21-09-2004 00:28									#1
	TBSs need a shot in the arm, here's how. Full PM-box? Change here!

Talk of TBS graphics (or lack there of) in the Musings thread got me thinking. There are always a load of complaints about the graphics in TBS games, which I always have seen as silly. The TBS is the epitome of game play. The way I always saw it, graphics were the polar opposite of game play. But why does that have to be so with the level of technology today.

So my mind wandered to other TBS style games and I remember the old classic Battle Chess (a legit, freebie download here). Why can't TBSs be more like this? Give us a little show, even if you have to run the combat in another screen. Then I thought "why stop there?" and I remembered and even older game called "Varloc". Varloc was basically chess, except instead of just capturing a square, you had to fight for it. So when your piece captured a square you would go into a battle view in which you'd duke it out with primitive wire frame chess pieces for control of the square. It turned chess into a strategy/action game! Loads of fun.

Natural progression leads us to a SMAC strategy style game with an action component when you contest for a tile. So if two jets meet in combat, you switch into a battle screen and have a dogfight. Or if two armies meet, you go into a FPS style interface and shoot each other down. Combat of course would be modified by the quality of your troops, facilities, terrain, etc.
This would certainly bring more people and breathe new life into the TBS genre.

	21-09-2004 02:06									#2
	Re: TBSs need a shot in the arm, here's how. Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by livid imp The TBS is the epitome of game play. The way I always saw it, graphics were the polar opposite of game play.

I agree whole-heartedly. I don't play chess for the graphics - I play it for the cerebral challenge of what was presented by the "pieces" on the board.

quote: Originally posted by livid imp But why does that have to be so with the level of technology today. So my mind wandered to other TBS style games and I remember the old classic Battle Chess Why can't TBSs be more like this? Give us a little show, even if you have to run the combat in another screen.

I used to play a TBS game called "Deadlock" which placed several human and alien civ's on a planet, and everyone would try to conquer the planet much like in SMAC(X). The difference was when you attacked an enemy city, you designated which of your military units (infantry, aircraft, missiles, etc.) attacked which of the enemies defenses. Then, when you were finished with this phase you then weer taken to a screen which showed you the battle as it progressed.

quote: Originally posted by livid imp Natural progression leads us to a SMAC strategy style game with an action component when you contest for a tile. So if two jets meet in combat, you switch into a battle screen and have a dogfight. Or if two armies meet, you go into a FPS style interface and shoot each other down. Combat of course would be modified by the quality of your troops, facilities, terrain, etc. This would certainly bring more people and breathe new life into the TBS genre.

I agree it would give more life to our genre, as a lot of people really like that "eye candy". However, personally I'd rather see a better, enhanced AI. My $0.02.


D

	21-09-2004 03:53									#3
	Tired of ads?

I agree that TBS needs a shot in the arm. Graphics are definately the way to do that. Even the blockhead crowd would try to learn a game that had real eye-appeal, and the blockhead crowd is what pays for the games in the end. Unfortunately for developers, the mass-market also tends to pay for game development in the beginning; Moreso with the publishers all being gobbled up by the evil empires of big-business. The publishers sponsor the development of a game (thinking of Troika and ToEE right now), and if they say "Dumb it down", it gets dumbed down, or no money for the developers.

The issue right now, I think, is that the big publishers have only looked at what sells the most games: FPS, RTS, and of course, the Sims. These dwarf even Civilization. So they say to themselves: "There isn't as much money in strategy games, so we won't put as much into them", which is perfectly reasonable on their part. But these big companies own all the resources, all the publishing houses, etc., so high-quality graphics hardly ever make it into TBS games. Until this pyramid/monopoly scheme is broken, I don't think we'll see any more games of the quality of SMAC, sad to say. Let alone of a better quality.

But you are right. If the publishers took a chance and invested lots of money in adding high quality graphics to a more complex strategy game, they'd make money just as well as they do in RTS or FPS games. But we're in a downward spiral, and none of the big companies have the courage to take this 'risk' very often. Look what happens to most of the strategy games the big-guns do sponsor: They get watered down and made into pre-school level crud, all because the publishers are pressuring the developers to dumb it down. My guess is that the next great TBS will be from a start-up developer with independent money, and the muscle to get published somehow.

The real stumper is the need for any game to be simple enough that the general public buy it, not just us die-hard TBS fans. They have to make money. While this doesn't preclude a company from making a game deep, with a simpler superficial level for the blockheads, and a complex level for the die-hards, it seems the most development money goes towards mass-market appeal as a game is dictated by the big spenders to the development team. It would drive me crazy to have to dumb down a game I'd been developing, especially knowing I'd be losing my best fans by doing it.

