far more a better option to deploy real tactics.

I played CC5 for a time online and found the popular tactic to bed down till the clock was about to run out and mad rush the flag/victory locations. This may have some thing to do with my dis-like of RTS. Try a mad rush on a CM title and see what happens[X(]



Sarge -> RE: RTS thoughts (3/27/2005 1:35:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Goblin

RTS thoughts

Never thought I would see those two words in a sentence together....[;)]


[&o]



DamoclesX -> RE: RTS thoughts (3/27/2005 1:39:05 AM)

I love rts games, turn based strat games just put me to sleep after a while, I just cant see any sort of "real" war being fought in turns lol, it makes no sence.




Sarge -> RE: RTS thoughts (3/27/2005 1:50:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DamoclesX

I love rts games, turn based strat games just put me to sleep after a while, I just cant see any sort of "real" war being fought in turns lol, it makes no sence.




I think your missing the point of turns/wego system. Turn base is meant to take GOD like controls out of your hands/real war.



wodin -> RE: RTS thoughts (3/27/2005 2:13:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DamoclesX

I love rts games, turn based strat games just put me to sleep after a while, I just cant see any sort of "real" war being fought in turns lol, it makes no sence.




First off you need imagination and a strong sense of the scale. Also an obsession with the particular era/conflict/battle helps.
The rewards from many turn based games are very satisfying. Real tactics are needed and a lot of thought, all set at a leisurely pace. You also need to learn the particular games mechanics and the relevant scale.

I find tactical more suited for me as I can see what a squad of men looks like. I can picture 40/50metres of land. I also like games like SB as they have a personnel touch (leaders are named and in historical battles they have the actual name of the men involved, helping in the atmosphere and authenticity). Ive read a book before and then played out the actual battle. On the screen I see men that Ive read about, rally troops and so forth, even being blown away!

Funny enough turn based and wego show real war far better than RTS games. They might have btter graphics but no true realistic gameplay. Though turn based are abstract they are far more realistic than RTS games. Like I said all RTS games pretty much destroy the one thing they have over turn based games and thats the realtime aspect. WEGO is I feel the best sytem for realism because the game sproduced so far are far more in depth than your new weekly RTS game.

Your comment as someone else mentioned does show you have no understanding of the mechanics of turn based games. This isn't ment as some kind of insult in anyway. Anyone who understands the turn based concept wouldn't say that.



DamoclesX -> RE: RTS thoughts (3/27/2005 3:42:43 AM)

Probably true,

The only turn based game I can actually say I really enjoyed(ie was good at) was the xcom games, I swore by those games when they came out.

Games like war in the pacific, and a few others, while awsome(I love playing them just becaues they are so much fun to mess with) are usless for me lol, by turn 4 everything is so beyond messed up that all the enemy has to to is fire some random shots and it all falls apart

Hell in warin the pacific.. I lost ALL my carriers in like one turn lol, ya okay, I didnt know what I was doing.. but STILL lol.




trip89 -> RE: RTS thoughts (3/28/2005 1:28:35 AM)

I think with a good engine an RTS game could use the non-linearity to it's benefit, making the tactics more realistic ect. But that just doesn't happen to often.



Rooster -> RE: RTS thoughts (3/28/2005 5:06:03 AM)

One reason I think HTTR's engine isn't more popular:

Delegation isn't fun for players who want to control every aspect of the game. HTTR is based on delegating tasks to subordinate (AI) commanders, which adds a level of realism unatanable (unless totally abstracted) in turn-based games. How much or how little you communicate in war... such as the following excerpt from U.S. Grant's memoirs concerning Shiloh:

quote:

Wallace did not arrive in time to take part in the first day's fight. General Wallace has since claimed that the order delivered to him by Captain Baxter was simply to join the right of the army, and that the road over which he marched would have taken him to the road from Pittsburg to Purdy where it crosses Owl Creek on the right of Sherman; but this is not where I had ordered him nor where I wanted him to go.

I never could see and do not now see why any order was necessary further than to direct him to come to Pittsburg landing, without specifying by what route. His was one of three veteran divisions that had been in battle, and its absence was severely felt. Later in the war General Wallace would not have made the mistake that he committed on the 6th of April, 1862. I presume his idea was that by taking the route he did he would be able to come around on the flank or rear of the enemy, and thus perform an act of heroism that would redound to the credit of his command, as well as to the benefit of his country.


