Turn based vs Real time
Jonny T
I think that real time strategy games suck. Turned based ones such as
Civilization rule over suck things like Warcraft?
Opinion?
Thaddeus J. Banley, Jr.
On 23 Jan 1997, Johnny Lamar Rhyne wrote:
> I have played cilization 2 several times. Then I play Red Alert. I
> much prefer real time over turned based. In real time you have to think
> fast, plus you have to time some things just right. Real Time makes it
> seem like a real battle.
>
> I hhaven't played warcraft, so I can't say any thing about it.
I think I might prefer C&C:Red Alert over Warcraft, but I have to say that
turn-based is much better...granted, you have to think fast with C&C, etc,
and granted, it's got the adrenaline level of a real battle, but when it
comes down to it, my personality is closer to that of the wise emporer
rather than the loyal knight...
the knight fights the battle, is quick to his horse, can out maneuver
anyone on the battlefield, and leads his men well, but my hand-eye
coordination is not easily trained, as it must be to do well in
action/real-time games. I prefer considering my move, governing the
population, sending soldiers off to crush the enemy and having tea and
crumpets that evening...ahhh, the emporer...
I guess this argument, at heart, really lies with personal
preference...there is no right or wrong game...I like both, sometimes I
wanna get the adrenaline flowing, other times I wanna flex my mental
muscle...but overall, I'm turn-based...and I gotta say that Civilization
(and Civ2, just a prettier Civ) is the best game to have ever been
invented...it is simply unbeatable...5 stars...I've had it since it came
out, by far, my best purchase...Sid Meier, I salute you!
gimme two meg and you can conquer the world...
--T
Snacktrek, n.:
The peculiar habit, when searching for a snack, of constantly
returning to the refrigerator in hopes that something new will have
materialized.
-- Rich Hall, "Sniglets"
Johnny Lamar Rhyne
In <32E6A9...@agt.net> Jonny T <jon...@agt.net> writes:
>
>I think that real time strategy games suck. Turned based ones such as
>Civilization rule over suck things like Warcraft?
>
>Opinion?
I have played cilization 2 several times. Then I play Red Alert. I
much prefer real time over turned based. In real time you have to think
fast, plus you have to time some things just right. Real Time makes it
seem like a real battle.
I hhaven't played warcraft, so I can't say any thing about it.
--
Mr. H.R. Bradshaw(Deceased)
Head Minister, Ministry of Silly Walks
*Is your life in a rut? Then head down
to your local silly walks recruiter today.*
Join now and we will send you a free Shrubbery.
Old Salt
On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 15:56:26 -0800, Jonny T <jon...@agt.net> gave us
this view on Turn based vs Real time:
>I think that real time strategy games suck. Turned based ones such as
>Civilization rule over suck things like Warcraft?
>
>Opinion?
I think people who post trolls suck. Trolls based on ones
like this from little boys playing on there fathers computer suck
more.
Opinion?
Save it I don't want to know.
___ ___
_____ | | | | _____
======/ | | | | | | \======
----------------------------------------------------
\ Please post messages that only I like. |
\ Old....@worldnet.att.net |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ReluctantMessiah
In article <32E6A9...@agt.net>, Jonny T <jon...@agt.net> wrote:
>I think that real time strategy games suck. Turned based ones such as
>Civilization rule over suck things like Warcraft?
>Opinion?
Real-time *strategy*?? Try another oxymoron, like military intelligence
or middle-east peace...
This is not to say that real-time games can't be fun, but I don't look to
them for strategy.
-jc
--
---
A woman needs a fish like a man needs a bicycle.
Nigel Tzeng
In article <5c6bb7$1...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Johnny Lamar Rhyne <crh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <32E6A9...@agt.net> Jonny T <jon...@agt.net> writes:
> I have played cilization 2 several times. Then I play Red Alert. I
>much prefer real time over turned based. In real time you have to think
>fast, plus you have to time some things just right. Real Time makes it
>seem like a real battle.
Commanders in true real time war games have 48 to 72 hours and have
subordinates to handle running the actual units.
Too many "real time" games makes you a general in charge of everything
but still requires you to lead every soldier or fire every gun. This
may be fun for some folks but it tends to favor the player with better
mouse control than the player with strategic or tactical ability.
