22-10-2000 08:41									#1
	Column #137; By Tim Bromige Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Tim Bromige examines the playing field of the turn-based strategy genre today in his article entitled "Is Turn-Based Strategy in Danger?".

Comments/questions welcomed in this thread, or you may contact Bromige directly.

----------------
Dan; Apolyton CS

	22-10-2000 10:17									#2
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I think it is in danger. Everything now is pretty much real time. Not that they require strategy.

------------------
"Freedom, Trade, Christantine!"

The Official Webpage of the Chrisonian Republic

The Viking Archives

The MGE Succession Game Team. Sign Up Today!

	22-10-2000 15:15									#3
	Get a bigger avatar today!

TBS will always be around, but will be in a minority. Look at games like Civ 2 or Imperialism 2. Compare these with Star wars Supremecy. This is the choice, and you would have to be visionary genius or an idiot to think that certain games would be better played RTS than TBS- you cannot simulate 100s of years in real time.

As long as there is a market for these games there will be a supply of TBS.

	22-10-2000 17:04									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I am starting to think that Tim and I are on the same wavelength. I submitted an article for the column on this very subject a few days ago, and now I see Tim echoing my thoughts!
I went a different direction, going with personal experience instead of examining the market, But I came to the same conclusion. I prefer TBS.
A review of Civilization: Call To Power at mobygames said that one of the big problems was that they put an RTS interface into a TBS game. Maybe, Maybe not, but CTP has not been very loved around here.

But TBS dying out? are we all playing civ or AOE, after all. I know some of us do play AOE, but we're still here.

	23-10-2000 19:20									#5
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I've always favored turn based over real time. Not so much that I like turns per se, its more because I like having some control over the tempo of the game. I've always been a bit of a micromanager and the better real time games take this in account; they can be played as if it was either a turn based [i]or[/] a real time game. Take a game like warcraft (and its sequels) - its a real time game, but you can slow down the game play at key times to offer better control over where all your units will go, just like a turn based game. Of course for the computer games, giving me the choice to do every command either with the mouse or the keyboard also is nice, since I am much more in control with the keys (and therefore can play faster) vs the mouse.

I think there always will be some variation of turn based games out there. After all, isn't the World Series essentially a turn based game (typically 9)? There are definite pauses between innings and any player can call time out at any time. Since it is multiplayer, they have some limits on how long the time outs are (with a couple exceptions - say a pitcher gets injured and can't continue when no one was warming up in the bull pen - the reliever is allowed as much time as he needs to warm up), but essentially, every turn takes as much time to finish as that side needs, whether it is 3 first pitch fly outs or a prolonged 10 run rally with 5 pitching changes.

So I guess I agree with Tim Bromige on this one, I just worry that there will just be fewer and fewer good new turn based games as real time games continue to make accountants drool...

------------------
Sleep is a luxury and I don't have Shakespeare's Theatre in my back yard.

	24-10-2000 00:53									#6
	Inflate your Upload Space

Star Wars Rebellion (Supremacy in U.K.) is the only RTS game I play once in a while. I got the first edition of Age of Empires and hated it. Too much clicking.

------------------
"Freedom, Trade, Christantine!"

The Official Webpage of the Chrisonian Republic

The Viking Archives

The MGE Succession Game Team. Sign Up Today!

	24-10-2000 02:42									#7
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

If tbs games die then so will my pipeline of money to makers.I've played alot of Myth and Close Combat and while they are good games,they come down to who has the best keyboard dexterity.Not who has the best plan etc.

Also real times games give me pain and stiffness in my shoulders/neck area.Feels like someone is jabbing a needle in me.This takes some of the enjoyment away.

I prefer chess to checkers.

	24-10-2000 06:39									#8
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Here are a few trends that seem to go counter to a demand for TBS games.

1. Increasing popularity of multi-player. Although developers acknowledge that most PC game purchasers play against the computer, they seem to be increasingly gearing their games towards internet play.

2. A demand for the latest in graphics. Graphics are not the TBS games' forte.

3. A demand for simplicity. Younger gamers don't have the patience to learn the intricacies of a game like Civ II.

I'm confident that PC games will continue to evolve and eventually, there'll be a breakthrough game that will redefine the RTS or TBS genre. In the meantime, I'm hoping that Civ III will be a worthy game -- if so, it may keep me happy for another four years.

	24-10-2000 17:42									#9
	Remove this text

I'm afraid for us true believers of TBS games.

The general trend these days seems to be for flashy graphics and fast action. That seems to be what developers think we want.

I don't know about you guys, but if Civ III or the next version of MOO were to come out as RTS games, I would have no interest in even trying them.

Hopefully they will figure out that strategy games are different! When a "strategy" game can be won by the quickest person to move, it stops being a strategy game