10-12-2000 05:44									#1
	column 144. THE GROWTH OF REAL TIME STRATEGY Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

THE GROWTH OF REAL TIME STRATEGY

It might seem strange of me to be posting of the growth of real-time strategy games on a Civ forum, if not strange of me to be posting a column period. But I suppose the very fact that I am posting this helps to affirm my stance: that real-time strategy games have far more worth than many of you might believe More

	10-12-2000 07:22									#2
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

3 things:

1) I own Warcraft and 1602 AD, both of which I like playing, so what you say does not fall on deaf ears, even at a TBS gaming site.

2) Where exactly were you goign with this article? It's not quite like the other Columns where there is a debatable point.

3)Why is this a sticky thread??

	10-12-2000 07:41									#3
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Well, it all started with Dune, and the main strategy for winning in AoE is basically still the same whereas there is much more variety in strategy for TBS games.

- Rib -


------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

	10-12-2000 16:32									#5
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Firstly, I just have to say that I neither hate nor dislike RTS games, if executed properly. However, I have to disagree with several key tennents of your article. Firstly, that of Story.

My main critisism of RTS games is the lack of story, every supposed story element is just a boring way of setting up a tricky mission for you. You definately don't get a sense of perspective on what's going on, usually the missions are disjointed (they have to be, if the normal bullsh*t approach of forcing you to build a new base every mission is to hold true) and joined together by low-quality, second rate "story lines". In TBS games and in good RTS god-games, on the other hand, you're building a story yourself, you're definately getting a picture of the whole as you're building the whole. Use your imagination and there are millions of story lines available in a good TBS (or god-game).

The other thing I have to complain about is your support for StarCraft, which was a boring click-fest with outdated graphics and a more tedious "story" than usual, and AoE which was down to the tech tree essentialy a TC of WarCraft 2. It was not slower paced, that's just an illusion.

As the pinnacle of the genre I'd instead like to place the game which took RTSing furthest away from the TBS, namely Red Alert. It's fast, it's fun, it's furious. It's got great humorous characters, even in-game. It's closer to a good action game than a TBS. Rowr!

	10-12-2000 18:49									#6
	Put an end to popups!

hmmm....
I suspect this has something to do with CIV3...

	11-12-2000 04:51									#7
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Everyone:

What? Are TPTB considering making Civilization III a real-time-strategy game? I hope not ... turn-based-strategy is just fine with me.

CYBERAmazon

	11-12-2000 10:34									#8
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Real time has a merry-go-round approach to adrenaline starved players who believe that "action" is fun.
Turn base is much more incline to brainy "intelligent" planners of the adversaries "re-action".
Strategy as defined by many is much more TBS than RTS.
Considering the fact that Civ's has almost a duty to let the players enjoy some kind of -history-, the RTS system can't be used efficiently.
You had an excellent insight on the differences between the genres in your column.
If Civ-3 has to be successful, it must not let itself plunge into the trap of market response (which is obviously altered by "gaming" speculators that gamble on a new trend)
Peoples don't want to perform (they have to do that weekly at work)... they want to be amused and cunningly beat the machine instead of their higher ranking co-workers and bosses.
It all adds up to a simple formula;
Either FUN or Responsabilities.

	11-12-2000 15:22									#9
	Suffering from ads?

What about the hybrid games, like Shogun Total War? The actual game takes place in seasonal turns but when armies meet the game switches to an RTS format, though with just the armies brought into play at the start of the game, nothing more can be added. Further more the battles are slow in pace and allow a great deal of manouvre, almost turn like.

For me this is the future as it allows the best of both worlds, economics and training on a TBS basis, fighting (with huge armies, several thousand units at a time) on an RTS basis.

	11-12-2000 18:42									#10
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Personally I like real time games, I remember games like Dune and Red Alert, these are great games. But in my opinion they never capture the grandure you get with Civ, they are always in one area or part of a stragery. They never have build up cities or diplomacy they are not startegrys like Civ but simply realk time combat only, no depth, though fun.

Also I woudl have to say that lattley they seem to be so repetative and boring, like AOE and Tiberium Sun.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

	11-12-2000 21:04									#11
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I haven't tried Shogun Total War yet, but have tried Braveheart.

That is another turn based strategy game which goes into real time for battles, raids etc.

Don't buy it - it's not much more than half completed (I really will get round to suing for my money back one day) - but amidst the frustration at being ripped off I, too, found myself thinking that the hybrid genre may well be the way forward.

	11-12-2000 23:32									#12
	Inflate your Upload Space

First, I never have quite understood people that appear to have a near hatred of one type of game while loving the other. For the most part, I don't think there should be a debate of RTS vs. TBS. There just plain different, accept it and go on.

As for me, I pretty much enjoy both. I have loved playing Civ for many many years and will continue doing so. I also started playing Total Annihilation (spelling?) several years ago and love it. It has nowhere near the detail of Civ nor anything close to the tech tree advance system but is still a lot of fun.

