 |
|
SK138
|
 |
Indiana, PA, USA
Dec 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
I am a big fan of RTS games, but my first ever strategy game was Civilization, it wasn't RTS but it was still the greatest game I ever played, then Civ2 came out. Civ2 was great but then I got a little hooked on Warcraft 2, five years later, Warcraft 2 is in a pile with other games I don't play, Civ2 is in my CD-Rom. I have a ton more RTS games the turn-based games, and the RTS games are fun, I like them a lot better than most of the turn-based games but they still can't compare to the Civ and SMAC series and I doubt they ever will.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sabre2th
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tniem
Especially since Sid himself originally envisioned a RT game when he dreamed up civ. |
True, but do you see a RT civ now? Regardless of what he thought of in the beginning, civ is civ. Take it or leave it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gramphos
|
|
ACS Civ III Files Manager, Prince of Development
|
 |
Chalmers, Sweden
Apr 2001
time: 06:15
|
|
I don't like real time, as your progress is very depending on your hardware, and how used you are on handling a computer fast.
If you have a bad mouse, that you almost can't move you can't control your troops, and you get behind. Also if your processor can't keep the game smooth you lose time, and if your monitor can't have that extra big resolution, so that you can control many units in the same time you lose time.
You will also have no time to write to allies, and work with diplomacy deals if the time is ticking. You could get wiped out while trying to trade with your neighbor. Civilization is not made for real-time playing, it is made so that you shall have time to think on what you do, not only act on instinct.
I hope this was the answer you wanted to be happy 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oligarf
|
|
I think that RTS should be optional.
A internetserver could divide the people in different groups, those with superb computers, and those with a little less superb computers.
I never said TB shoud disappear, I think the game could kick ass online, just if it was RTS.
And for the time-matter, how long a year takes could be determined by the host, so a fast game has short years, but years could offcourse be longer in time.
A smart system in the game could eventually change the time progress to better fit with the progress of the different players.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dennis580
|
|
Well in order for me to even consider playing a RTS game it would have to have a turn based map like Shogun: Total War which has RT combat, but was played on a turn based map.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vlad Antlerkov
|
 |
Do you have Matt Stairs in your house?
Mar 1999
time: 23:15
|
|
Two questions.
First, who voted for RTS?
Second, how long is the line to kill/vaporize/annihilate this person?  
Actually, I don't need to wait in line. *teleports to front of line*
*casts Ultima, Meteo, Flare, Holy, Doom, Fire 3, Bolt 3, Melton, Luminaire, Dark Matter, Black Hole, X-Zone, and HyperDrive all at the same time on the heretic*
If that doesn't get rid of him, I don't know what will. Oh, wait, yes I do! *summons Ragnarok, which turns the heretic into an advance copy of Civ III*
*everyone fights each other for the advance copy*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Slasher
|
|
Netherlands
Sep 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
I know the starter of this poll personally and we talked about this.
We talked about why major empires fell in history. Because they just were too big for one man to rule.
And that is exactly what doesn't happen in civ.
Many people use the ICS-tactic (Infinite City Sprawl), I mean, they keep on building cities so their empires will be very strong later on.
In a TB game, when a player declares war, you'll have plenty of time to react and your opponent can't take all of your cities. Especially not when your empire is very large.
In real-time, though, such empires are uncontrollable, as in real life.
If war is declared then, you need to watch out.
If you discover new technology, make use of it, or your ass will be kicked.
It also depends on how the AI works. When I play Civ2 I always have war. I really dislike this and for Civ in real-time it would be deadly, I mean if that happens, the whole Civ-idea would be @!#!-up. We know that. We agree with Skywalker on that.
We thought Civ in real-time should as close as possible as Civ TB.
Maybe for Civ IV of Civ V, because I can't wait for Civ3.
As Uberkrux said: civ 3 will be released on October 17th, or the firaxis building is being burned.
We had this idea after a LAN. The third-person found it really boring, because he had to wait and wait. And for example a 2 minute time limit, doesn't help.
So if the game was real-time, he hadn't have to wait, neither would the players on the internet.
And as the Civ-team has nice animations, they could probably use them very well.
We thought more people would like this idea, but I guess you don't.
And really, it doesn't matter how fast your PC is. You can't lose time on your opponents. They will have to wait for you, or else the game will be out of sync. It won't run simultaneously anymore.
You don't hear from RT WARGAMES having this problem.
Finally I want to turn down the idea of simultaneous turns, although it's a nice compromise. You'll still have to wait for the slowest player, or the player who forgets to hit Return/Enter.
Remember we do think RT Civ should be optional.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Slasher
|
|
Netherlands
Sep 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
Damn, what a long story
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gramphos
|
|
ACS Civ III Files Manager, Prince of Development
|
|
Chalmers, Sweden
Apr 2001
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Slasher
We talked about why major empires fell in history. Because they just were too big for one man to rule.
And that is exactly what doesn't happen in civ. |
I remember that I've read that a big civ needed a high culture, otherwise parts far away would form thier own civ, and leave your. (Bu I may be wrong)
quote:
Many people use the ICS-tactic (Infinite City Sprawl), I mean, they keep on building cities so their empires will be very strong later on. |
Firaxis has worked really hard to stop ICS
quote:
In a TB game, when a player declares war, you'll have plenty of time to react and your opponent can't take all of your cities. Especially not when your empire is very large.
In real-time, though, such empires are uncontrollable, as in real life. |
In real life there are more then one man controlling all the armies. You have generals and soon, so the armies will know what to do themselves, without any commands more than permission. That does not exist in civ.
quote:
And really, it doesn't matter how fast your PC is. You can't lose time on your opponents. They will have to wait for you, or else the game will be out of sync. It won't run simultaneously anymore. |
Yes it will wait for you, but if you computer works really hard to keep up with the other you will have hard to move the mouse smooth.
quote:
You don't hear from RT WARGAMES having this problem.
Finally I want to turn down the idea of simultaneous turns, although it's a nice compromise. You'll still have to wait for the slowest player, or the player who forgets to hit Return/Enter.
Remember we do think RT Civ should be optional. |
RT WARGAMES has less tings to control the Civ. It is unrealistic to get Civ work in real time without lowering the standard.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sliparac
|
 |
Brussels
Aug 2001
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shade
Ever thought how you are going to handel an empire of about >50 Cities spread over the entire globe,using >300 units while beeing attackt by all AI perfectly controling their >500 units and >100 cities=>You would get whiped out within 5 minutes,one citiy after the other would fall,you would never be able to keep up with everything.(consider this :in a decent game where you let one AI grow to the same size you are(or bigger)how long does one of your turns take(while you are not even moving all units)and how long does the AI turn takes(wich moves almost every unit)=>with this I want to show how much faster the AI can do the thinking at RTS)
When playing settlers I always had One problem,when my empire grew bigg enough i had to much borderline and when attacked then you don't know where to react first and you get whiped out before you know it.
|
Hmm, so you're saying RTS Civ would be more challenging, realistic (harder to maintain a large empire and to protect your borders) and interesting...
In TBS Civ, if you have a few good cities = you've virtually won the game with a military victory, in RTS Civ, attempting to conquer the world would be much more dangerous, just like in the real world...
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-08-2001 16:05
You are blasphemic!!! If Civ should be RTS, Sid would have created it like that!!!(am I sounding like the people that pointed out that we aren't created to fly because God didn't make wings on us? That's fine!!!
)
WARGAMES!!!! WARGAMES!!!! WARGAMES!!!!
Real Time Strategy is a fvcking OXYMORON, like Government Worker and Military Intelligence!!!
offense!
|