Having units carry out orders in unexpected ways or fail to do so in the time or manner ordered is something that you can't plan for, and have to react to. HTTR makes that real. Obviously, HTTR has some areas for improvement, but COTA will be a great step forward.



Fred98 -> RE: RTS thoughts (3/30/2005 3:40:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin
The reason why I think some strategy gamers can't get to grips with RTS is that they prefer a more structured game.

I know that both HTTR and CoTA are .........The most revolutionary wargames to hit the market for years. I also know I crave the structure of turn based games.



Yes I agree. Everybody is different. Some personalities are suited to accounting and some to sales.

This same difference is represented in the wargame community by your comment above



quote:

ORIGINAL: J P Falcon
......than the frantic click fest that many RTS games turn into....



The title of this thread is “RTS thoughts” so your comment is fair.

But if the thread stuck to wargaming then “RTS” is not accurate. The word "many" would no longer be valid. Close Combat and HTTR are the only wargames that could remotely compare to RTS.

Neither are a click fest. Suggest you play Close Combat against a human on the slow speed. It runs like a snail. It is the most exciting and tense wargaming there is.




quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge
I played CC5 for a time online and found the popular tactic to bed down till the clock was about to run out and mad rush the flag/victory locations



I feel sorry for you as it sounds like you only played poor opponents. Against good opponents you must use authentic tactics.




quote:

ORIGINAL: DamoclesX
I just cant see any sort of "real" war being fought in turns lol, it makes no sense.



In any game, which is set at the Strategic level or Operational level, any one turn might represent hours days or weeks. Turn based works beautifully. And for busy people, PBEM games is the only way they can play.

At the tactical level decisions are made in seconds or minutes, so turn based doesn’t work so well. But as I said at the top, everybody is different.





MadScot -> RE: RTS thoughts (3/30/2005 5:01:42 AM)

Turn based actually is quite logical at the tactical level too, provided the turn length is attuned to the decision cycle of the forces.

It's the equivalent of digital simulation - all those flight sims don't actually calculate where the aircraft is every single micro second; they calculate at discrete intervals. The intervals are short enough, relative to the natural frequencies of the aircraft, pilot, etc., that the digital nature of the simulation is not relevant to the fidelity of the simulation.

In fact, continuous time simulation (I refuse to use the phrase "real time" as it's basically nonsense except for a few very specific cases) is arguably less realistic than turn based, since it allows for instantaneous command of the troops involved, unless an HttR-like orders delay system is implemented.



old man of the sea -> RE: RTS thoughts (3/30/2005 5:50:40 AM)

MadScot is on to something, all games are turn based in that the game loop is a turn. Real time is not real time, but it can in some settings be much more realistic than turn based, becuase of the quick responce and desision making that are required. HTTR is the best operational game I have seen, because it is real time.

E



Rooster -> RE: RTS thoughts (3/30/2005 6:09:50 AM)


quote:

Turn based actually is quite logical at the tactical level too, provided the turn length is attuned to the decision cycle of the forces.

Logicians would call this "Fallacious Appeal to the Past" - not that anyone is right or wrong, and I agree with Joe that its a matter of preference.

quote:

continuous time simulation (I refuse to use the phrase "real time" as it's basically nonsense except for a few very specific cases) is arguably less realistic than turn based, since it allows for instantaneous command of the troops involved

Not sure how this can be said since continuous time (I like that) more faithfully recreates the loss of opportunity with the passing of time. How does the HTTR orders delay equate to having time literally "stand still" in turn based games while the commander ponders the situation and deliberates over the next moves?

quote:

It's the equivalent of digital simulation - all those flight sims don't actually calculate where the aircraft is every single micro second; they calculate at discrete intervals. The intervals are short enough, relative to the natural frequencies of the aircraft, pilot, etc., that the digital nature of the simulation is not relevant to the fidelity of the simulation.

I would also say that even with blazing fast microprocessor technology, all calculations are discrete, even in RTS. It's all bits and bytes. 0s and 1s. Discrete. Continuous time makes use of microprocessing power to simulate real-time experience.



Sarge -> RE: RTS thoughts (3/30/2005 7:12:46 AM)


Continuous time seems to be the only logical choice for a tactical wargame. But that being said I have yet found a RTS/tactical wargame that models it in a realistic manner.

