 |
|
Rage
|
|
I know that a lot of people have a problem with civ moving into realtime. But realtime combat would add a whole new dimension to the game. I would be happy if civ4 was just civ3 but when 2 units met i combat u were taking to a realtime battlefield as in shogun. It would have a great affect on the type of units u would build knowing u would be commanding them yourself later in the game. I hope they include some kind of tactical combat even if its turn based-they probabley wont but i can always hope!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rage
|
|
i have,its not the same u dont build an empire from scratch like in civ u cant say play as the americans and decide to invade Britain
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rage
|
|
LOL... cant wait till it comes out but it wont have the same depth as civ but it will be better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LoneSnark
|
|
It was pretty much like that in Imperialism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Murtin
|
|
Sweden
Dec 2001
time: 06:17
|
|
Having civ get bloated with real-time tactical combat? No thanks. I'd rather move in the other direction and make combat deterministic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:17
|
|
It's definitely out of the question for me.
By the end of the game, how many fights do you have each turn? In some mods in civ2, I could get 2 or 3 fights in different points each turn. Without stacked combat, that ment 10 or 20 fights.
That would last forever...
I want to see what it will look like in MOO3, but again, MOO3 will have IFPs so you won't have to play them in real time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramsib
|
 |
Father and protector of PROGRESSIVE GAMES, SANTANDER, Cantabria, España (Spain), Unión Europea (European Union)
Sep 2001
time: 06:17
|
|
If you want real time get any of these:
Age of Empires, Command & Conquer, Empire Earth, Starcraft, Settlers, Stronghold, Real War, III World War, Submarine Titans, Tzar, ...
If you want a mixed time get Shogun and wait for another version which includes the rest of "civilizations"
But DO NOT SPOILT CIV WITH REAL TIME STRATEGY 
Hey, let people who cannot "ride" his mouse quickly play something. 
The civ-combat has only one problem, Phalanx Vs Battleship wineable by the spear-man again. 
Long live for Civ 2 MPGE, its editor and its hitpoints. 
Civ III is uncomplete, complete it and then we could speak.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rage
|
|
Realtime combat would be much better than te boring battles in civ3. An option where you could still revert to the traditional civ style combat would be included so you wouldnt haveto fight every battle just the important ones.
And i have bought a lot of them realtime strategy games but i want a game with the depth of civ and the excitement of command and conquer.
It is a way to make civ more realistic aswell. You will be in charge so it will be mainly down to you whether you win or lose. The decisions you make on the battlefield will have a profound effect on your empire. Sop there will be some strategy involved not just moving your unit into anothers square and hoping the "computer" doesnt go against you.
Also the civ series as not advanced that much-adding realtime with turnbased will bring a lot of people back to civ and add even more deph ot it. It wouldnt spoil it, it would improve it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rage
|
|
quote:
empire earth is NOT stategical, |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Code Monkey
|
|
I think the original poster is onto something with the Shogun comparisons.
I've completely given up on Civ3 for the time being and possibly permanently because I've gone back to playing Shogun:WE and cannot wait for Medieval:Total War to hit the shelves.
The turn based mode is every bit as engaging as anything in any Civ and has far less micromanagement (albeit it's missing some of the nice summary data that Civ gives us). The combat is purely tactical and doesn't depend on quick reflexes at all but rather good planning.
What's not to love -> You start with a small force at the beginning of the timeline. You build improvements. Budget your income for troop and improvement construction. Spy on the neighbors, expand your territory, assassinate pesky individuals, amass your power and conquer the map. It is exactly the same game that everyone loves in the Civ series with the exception that it doesn't cover the whole of time (and is far more realistic and believable for it), and the battles are fought in a tactical real time mode (but with complete power to pause and give orders).