GalCiv is a nice company model for putting out a game aimed (in hindsight though I think ) at the die-hards for game-play sake. It's not a great game, but imagine if it were really big buget. It would have been as good as MOO II, or better. Certainly MOO II made money, just not in the league of the RTS games, so no more money. Damn.

	21-09-2004 04:36									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Ah, Deadlock. I remember that game. Only ever had the demo though and Accolade seems to have vanished into the aether. Funny that I used to play the Ch'Cht but now I'm a money-grubbing Morganite.

Ah, Battlechess. The rook eating the queen is classic.

The thing is though, wasn't Civ3 mostly graphics? The real trouble is finding the balance.

	21-09-2004 04:44									#5
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by smacksim Look what happens to most of the strategy games the big-guns do sponsor: They get watered down and made into pre-school level crud

**cough** Civ3 **cough**

	21-09-2004 04:58									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by #endgame Ah, Battlechess. The rook eating the queen is classic.

And pawn takes knight with a knee to the groin It was rather irreverent for its day. Then there was king takes queen. The queen starts to attack the king and the king whips out a pistol and guns her down in Indiana Jones casual style. Loved that game....til I saw all the animations anyway.

quote: Originally posted by #endgame The thing is though, wasn't Civ3 mostly graphics? The real trouble is finding the balance.

No the real problem with Civ3 wasn't the graphics. Civ3 was dumbed down to appeal to a simpler gamer, your Starcraft/Diablo/Quake3 types. I remember a lot of old Civ2 players would complain about SMAC being too complex.

	21-09-2004 08:54									#7
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I know what you're saying about the graphics, and adding some FPS to dog fights etc. ....but I'd bet that in a short time you/we'd all skip them, for the turn would be very long. We'd end up playing the game much as is is now.

Having said that, I'm all for better graphics in this game. I just don't any good ideas at this time.

	21-09-2004 21:44									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by fender I know what you're saying about the graphics, and adding some FPS to dog fights etc. ....but I'd bet that in a short time you/we'd all skip them

You wouldn't skip them anymore than people skip the stockpile engergy bug. I am not simply talking about a cut scene of a dog fight. I am talking you are in control of the one of the jets/soliders, doing the fighting, as is your opponet. Skipping the fighting would give your opponent an advantage.

Of course this would be an option which could be turned off for those that don't want an action element added to the game.

	22-09-2004 13:16									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by livid imp I am not simply talking about a cut scene of a dog fight. I am talking you are in control of the one of the jets/soliders, doing the fighting, as is your opponet. Skipping the fighting would give your opponent an advantage. Of course this would be an option which could be turned off for those that don't want an action element added to the game.

So... would this be an optional tactical detail screen, like in Imperialism?

'Cause if its an option to turn it off, that would eliminate the AI's "advantage." Plus what fender said about turn length.

I have to be in a certain mood for FPS. Give me god's-eye divine rule any day of the week!!

GFC

	22-09-2004 21:58									#10
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by girlfight_club So... would this be an optional tactical detail screen, like in Imperialism?

I assume so. I must confess, I have never played Imperialism.

quote: Originally posted by girlfight_club 'Cause if its an option to turn it off, that would eliminate the AI's "advantage." Plus what fender said about turn length.

Sure the turn length might increase, but so what. I am less concerned about total time to play a game (after all I have an Everquest character) and more concerned about the quality of that time spent. Who cares if it takes more time to play if you are loving every minute of it. Besides, there is a option to turn it off. No harm, no foul.

quote: Originally posted by girlfight_club I have to be in a certain mood for FPS. Give me god's-eye divine rule any day of the week!!

If you ask me (which you have implictly be reading this thread), immersion is the one thing sorely missing from TBSs. This was one of the greatest parts of SMAC. The SP cut scenes, the quotes/voice-overs on the new technologies, the help and info windows being presented as the "datalinks". Well, it is time to push the boundries even further.

I bought SMAC almost the day it was released (something I normally never do), played it until I got sucked in to Everquest. A few years later I emerged from the NeverRest blackhole and began playing SMAC again. The first thing I thought of was, "They need to make this a MMOG." I thought this because EverCrack was so immersive and addicting, and a game of SMAC's quality deserves that kind of a feeling.