IMO, the RTS system makes for a more fun MP environment whereas TBS is better for single player games. (**PLEASE NOTE: I said IMO **). Why I believe this is true: I personally don't have the many hours (or days) it can take to play a MP game of Civ. Where a relatively long game of TA generally can be done in 2 hours tops.

Also, as far as the who-clicks-faster-wins mentalilty... (at least in TA) you don't necessarily have to click fast as just have a solid strategy going in, the ability to keep yourself focused on goals and the ability to manage multiple tasks at a time. It definatly takes some getting used to but so did trying to manage all the little details of Civ. The main thing about being able to play it and have fun is to find someone with similar abilities as you. It's not much fun to play any game with someone that is far better OR worse than you.
[This message has been edited by Albert B (edited December 11, 2000).]

	11-12-2000 23:41									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

In looking back at my post I realized that my original thought never made it out of my head and onto 'paper'...

What I wanted to talk about was the fact that although I like both types of games the problem I have is getting interested in new games of the same type. As an example, I loved Civ I but it took me forever to finally by and play Civ II, because I never wanted to take the time to learn the new parts of it and adjust my play style. Trying to get into other TBS games is even harder because I really can't get myself to take the time to learn enough about them to have fun.

The same is true for RTS games. Total Annihilation (spelling?) was the first one I really got into after a friend introduced me to it. I got into it and had a lot of fun with it and then tried to play other ones but always went back to TA because of the familiarity. I finally got into AoE some but only for very short periods of time.

I think a similar conclusion can be made for people that prefer TBS vs. RTS - the first one you really got into remains your favorite, just as Civ remains my favorite CPU game of all time.

I do believe that that is far more than enough babble from me for now...

	13-12-2000 07:07									#15
	Tired of ads?

I'll never buy another RTS game. 'nuff said. well maybe not. I admit I don't have the fastest reflexes or finger speed. And I suppose as in real life this would spell doom in a battle situation. But why would I want to play a game where I lose all the time. Some RTS fan please tell me this. I am cursed by my genetics. I consider myself smart, but do not have the finger speed and multi tasking abilities of some. I prefer to play a game where I can actually win against the computer and in multiplayer. I don't want to be made to feel like a loser, I can go to work for that.

	13-12-2000 18:26									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

DA, no one will ever change your mind in a single post but anyway...Personally I have not found many RTS games that I really get into as a single player game. Usually the starting spot of the human is vastly inferior to the computer (usually to make up for poor AI) and instead of needing good tactics to win, you have to find the appropriate 'trick' to get past the stage. What I personnally have found to be the most fun is MP games. However, the trick to having fun there is finding someone of similar abilities. In Total Annihilation, there is even the ability to play 'skirmish' games which is basically a MP, start from scratch game played with 1-3 CPU players. You can then start yourself with an advantage to help you get into the flow of the game at a competative level. Like I said, I know that I can't change your way of thinking, but under the right circumstances I think you could learn to enjoy RTS type games.

Also, it's a lot more fun to play over a network with your oppenent sitting across the room than playing some unknown 'super-clicker' half-way across the room. That being said, this is why I don't play as many MP games of anything any longer - I use to work for a company that let a group of us hang out for hours after work and play network games (Total Annihilation, Carmageddon, Duke3D and a slew of others). It was by far the most fun I ever had playing computer games but has ruined me for playing over the internet for two reasons: 1. I miss the face to face interaction of reviewing a just finished, closely fought game. 2. Having the LAN connection was so fast that even games with a low lag over the net appear to be slow and jumpy.

	16-12-2000 01:51									#17
	Remove this text

I generally prefer TBS games, and within the RTS genre am more interested in the ones that are closer to TBS (like AOE) rather than the ones that are closer to action games, like, C&C.

I dont think Civ3 should be RTS, but i think that some RTS games have some interesting concepts that would be useful for civ3. I am thinking especially of seven kingdoms.

I also look forward to seeing how empire earth approaches the problem of making a game that is more civ-like than AOE/AOK, while playing in real time.

	16-12-2000 14:04									#18
	Tired of ads?

You all have me somewhat confused. When I think of Real Time Strategy games I think of Ceasar II, Sim City, Janes 688(I), Harpoon series, Silent Hunter, etc. Which are not all that fast and furiously paced, if you adjust the elapsed time settings correctly. I've never played any of the games that any of you have mentioned.

So just what are we talking about as being Real Time Strategy?

Ken
[This message has been edited by Ken Hinds (edited December 16, 2000).]

	17-12-2000 04:32									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I perfer RTS over TBS but both depend on the game. I love CIV but MP is just no good. It's a completely boring game (%90 of the time I'm just waiting). The game is too slow often times taking many hours of play to complete what in single play would take 10 minutes (or less!).

Now, with RTS you get action plus the added element of having to always be thinking about what your enemy is doing. Am I about to be attacked? Should I leave that planet undefended for a few minutes? You don't get this is CIV, a chess game more than anything else.