I've never been much for the "turn based is dead because computers have moved on" bit, but as Creative Assembly shows, turn based doesn't have to be just turn based and is a far better game for it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sachmo71
|
|
de Tejas
May 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
ATTENTION GAME DEVELOPERS:
PLEASE do not blur that line between RTS and TBS. Some of us enjoy thinking things out instead of conquering the world with a spearman RUSH. RTS is great for some, but IMHO it would ruin Civ...if it could even be done.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sachmo71
|
|
de Tejas
May 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
The is a place in the world for RTS...otherwise there wouldn't be so many of them out there. However, how much strategy can you mash into an RTS game? There has to be a point of diminishing returns...there just wouldn't be enough time to take care of everything if there were too many things to do. What RTS does well fits into the profile. Can you imagine trying to appease the Aztecs on the diplomacy screen while at the same time trying to beat away their hoards of Jaguar Warriors? I know that I would get killed, but maybe some of the kids out there, you know, the ones that still have reflexes?, would be able to manage it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Code Monkey
|
|
To the detractors: you're not even addressing the issue of real time combat as opposed to real time strategy, which is a whole genre unto its own.
I'm not a huge fan of RTS, I've logged my hours with Starcraft and TA, dabbled at RA2 and really had a good time with Warlords: Battlecry. Still, that's not the way you do a game like Civ.
OTOH, in my opinion, a game like Shogun which has every other element of the game in turn based mode but purely tactical combat is a much better game for it. It's not a clickfest, there's nothing to manage in real time except troops, and you can't even control things too directly. Give too many orders to a group of spearmen and you'll destroy their morale and they'll route. Successfully flank the enemy's archers with your heavy cavalry and they'll turn tail and run from you.
If it's a question between something like Jagged Alliance 2 and X-Com Alliance, I'll take the turn based mode every time. But, after watching one too many infantry face off against the enemy one at a time ad nauseaum, I'm ready for something better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Willem
|
 |
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Code Monkey
To the detractors: you're not even addressing the issue of real time combat as opposed to real time strategy, which is a whole genre unto its own.
I'm not a huge fan of RTS, I've logged my hours with Starcraft and TA, dabbled at RA2 and really had a good time with Warlords: Battlecry. Still, that's not the way you do a game like Civ.
OTOH, in my opinion, a game like Shogun which has every other element of the game in turn based mode but purely tactical combat is a much better game for it. It's not a clickfest, there's nothing to manage in real time except troops, and you can't even control things too directly. Give too many orders to a group of spearmen and you'll destroy their morale and they'll route. Successfully flank the enemy's archers with your heavy cavalry and they'll turn tail and run from you.
If it's a question between something like Jagged Alliance 2 and X-Com Alliance, I'll take the turn based mode every time. But, after watching one too many infantry face off against the enemy one at a time ad nauseaum, I'm ready for something better. |
OK, I see your point and yes maybe that might be interesting. Though on the other hand I have to wonder how cumbersome that might be. After all, Civ is already a very long game. And if there was a real time combat, a single battle would eat up even more time. Compound that over many battles, I can just see these players who use huge maps hunching over their keyboards for weeks on end.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pauli
|
|
herndon, va, usa
Jan 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
You mean like in Heroes of Might.. 3? |
unless they changed some stuff significantly from homm1 and homm2 (which i doubt cause they're cheap bastards), homm3 is all turnbased, even in combat.
quote:
OK, I see your point and yes maybe that might be interesting. Though on the other hand I have to wonder how cumbersome that might be. After all, Civ is already a very long game. And if there was a real time combat, a single battle would eat up even more time. Compound that over many battles, I can just see these players who use huge maps hunching over their keyboards for weeks on end. |
hell, it takes me weeks to play games ALREADY!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Seghillian
|
|
Newcastle
Jan 2002
time: 05:17
|
|
There's a good idea in this somehere I'm sure.
As far as I know (and I only know very few games) Shogun is a completely new idea in that it marries TBS with RTS and I think is the first game to do so. I think it's a superb game although the strategy part of it is weak and doesn't come close to CIV. On the other hand, CIV strategy is excellent although the combat leaves much to be desired.
I'm hoping to see a new generation of games emerge which take the best ideas of CIV and Shogun and put them together. I think it would need a fresh start - it would be hard to graft Shogun's battles into CIV and it would be hard to graft CIV's strategy into Shogun. But the idea of keeping grand strategy separate from tactical battles is surely the way to go and I look forward to seeing developments in this area. Both are great games.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-01-2002 02:15
]
|