Eventually, FPSs will develop the stratgey elements of TBSs. Eventually RTS fans will realise that the guy with the fastest wrist always wins and get bored. Until all of this, I hope to see TBSs take a step forward and add some RPG and FPS elements to their genre.

	26-09-2004 08:33									#11
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I can live with less than stellar graphics, but SMAC was way behind the curve when it was released. This was by a company with a creative force that almost single handedly created the genre. Had any other company come out with the game, they would have been torn apart by reviewers and the buying public alike. Make no mistake, SMAC is a great game, but I feel that it suffered from the passable graphics. They don't need to try to look like RTS games, that's not the idead, but they could look much better. They need to be more accessable to the public at large and better visuals is one way to do it. They need to be easier to play, right out of the box. If I have to spend hours just to figure out how to move on the board, I'll put the game away and take out a tried and true title. They need to try something other than every what every other game is presently doing, or has done in the past.
Overall, there is a lack of originality in games, TBG included. I try to pick up every one that comes out, HOMM, Age of Wonders, Disciples, Civ, SMAC, Galciv, LOM, LOTR2, even some wargames and a few of the offbeat titles like EU2. The thing which irks me the most is that some companies like to release an unfinished game in the hopes that we'll buy enough copies to justify a second iteration, patching it along the way. How many sequels have you seen advertised that promise to be, "All that the original should have been." It isn't too much to ask that they get it right the firtst time. Since the marked for TBG is small, it needs to take more creative risks and publish a game, when it's ready. The concept of SMAC was one which hooked me from the beginning. It put a twist on the space race theme that no one else had done in quite the same way. That's what makes it a great game, and keeps it on my hard drive. The list of wants for TBG could go on, but if companies don't make them, then all of our arguments are futile. If there are any new ones on the horizon, I'll be sure to find them and grab them while I can. I just wish that more could be those jewels that we all love and five years later will still be commenting on.

	27-09-2004 22:49									#12
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Eventually RTS fans will realise that the guy with the fastest wrist always wins and get bored. Until all of this, I hope to see TBSs take a step forward and add some RPG and FPS elements to their genre.

Nope, there is an infinite supply of RTS mouth-breathers.

	27-09-2004 23:04									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by gbrut They need to be easier to play, right out of the box. If I have to spend hours just to figure out how to move on the board, I'll put the game away and take out a tried and true title.

I thought SMAC (if you used the tutorial) was both fast and easy to learn even for a TBS novice.

quote: Originally posted by gbrut They need to try something other than every what every other game is presently doing, or has done in the past. Overall, there is a lack of originality in games, TBG included.

Amen brother! Now that the game industry has become big money (more income than even movies make in the US) they have adopted typical business conservativism. Taking no chances, just ripping off whatever is the hot game right this second. Then completely abandoning support once the money slows to a trickle.

quote: Originally posted by gbrut I try to pick up every one that comes out, HOMM, Age of Wonders, Disciples, Civ, SMAC, Galciv, LOM, LOTR2, even some wargames and a few of the offbeat titles like EU2.

Since you brought it up, I loved Age of Wonders, but AoW2 kinda sucked. Since AoW2, has there been good AoW equivelent?

quote: Originally posted by gbrut The thing which irks me the most is that some companies like to release an unfinished game in the hopes that we'll buy enough copies to justify a second iteration, patching it along the way. How many sequels have you seen advertised that promise to be, "All that the original should have been." It isn't too much to ask that they get it right the firtst time.

We have only ourselves to blame. I make it a policy not to purchase software when it is first released on the grounds that I don't pay to be a beta tester, you pay me.

	29-09-2004 14:55									#14
	Re: TBSs need a shot in the arm, here's how. Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by livid imp Natural progression leads us to a SMAC strategy style game with an action component when you contest for a tile. So if two jets meet in combat, you switch into a battle screen and have a dogfight. Or if two armies meet, you go into a FPS style interface and shoot each other down. Combat of course would be modified by the quality of your troops, facilities, terrain, etc. This would certainly bring more people and breathe new life into the TBS genre.

I don't like the FPS solution.
I much more prefer the MOO2 solution: Combat on the strategic map resolved on a tactical maps.
My dream game is a CIV game with combats resolved ala PanzerGeneral.
It of course need to be simple and fastly resolved (as simple, but faster than the real PG). Don't forget the MP games. Players not involved should not wait ages for combat resolution.

	29-09-2004 20:52									#15
	Re: Re: TBSs need a shot in the arm, here's how. Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Dry I don't like the FPS solution. I much more prefer the MOO2 solution:......