Anyone that has been in the field let alone in a combat situation knows you have your orders/objective. Nothing is random and with the rare exception changed in mid stride. The consequences of doing so or not for that matter must be weighted/planed,and then sent down the line(runners,radios). All eats up huge amounts of time.

On a tactical scale platoon leaders don't just make up a plan of attack on the run. RTS allows you to change orders on any scale on the run with little to no consequences. In the wego system this is modeled a little more realistic in the sence your stuck with your orders till the next order phase,and even then you have to weight out the consequences of the orders change delay.

A prime example of this is in the scene " Assault of Foy" in Band of Brothers. The consequences of indecision and orders change in mid stride were fell immediately.

[image]local://upfiles/8678/5333FBAF093A421C88AF9C700E80FC55.jpg[/image]



bostonrpgmania -> RE: RTS thoughts (3/31/2005 3:11:21 AM)

This topic has been discussed many times in this forum
So I dont see why this needs to be discussed again

and I think it is a bit unfair to judge RTS from the view point of wargamers who are mainly used to and/or masters of TB system. Master hands of RTS might have quite different views about strategy (most of you might not agree with me at this point) or tactics since they think they have both of them(under the assumption that both players have fast hands so that speed difference does not matter)

Maybe we are worried about demise or decline of TBS genre..and I am worried as well since I love both genre and dont want to see TB to be disappearing.
So I rejoyced to see combat mission since I thought wego system was revolutionary and arguably most reaslistic

It is a matter of personal preference
Every war especially at platoon level is hardly deployed as planned. So it contains some chaotic moments (of course, TB games contains some randomness to represent unexpected events but oh well)

I dont think TB games particulary captures the nature of the war far better than RTS
But I agree that TB games are more structured as in chess and you are in much better control in managing what is happening

To say that RTS is everything about rushing is a bit harsh
since you can think about the way to stop it (of course you might need fast hands and I agree to some degree that fast hand is not the part of strategy. One of the reason why I am not good at, say, warcraft is those crazy micro management in real time) and unit comnbination plays an important role. Ironically, it was not TBS nor RTS when I felt the 'real war'.

For example, even though it is not RTS or TB, I felt the war while I was playing 'call of duty united offensive (not the original but the expansion pack)
I saw the war in that game (I played medal of honor and such but it wasnt as immersive as call of duty--yeah I know that the plot is linear but oh thouse moments when bombs blow up right beside me...)

Games are just games

So if one gets enjoyment, it served its purpose well
thats important to me

I am enjoying the variety


thanks[:)]



Pippin -> RE: RTS thoughts (3/31/2005 5:34:53 AM)

I so do hate rts games these days. Try finding just one game on battle.net where someone isnt using any cheap hack tricks on you. It's just loaded with cheaters.

Not my cup of tea.





wodin -> RE: RTS thoughts (3/31/2005 1:05:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bostonrpgmania

This topic has been discussed many times in this forum
So I dont see why this needs to be discussed again




There is always room for discussion whether its been done before or not. New members join up etc etc.

I started the thread s I felt I had something to say that I havent seen mentioned anywhere else. That of prefering a more structerd approach.



wodin -> RE: RTS thoughts (3/31/2005 1:05:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bostonrpgmania



I dont think TB games particulary captures the nature of the war far better than RTS
But I agree that TB games are more structured as in chess and you are in much better control in managing what is happening





AgainI disagree entirely. The only game to show any kind of realism is HTTR (it does it better than some turn based games, actually it does it as good as turn based games if not better). The next is CC (a fun game that is more realsitc than any other RTS except HTTR but does fall down in several areas). The rest are just for pure fun and in no way show anykind of realism what so ever.



Rat Race -> RE: RTS thoughts (3/31/2005 10:46:51 PM)

like or not rts is the future of wargame and combat simulation. TB games are an anachronism from pre-pc times when the only way to simulate the flow of combat was turns and hexes. You have to concede that hexes and turns have no place in a real (or pseudo-real) time as represented a computer-simulated environment.



Sarge -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/1/2005 12:40:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rat Race

like or not rts is the future of wargame and combat simulation. TB games are an anachronism from pre-pc times when the only way to simulate the flow of combat was turns and hexes. You have to concede that hexes and turns have no place in a real (or pseudo-real) time as represented a computer-simulated environment.



CMX2 is due out in 2006 and im pretty sure we can include that title as a future wargame, and it will be TB.

