quote: Original post by draqza
And now, for a question: is anybody doing a strategy doc like dwarfsoft did for RPGs?

Hmm... are you volunteering?
If need be, I can provide some space on my site.



Dak.

quote: Original post by Dak Lozar
Hmm... are you volunteering?
If need be, I can provide some space on my site.

Dak.

ACK! Get out of my head! Actually, yeah, I was thinking I might try to do one, but it will take me a few days to get it started. I've got web pages coming out the wazoo, so I think I can find some space to hold it (at least for a while) but I'll let you know. (I'm going to abuse my schools T1 line for a while and search all 20 pages or so of design forums posts to see what all I can find.)

EDIT : quote-in-quote didn't work right, so I fixed it.

Edited by - draqza on March 21, 2001 9:34:57 AM

Saying a TBS should be as exciting as a RTS is the same as saying a RTS should be as exciting as a FPS.

A TBS is not a RTS, and they have different fan bases. People who play TBS games play them because they ARENT RTS games. They like the slow pace and highly involved and indepth decision making that goes on in TBS games. If you put a time limit on turns and try to make a TBS game like a RTS, you will lose both audiences. The TBS guys wont play it because it sucks and its too much real time, and the RTS guys wont play it because it sucks and its to slow and its not real time. You should stick with one or the other.

Possibility

Edited by - Possibility on March 21, 2001 5:56:16 PM

quote: Original post by Possibility

Saying a TBS should be as exciting as a RTS is the same as saying a RTS should be as exciting as a FPS.

A TBS is not a RTS, and they have different fan bases. People who play TBS games play them because they ARENT RTS games. They like the slow pace and highly involved and indepth decision making that goes on in TBS games.

Whoa whoa whoa!!! Wait a sec! What about the people (like myself) who love turn-based AND real-time strategy??? Starcraft and Alpha Centauri are two of my favorite games.

Maybe I''m in the minority, but I know there are people out there who like both.

quote:
If you put a time limit on turns and try to make a TBS game like a RTS, you will lose both audiences. The TBS guys wont play it because it sucks and its too much real time, and the RTS guys wont play it because it sucks and its to slow and its not real time.

Warlords 3, which I think was pretty popular, actually had timed turns in multiplayer. I mostly agree with you, though, and it''s probably the real-time fans you''re likely to lose. It''s a patience and instant gratification issue. When some people sit down to play, they expect their game to deliver quickly. Others don''t mind and actually enjoy a slow build up.





Possibility

Edited by - Possibility on March 21, 2001 5:56:16 PM

——————–
Just waiting for the mothership…

Not COMPLETELY on topic, but very darn close...

Check out this article on Surreal Time. It''s a system developed to allow multiplayer roguelikes, specifically Interhack.

Did anyone play Space Hulk, adaptation by Electronic Arts of a turn based boardgame by Games Workshop ? This was a game of skirmish between aliens and armoured infantry (aka space marines) which was a cross-over between real time and turn based.

The developper solved this conceptuel problem like this: the game ran in real time. Meanwhile a time counter was incrementing. When the player pauses the game, the time counter decremented: when this time counter reached zero, the game switched back automatically in real time.
The player could issue orders in real time to each one of the space marines, but they were slow to answer and often the tactical situation changed too quickly the orders had to be changed 2-3 secs after it was given (the door explodes and four genestealers are charging down the corridor. Aaargh ...). When pausing the game, the player has time to assess the situation and to give orders but this time amount is limited by the time counter. This helped to have short but intense games. Never seen that again in any other game.

Someone said that he prefers RTS because in real life combat is real time and does not happen turn based. First of all, I disagree because when I practice combat I do not go through an interface (screen size, mouse, keybaord joystick). Practicing fencing on a computer or in real life has nothing in common. I agree still that it has no meaning to do it turn based (my move - your move). However, when it comes to shooting guns some solutions can be found (e.g. Space Hulk or X-Com).

I think the choice of real time vs turn based depends more on the type of audience you wish for your game.

Real Time: permits multi-player games, nobody does wait for a turn, the game length is reduced. The game cannot easily be saved when in play to be resumed later (2 hours or 2 days later). The game emphasizes good reflexes (give 45 orders in five minutes while gathering resources, building 10 new buildings, etc) with few reflexions.
(This reflex aspect is important to me: I used to play Warcraft and had no trouble, but as I grew older my reflexes became less swift. I think the risk is to loose a part of your audience as it grows up. Feel free to disagree.)

Turn based: enhances the reflexion and planning aspect. More depth in the options a player can take. The game can easily be saved during play to be resumed later. However, multiplayer games are quickly a hassle (3 players waiting their turn in a four player game - eventhough there are some tricks to reduce the waiting time like each player takes one step then each player another step, etc ...). Games can be long (a design problem, or the options a player can take are incredibly numerous, or else).

Space Hulk style: Multi player is not possible with that system.
It is tailored to human vs computer. Still the depth in options are higher than in RTS but lower than in TB. You may have good reflexes but it can be compensated by your management of your time account. Within this time account you can give orders to any number of units (you are not limited by your swiftness).

To conclude, I propose the following to enhance turn based games:
- reduce the reflexion time of the computer (Battle Isle II was sometimes too long). The most complex models are not often better to reproduce reality or create a suspension of disbelief than simple models (for simplicity look at chess, french draugths, go or DBA for miniature wargamers;-)).
- let the player see the actions of his opponents or (if it is not allowed) to hear them (grunts, voice orders, whatever you wish). I think the player will listen or look carefully to prepare his next turn (it will also increase tension).
- when in human vs computer consider if the Space Hulk style can fit your game style.

Have a nice day.
Red.

I read the Surreal Time article proposed by Anonymous Poster. It is interesting and is adapted to the style of Nethack or InterHack. I wonder if it is adaptable to a wargame system with opponents who have plenty of units and are battling with each other ?

Still it gives some interesting thoughts to adapt the Space Hulk style to a multiplayer game (with still a few player 2-3 max). Ideas anyone ?

Have a nice day.
Red.

I think one of the best ways to combine them is to have seperate areas, where one portion of the game is turn based, and the other is real time. The game that comes to mind is the new Master of Orion 3 that is currently being made. It is still turn based when you manage your empire, but when 2 fleets meet in the same system, then it''ll switched to tactical combat, which is gonna be real time just like a real-time-strategy game, and I think it is gonna rock!!

I personnally love startegy games, both RTS and TBS, and I have always wanted an empire building game that was turn based, but battles were done on a seperate real-time engine.

Possibility