Basically the same idea with a slightly different execution. This is also similar to the Hero's of Might and Magic games.

Oh, if you don't like the FPS solution, then don't buy my game
We are talking about expanding the genre. I have no doubt there will be purists that will reject anything that is not pure TBS, that is their problem.

	08-10-2004 14:18									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I'd like to see a turn-based strategy game that used a grid of triangles to create a geodesic sphere and better simulate a planet. I think that would be about the sweetest thing ever! In fact I had a board game idea like kinda like that.

	08-10-2004 20:37									#17
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Hey, now that is a nice idea....and it would break from standard form. No sticking your back up against the pole for defense.

	09-10-2004 23:27									#18
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I'd just like to see a decent TBS out there, released within the past..... five years. I'm not a very big fan of WWII TBS, maybe because I'm bad at them. To show how weird I am, I still have and play Colinization. Look it up and download!

	11-10-2004 21:33									#19
	Full PM-box? Change here!

But the whole point of wanting a new TBS released is new features/gameplay. Without those, we might as well just put some serious time into making new factions/maps/mods/etc. to augment what we have right now. This is a kind of 'wish list'. Hopefully someone out there is going to develop a new game and might stumble across this thread. Game companies wont always admit this (and shouldn't neccessarily), but a good portion of their production ideas they pull directly off of boards like this. If people weren't tried of the status quo, then games like SMAC would have never been developed. We all would have just been playing Civ1 all these years.

	13-10-2004 17:08									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I think you are forgetting a large-scale effort at a strategy oriented TB game with good graphics: Moo3. This was, perhaps, the last gasp of the TB gaming system and, by most accounts, it bombed with both strategy types who were infuriated with the needless complexity and AI idiocy, and mouth breather RT gamers who simply couldn’t comprehend.

Developers got a clear message, however: invest money in deep strategy games and you will lose your shirt.

So, enjoy SMAX. I just hope it works on Microsoft’s next operating system. If not, I’ll keep my (by then) old and creaky PC.

Hydro

P.S. – I tried and disliked GalCiv, but do like Moo3. I also appreciate and occasionally wade back into BotF and SEIV. Never tried or have any inclination to try Civ3.

	13-10-2004 21:54									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Plenty of TBS games have that feature. Star Wars: Rebellion comes to mind. I'm all for it as long they have make it toggleable so players can choose whether they prefer to manage battles themselves or let the computer resolve the outcome.

	14-10-2004 00:31									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Sorry Hydro, I just can't be so fatalistic about it. I am just old enough to remember when making video games was up there with being a stand up comedian. Nobody did it cause they thought they'd get rich. They did it cause they loved it. There might not be a another Mega-Corp Productions release of a TBS, but somebody will make one. Maybe even eventually the folks here at Poly will get tired waiting and build there own. The big money corporations abandoning TBSs could be the best thing to happen to the genre. It might foster more creativity than was possible with big money breathing on your shoulder

	14-10-2004 17:11									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I think the Total War series are doing just what you've been describing here, livid imp. You get to play a campaign on a grand continental scale (like in Rome: Total War, most of Europe and ME) in a turn based mode where you develop cities and train and move armies and navies, and when armies encounter you are taken to a real-time tactical view where you have to use your tactical skills to win the battle.

	14-10-2004 23:02									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I've seen games that include tactical elements added into combat screens in other games (HoMM, AoW, etc.). There is even a FPS/RTS hybrid game out there. What I would like to see is full on First Person Shooter mode for combat in a TBS game. Of course that wouldn't work for say PBEM games, but as I said before there should always be an option to turn it off, or even turn combat into a TBS tactical mode instead.

It is high time TBSs took a major leap forward, it is the only genre that hasn't changed all that much in the last 10+ years. Because unlike other genres, it has had to just to survive. Well time has come and as it has been mentioned before, no major company will touch a deep TBS anymore. But if a company generated enough buzz around a new concept in gaming, even the mouth-breathers ($$$) would pop their heads in to see what is going on.

	16-10-2004 08:21									#25
	The better elements of Deadlock Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Kassiopeia I think the Total War series are doing just what you've been describing here, livid imp. You get to play a campaign on a grand continental scale (like in Rome: Total War, most of Europe and ME) in a turn based mode where you develop cities and train and move armies and navies, and when armies encounter you are taken to a real-time tactical view where you have to use your tactical skills to win the battle.