As far as RTS having 'tricks' that must be learned to win (perhaps I read that the wrong way) - tell me a game where this is not the case. As long as the computer controls the *other* guy this will always be the case, RTS or TBS.

I have 1602AD, AOE Kings and Imperium Galactica II. All are very good games and in some ways better than CIV II (overall I'd say each is better). In terms of graphics they blow CIV out of the water but I understand CIV is an old game. What they did to CTP and the other so-called new CIVs is beyond me.

I guess if I had to pick give me RTS. It's the way of the future anyway as PCs become more and more powerful. IMHO CIV is a relic of the past. It was the best for it's time.

	17-12-2000 07:10									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Now there is a 3rd option: Simul turns!
And its great!
Fast paced action, and not a click feast, as in AoE. LOL

	20-12-2000 16:03									#21
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Greetings, All...

This is my first post here....

I have significant problems with both formats, but in the balance, find turn-based games (TBG) more to my liking.

My problems with RTS games is that often you don't have the time to make decisions that, in the real world, governments have months or even years to consider. Even basic movement becomes problematic. Often, you don't have sufficient time to prepare strategy in response to initial enemy threats, let alone long-range planning that real-world governments routinely engage in. Knee-jerk response is often the only effective response, and the only strategy involved is in anticipation...

OTOH, in TBG like Civ II (which is still my favorite), certain aspects stretch believability to the breaking point, especially early in the game. I mean, seriously, why does it take 50 years for a unit of horsemen to travel a 100 miles or so? I could buy it for initial exploration (thorough mapping, terrain difficulties, local women(?), etc.) but not for travel along an established route (roads) during time of war, with the goal being to attack your enemies. "So, you think you can kill our settlers and get away with it, do you? Well, just you wait!(about 150 years or so...) Your great-grandchildren will be sorry!"
Even basic production suffers from this factor (especially early in the game). "Let us build a temple to properly exalt our gods. It will only take us 300 years or so!" Only the finest of medieval cathedrals took this long, and even then, the communities that undertook such an enormous project often enjoyed benefits long before the structure was completed.

I think that both formats have their weaknesses, but in the balance, I prefer a turn-based games for because you have the ability to think at leisure about what you wish to do. I know that you can always save or pause a RTS game in order to do this, but it's not the same.

I think that a possible solution would be a turn-based game that imposed limits upon movement based upon supply lines rather than an arbitrary movement rate. In the later stages of the game, Civ II lives up to this well. The presence of railroad lines insures adequate supply, and within the reach of the rail system, movement is unlimited. (Although I have other problems concerning enemies using each others rail systems automatically and with impunity).

What do you think?

- Bob

	21-12-2000 00:21									#22
	Remove this text

I have found RTS fun against humans only. I would like it more if it were RT, but slow. I am wondering what a rt civ game would be like, but i dont think it would work in the endgame. Then it would be a clikfest.

------------------
Go Redskins!

Email me at
SilverDragon141@aol.com

	22-12-2000 10:08									#23
	Inflate your Upload Space

hi


i know what you mean by boring click fest when mentioning rts games. the best though for me has been zeus, while not strictly rts it has a lot of depth once you get into it. i would love to see a tbs game that captures the civ feel and scope come out.

	03-01-2001 17:27									#24
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Hello my friends. sure, you.

I am suprised when I read your articles. I belive the fun of RTS game-like STARCRAFT-is multiplayer. it is made for multiplayer- i think. Speedy game play, simple
economy, tactical battle(not strategy), dynamic action and clear Victory & lost. They are all what we can find in RTS. Of course I like Civ best. However starcraft is also exciting. Frankly speaking, Civ2's
multiplaying game takes me a lot of time(too much!!)

Anyway, I would say that RTS also need "thinking".
Fast thinkin and judgement. Did you know that there is
PROGAMER about StarCraft in south-korea? Often I am
amazed at progamer's technic-It is a similar feeling to see soccer or baseball.

sorry. my poor english.
HAPPY NEW YEAR~

	03-01-2001 21:00									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I call them RT(-S), so you can tell where I stand. I haven't seen a real-time game that emphasized strategy, at most you need good tactics in the shootouts and a fast reaction time.

We used to have some wargames that had simultaneous turns, and those were very interesting. Seems like all the gamemakers forgot how to do that.

	04-01-2001 02:53									#27
	Support Apolyton

I was thinking of all the "Panzer..." games where you gave each unit it's orders, pushed the button and watched them perform.

	04-01-2001 17:19									#28
	Inflate your Upload Space

Historyline 1914-1918 from BlueByte also had an interesting simultaneous-turns style.

If Civ3 turns out to be just a rip-off of AoE I will never buy it. Sure RTS can be fun, but CIV can never work as a RTS-game. Not even with a Transport-Tycoon approach.

	04-01-2001 20:23									#29
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

If CIV3 turns out to be a cheap remake of CIV2 (turned based) with MP being play for 2 minutes and wait 20... I will not even look at the box.