I am totally unaware of any tactical wargame in development that is a RTS that will be anything but eye canndy. The only hope wargame/RTS had was War Time Command [8|], and we are all well aware of that mess.

Im putting my money on TB in the future



wodin -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/1/2005 1:14:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rat Race

like or not rts is the future of wargame and combat simulation. TB games are an anachronism from pre-pc times when the only way to simulate the flow of combat was turns and hexes. You have to concede that hexes and turns have no place in a real (or pseudo-real) time as represented a computer-simulated environment.


Not that simple.

I prefer the structured gameplay of turn based and WEGO. RTS can simulate in a more realsitic fashion BUT the games are stuck in a bad rut. They ruin the main thing they have over turn based and thats realism. The games are usually arcade in nature and whilst fun do not really tax the brains nor show any real tactical bent. Also no matter how good an RTS game might be I'd always prefer the slower style of turn based. SO many decisions usually ned to be mad ehwilst playing a wargame that turn based is the only way to manage it. In real life no commander has such total control of his forces as RTS games have. They issue the general orders and then leave the rest upto their subordinate commanders oand so on and so forth. Turn based gives you time to manage the whole battle. EVen the tavtical level doesn't work well at RTS on awhole. Again even at Comapny COmmander level the C/O doesnt baby sit every squad under his command he gives the plan then lets teh various platoon commanders to follow it then it goes down to the squad/section leader. Most wargame demands that you fill several roles and though it can work in turn based it can't in RTS.

The only RTS game to do this well is HTTR. To behoenst your not going to get an influx of this style. The RTS aspect has put many people of buying it who would actually enjoy the game. So anyone who sets out on this route is running a financial risk.



Rooster -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/1/2005 4:58:09 AM)

Personally, I am more a fan of continuous time (CT) games.

What is it that TB games provide that is so enjoyable?

The arguments for TB seem to be:


  • Leisurely pace, with the ability to start and stop the game
  • Deep game system, with enough details and rules to make it realistic
  • Realistic outcomes (severe penalties for ahistorical and/or gamey tactics)
  • Historical units and tactics
  • The ability to control every aspect of the battle
  • Interesting engagements
  • A range of possible strategies and tactics


What do each of the above provide at a psychological level? Absolute control (insofar as your ability to command goes)? Realistic frameworks to think out and execute a strategy? The opportunity to live in a history-defining moment and to make the difference one way or the other?




MadScot -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/1/2005 6:08:14 AM)

quote:

The arguments for TB seem to be:


  • Leisurely pace, with the ability to start and stop the game
  • Deep game system, with enough details and rules to make it realistic
  • Realistic outcomes (severe penalties for ahistorical and/or gamey tactics)
  • Historical units and tactics
  • The ability to control every aspect of the battle
  • Interesting engagements
  • A range of possible strategies and tactics


I'd say #1 is important compared to the mad rush that most 'RTS' games turn into. There's no reason why the others can't be part of a 'CT' game - but the 'RTS' model right now is, as stated, arcadey. And a good TB game won't give you total control - minatures games, which are TB, have e.g. moral and orders type models which restrict absolute control in historical fashion.

To me it's more that the TB games have got a reputation for being more cerebreal, so their audience tends to end up that way because it's a self fulfilling thing. Just like the tendency of RTS games to put 'fun' above 'realism' means that the 'realism' crowd turn up their nose at ANY 'RTS' - so no-one sees any need to make a realistic RTS anyway, as there's no demand for one....



Rooster -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/2/2005 5:32:41 AM)

Thanks for your thoughts MadScott. EYSA isn't one that many mention, but that is RTS (CT) and that offers a level a realism way above the C&C clones. Interestingly, downloaded the demo again and there's an option to have the game automatically pause every 60 seconds. It's a blend of both worlds I guess... much more like CM...