Heah Kassiopeia
Is there a game of this nature set to a sci-fi theme? If so I'd be interested in it.
I remember playing (and really enjoying) the game called Deadlock. The element of exploring a planet, cultivating it within the theme of the various Factions offered, and strategically developping my Faction in reflection to the computer generated map was always enjoyable and strategically stimulating. The one element of this game I really miss is when attacking cities. My aircraft would take out the second echelon units, allowing my infantry to attack frontline units without their being able to rely on any direct support. My Infantry could then very easily penetrate the inner sanctums of the targeted cities. The really enjoyable aspect of this was watching my planned attack develop before my eyes as my units moved to their pre-determined objectives through the graphically displayed city. Much different from SMAC(X) where you simply choose units to sequentially attack a city until it falls....


D

	16-10-2004 09:16									#26
	Get a bigger avatar today!

MOO3 has been mentioned, but it's still a galactic civ builder game. And the tactics involved in the real-time combat and especially in the ground combat are sorely lacking. Sure, it was mildly fun to but my fleets on auto and watch them launch all those delightful missles. But to play on my own... a bore. But this isn't a review for MOO3. It had ground combat half-right. You have many plans of attack, variable combat theaters, options for various special weapons platforms, level of fighting, and so on. But what good was it? Just pick one and go. It never seemed to make a difference, except in the radio chatter, which was neat. I would have given anything to actually watch the battle, if I couldn't actually participate. But since the game is so huge as it is, spending the time to oversee even half the space and ground battles (if both combats were actually fun to play and required human input to be really effective) in the average turn would have been overwhelming.

It's the same with Total War. I almost never bother with the tactical battles. They take too long. Sure, I might lose less men, but I might also get my ass handed to me. Who's to say whose fault it was? My bad tactics, or lack of good units? I let the computer decide. Well, I do love to play a good gate-smashing.

Play the important battles. The capitol city of your feared enemy, the defence of your major city, the battle with the Guardian or whatever.

But if I could add one thing to MOO3, it would be a really good 3D rendering system and a complex combat generator. So when you're in ground combat, you pick the options, listen to how the battle goes, then watch the final battle for the capitol city of the planet or of that region (if there aren't enough units to capture the whole planet at once) which one would expect would be the hardest fight of all. Attack plans would mean something and as the commander, you would launch the various aspects of the assault. Air bombardments, objective captures, special weapon launches (nukes, etc), orbital bombardments, advances and retreats. You could pause and take on any view. Race would matter. Yes... in a perfect world, this would be a game unto itself and it would be a unique and powerful battle no matter what.

	18-10-2004 11:41									#27
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ouro_827 I'd just like to see a decent TBS out there, released within the past..... five years.

There has been a lot of talk about developers not making complex TBS games anymore, and graphics being everything in all modern games. Indeed, not long ago I thought the era for pure, deep TBS games to be made had long past- before I tried Dominions II .

Much to my amazment, I finally found a game that surpassed SMAC which has held my number one spot since I started playing it. The learning curve is steep, but, much like SMAC, a very good game waits at the top.

	18-10-2004 21:32									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by quantum_mechani Indeed, not long ago I thought the era for pure, deep TBS games to be made had long past- before I tried Dominions II

Looks interesting. I am defiinately going to get it a try. Though it looks like a more in depth Age of Wonders, rather than a SMAC/Civ clone.

	19-10-2004 00:12									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by livid imp Looks interesting. I am defiinately going to get it a try. Though it looks like a more in depth Age of Wonders, rather than a SMAC/Civ clone.

Age of Wonders and Dominions do not have a lot in common, something like comparing Rome: Total War with civ II. In both civ and R:TW you have units you move and cities you manage, but the emphasis and setting is much different.

Dominions is not much like SMAC either, other than being turn based, and a great game .

	22-10-2004 09:09									#30
	Tired of ads?

quote: I can live with less than stellar graphics, but SMAC was way behind the curve when it was released. This was by a company with a creative force that almost single handedly created the genre. Had any other company come out with the game, they would have been torn apart by reviewers and the buying public alike. Make no mistake, SMAC is a great game, but I feel that it suffered from the passable graphics.

Don't forget that was partly the result of a design choice they made. The alien planet is blah colored. There is no reason why the same level of graphics couldn't have resulted in a much more eye-pleasing game.

For me the unit graphics are somewhat of a waste. Who cares if the fighters "follow the terrain" as they move from tile to tile? If they'd used the 3d modeling to make units that were actually animated (as CtP2 did, but better).