07-02-2002 07:06									#1
	Anyone played Gettysburg/Antietam? Full PM-box? Change here!

Both are excellent Firaxis games. Gettysburg was actually their first, and really showed off a lot of early talent. The reason I'm bringing it up is that it uses the sort of gameplay system Alpha Centauri's vaporware sequel should, more of a TBS/RTS hybrid. You throw in a simple pause function that allows for the ordering of troops around while the action is frozen (upon returning to game things start moving), but most of the time is spent in dynamic RTS mode.

With hardware fast improving, it only makes sense for Firaxis to up the graphics of SMAC just enough to allow for a good RTS aspect and totally overhaul gameplay in order for something a little different from CivIII to take shape.

Again, if you want to see the hybrid in action (used well for a change) go to Firaxis' site (www.firaxis.com), check out the menubar and navigate over to the Antietam/Gettysburg demo (11mb for yankee gettysburg, 11 extra mb for yankee and confederate - full version gettysburg: http://www.chipsbits.com/cgi-bin/or...s/SIDMG.IR.html)Or just go to ebgames.com, amazon or the Firaxis store if they still have it and pick up the combo Civil War pack for a pretty low price. Antietam should be supported on Breakaway Games' site, and it's every bit as good. (same engine goes for Waterloo, http://breakawaygames.com/)

I'm pretty convinced it's the way TBS games will be headed in the future. Their roles will be secondary to a good dynamic RTS mode, but still critically important as far as micromanagement and overall strategy and planning.

Last edited by Wiglaf on 07-02-2002 at 07:12

	07-02-2002 12:05									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

ya, I've played both. I liked gettysburg a lot more though, but both are really good games. You should check 'em out if you haven't.

	07-02-2002 12:20									#3
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I disagree. I own the twin pack of the games, and they are ok, but they are sitting and gathering dust after just a few hours of play. I do find the RTS engine a good fit in a battle game, but a good deal less so in a grand strategy game. I have played a lot of Europa Universalis recently, and I really enjoy it. It uses the same 'pause the action to give orders system', but in my opinion it is plainly inferior to a turn based system for 99% of the functions. This is because you have to sit there and wait, glued to the monitor for hours and react to sudden events. Playing the game at slow speed is tedious, and playing it fast is exhausting. I can comfortably play SMAX for hours because I control the action during my turn, and only have to pay attention during the turn interphase, not react immediately. In both games most of your decisions are economic, which are not enhanced by the tension of a RT engine IMO.

Honestly, while there are some good real time games, I am not at all interested in playing games of the scale where a real time engine actually provides a realistic tactical environment (ie tactical games). In games dealing with the strategic scale, a real time engine is as much of an abstraction as turn based, especially if the turn based system uses simultaneous turn resolution. The only hybrid which may hold some promise for me would be a battle subsystem in an otherwise strategic level game (which seems to be the idea in MOO 3 btw). Even so I would probably prefer a turn based tactical combat system. I just like the freedom and the leisure that a turn based interface gives me. I don't get a stiff neck or shoulder when I play a long time, and my family can interupt me with no harm done (to my game that is!).

	07-02-2002 22:54									#4
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Sik,

I agree with most of your sentiments. Getting older has lessened my attention span and dulled my reflexes, so any opportunity for an old timer like me to allow a "slow pitch" playing field is just fine by me.

(You know the rules right. Go to first base drink a beer. Go to second base drink a beer etc........ Quoth Homer S. "What you think I've never payed softball before")

OTOH even the combat subsytem IMHO I would prefer to be also TBS. As they had in MOO2 and as I had indicated in previous posts, this would be a perfect add to the whole CIV/SMAC series replete with Army Group units (editable/upgradable via the workshop). The option to resolve tactical combat via the subsytem or via the computer as it is now would be a huge huge selling point for me.

Ahhh welll


Og

	08-02-2002 05:30									#5
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: I disagree. I own the twin pack of the games, and they are ok, but they are sitting and gathering dust after just a few hours of play. I do find the RTS engine a good fit in a battle game, but a good deal less so in a grand strategy game. I have played a lot of Europa Universalis recently, and I really enjoy it. It uses the same 'pause the action to give orders system', but in my opinion it is plainly inferior to a turn based system for 99% of the functions. This is because you have to sit there and wait, glued to the monitor for hours and react to sudden events. Playing the game at slow speed is tedious, and playing it fast is exhausting. I can comfortably play SMAX for hours because I control the action during my turn, and only have to pay attention during the turn interphase, not react immediately.

Regarding Gettysburg and Antietam at least, games and scenarios are usually only 20-45 real minutes, with the ability to easily save and continue later. True, some of the full battle options are several real hours, but again you have the save and load functions for that. If you wanted to take SMG or SMA and make it a grand strategy game like CivIII or SMAC, simply speed up the gameplay, beef up the pause options, and save when you're tired of it. Also, I don't think Gettysburg really requires "quick thinking" - the well paced nature of it in itself really eliminates any "twitch" aspect that would normally have existed.

	08-02-2002 13:00									#6
	Inflate your Upload Space

Ogie,

Yea I prefer turn based for even tactical play myself, but if a company has to include real time, it should be in the tactical battle module. I totally agree that MOO 2 was great. Another game by the same company Master of Magic used a very similar system, and was a blast to play. The only unfortunate thing about the tactical subsystems was that they tended to magnify player advantage over the AI. But I totally agree with you, I wanted Civ 3 to have armies which would be built of components you choose based upon what you tech would allow. I would have even been fine with a system where the tactical battles were played out by opposing AI generals. This would have reduced the player advantage problem while still giving the grand strategist more to think about.

Wiglaf,

I agree that the real time engine is a good fit for this game. The action moves slowly enough that you aren't desperately trying to find the pause button when you see something that needs attention. As I said earlier, I do tend to prefer strategy to tactics. One of the reasons I like the tactical battle subsystems in some strategy games is that it gives you an opportunity to both build and utilize your military force. It also tends to increase the complexity of the choices you make when building your force, which is also a pleasure for me. I love to design ships in MOO2, with different designs complimenting each other, allowing me to form useful task groups for a variety of missions easily. I guess I'm just a strategy nut deep down.