[image]local://upfiles/2243/D97659F025AD404EB69D922AA22EA3AB.gif[/image]

In the above, an FJ MG42 team wiped out my AB engineers, but you can see through the smoke I dropped, that a large flanking force is about to force them to withdraw.



ravinhood -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/2/2005 10:52:20 PM)

quote:

Try a mad rush on a CM title and see what happens


No chit Sherlock, the CM series is the best out there for providing the more realistic aspect of warfare. Instead of "grunt" rushes to victory, although I'm sure somewhere in ancient history there were a few historical "grunt" rushes, but, wasn't widely accepted as the strategy and tactics of choice. ;)

I like the Kohan series of RTS since it doesn't employ the thousands or 100's of units on the map battle system. It uses "groups up to 8 men in a group and only 20 groups total at a time on the map. The speed is just right for me and I don't feel I'm rushing around the map to play a clickfest of a game. Although one can get caught up in the battles just watching them play out and forget to continue to build up infrastructure (I'm guilty of this a lot lol). Also it takes a considerable amount of time to even get 20 groups onto the map, I'd say 7-10 groups being the norm as the middle game gets underway. And I think just about anyone can handle 7 to 10 groups of units fairly easily with this time system they use.

The battle speed is just right so that if you are attacked from a grunt rush you have enough time (not forever but sufficient I think) to deploy a reinforcement group to save the day. It is soooooooo much different from the likes of Age of Emires or Dawn of Empires or Rise of Nations etc. etc. that are for sure nothing more than kiddie clickfests.

There's no micromanagement of wood, iron, gold, saltpeter lol, etc. etc. either. You want wood, you build a wood mine and that's that, you don't have to build any peasants to go chop it and bring it to your city hall. Same with the other three resources, iron, gold and mana. Just one click (if you can afford it) and in a few seconds you have increased resources. I think it's the best streamlined RTS out there that doesn't have the feel of a clickfest and I'm a pretty strong critic of RTS games. I hate em all mostly. hehe

For the most part I will stick to "organized" turn based games or the wego system. I'm not even a fan of simultanious movement because it causes too much griping online about "lag" allowing players an advantage (with high speed connections) with simultanious movement to the point you have to give a 15 second delay "notice" to the player you are attacking. lol Now that is rediculous in warfare games. It's no wonder that simultanious movement games online are not popular. But, then again turn based games online aren't very popular either, the time consumption of these monster games like HOMM, Civilization series, Age of Wonders, just to name a few, keeps the population pretty low. But, the advantage of these games; PBEM is very popular in most turn based or wego games.

Long live turn based and wego games and down with RTS kiddiefied clickfests. :) (now I shall duck from the onslaught of rts lovers) lol



DamoclesX -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/3/2005 2:59:32 AM)

Try Act of War

A lot of people like to crap on it cause it plays like generals, but its 10 times better.

Most of the people crying about rushes in that game consist of morons fighting morons who dont know anything else to do.

My buddy and I played online for a long time and we tryed out all those "rush" tactics, and using the us army I was ALWAYS able to stop an overwelming tank rush with proper armor tactics.

I would use a line of m1a2's flanked by bradlys and backed up with paladins and mrls for ground combat, I also had snipers and infantry mixed in there for support in addition to backing up that division with apaches in the air and f15s and a10s on call.

He could send 3x the number of units at me and Id bust him up every time just because of the coverage of fire, also, I would have repair choppers on call, and medi helocopters taking away the wounded and flying in new recruits, it was just like a real war, hell in the city part of the map I had a black hawk down(literly) loaded with delta force!! rather expensive infantry, what started with 5 guys trying to get to cover and be rescued ended up in a10 strikes, more blackhawks comming in with backup, f15s flying over head and eventually b2s and a damn nuclear strike before it was all sorted out!.

I love the game, its so much fun, I think it does the most relistic urban combat ever!, that army, while kicking ass in the open, can be taken apart piece of piece in urban combat, you have shield units running down allys hitting you and fleeing befor your turrents come around, you have infantry in the buildins sniping you every damn block, its intense!!

And, you can call in b2s to level the white house, I mean come on! what more do you want lol.

Not to mention, unlike generals, there is no super uber anything, everything from infantry to nuclear missiles has a counter.



Bossy573 -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/3/2005 3:09:38 AM)

quote:

The only RTS game to do this well is HTTR.


What is HTTR?

I glanced at Act of War a few times. Maybe I should take a closer look.



Bossy573 -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/3/2005 3:24:16 AM)

Never mind, answered my own question. When I think RTS, I'm thinking C&C and that ilk. I know Highway has recd. rave reviews but I never looked at it that closely.
There are times when I'm in the mood to just "blow stuff up" in purty lookin' games and at that those times games like Codename Panzers, Sudden Strike, etc. are OK. The bottom line is they usually bore me after a while. But they are easier to fire up and play than turn based games so I'll always have one or 2 around.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.609375