Also, "real time strategy" games are often neither real time or
strategy games. Real time would be too slow...and strategy requires
more than moving units around and telling them when to shoot. And I
really like the "strategy" games that don't even allow you to assume
fixed tactical formations but have to manhandle small groups of troops
around by hand (warcraft).
I think that turn based games allows more realistic responses to enemy
action when coupled with something like a chess clock. You do get
time to think things through but not forever. If you do have to move
each piece yourself you have the chance to do a good job (even perhaps
in some doctrinally correct fashion) and good mouse skills aren't the
most important skill aspect of the game.
After all, most players are not professional warfighters and they
also do not have a dedicated staff to support their activities.
Nigel
ArtAllison
I vote with my purchase decisions and I have bought well over 100
non-real-time games.
I will not buy a strategy (or other type but that not relevant to this NG)
game which requires real-time input from me.
I do not have a problem with the units acting upon my directives in real
time, as that does simulate the results of strategic direction. (of course
if the AI's actions are dumb, then such action destroys the enjoyment of
the game) If I am making instant decisions, how can they be considered
anything but tacital, even if the decision is to move a world's forces
from one point to another? The scale is simply being distorted to what is
normally the strategic level, but in essence the game play becomes
tactical.
There are some of us who do not have millisecond reaction times and play
games to reduce stress and relax, not to generate adrenlin.
Maybe having a option to select turn based or run real time might work for
at least some games.
If the trend continues, I expect to be playing one of my 100+ games, not
buying new ones.
Art
::{)
Alan Dunkin
ReluctantMessiah (jcop...@nyx10.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: Real-time *strategy*?? Try another oxymoron, like military intelligence
:
: This is not to say that real-time games can't be fun, but I don't look to
: them for strategy.
You may not look to them for strategy, but they are considered strategy
games in this context and that is how people here will describe them.
There are plnety of real-time games that aren't strategy oriented, like
flight simulations, for instance.
--
Alan Dunkin (al...@ogr.com)
Executive Editor News/Strategy, CNP's Online Gaming Review (www.ogr.com)
Contributing Writer, Dallas Morning News; Warbirds - Black Sheep: Alan (-avd)
Wes Irby
In article <32E6A9...@agt.net>, jon...@agt.net says...
>
>I think that real time strategy games suck. Turned based ones such as
>Civilization rule over suck things like Warcraft?
>
>Opinion?
I prefer turn based, the older I get, the stronger the preference. I
basically left FRP games in favor of sims & strategy when SSI retired
the gold box series and the sucessor was real time. I bought all the
gold box series and none since. I guess that's called voting with your
pocketbook.
--
Wes Irby
Carrollton, Texas, w-i...@ti.com
...onward through the fog.......
Greg Calkin
ReluctantMessiah wrote:
>
> Real-time *strategy*?? Try another oxymoron, like military intelligence
> or middle-east peace...
Since all "REAL" war is realtime, you imply that war has nothing
to do with strategy. I think you are wrong.
>
> This is not to say that real-time games can't be fun, but I don't look to
> them for strategy.
Strategy can be implemented on a realtime basis, and I would have
to say that without basing your tactics within certain strategic
constraints, you are not going to win a game like red alert
>
> -jc
>
> --
> ---
>
> A woman needs a fish like a man needs a bicycle.
--
Negativland: Copyright infringement is your best entertainment value
Disclaimer: These opinions were formulated using chicken entrails
And there ain't no form of vaccination that will give you back you
reputation
-- PIL
From: Greg Calkin, Software Support Specialist, SunService NZ Limited
Email: gr...@NewZealand.Sun.COM Ph: NZ 4 499 2344
Addr: 7th Floor, 70 the Terrace, Wellington Mail: P.O. Box 397,
Wellington
SunService NZ Helpdesk : a...@NewZealand.Sun.COM Ph: 0800 ASK SUN/806
172
SunService NZ Home Page : http://www.sun.co.nz Fax: 0800 FAX SUN/329
786
Dave Sherohman
Greg Calkin <gr...@NewZealand.Sun.COM> wrote:
>Since all "REAL" war is realtime, you imply that war has nothing
>to do with strategy. I think you are wrong.
Real war may be real-time, but it doesn't progress at nearly the rate
of real-time "strategy" games. In _real_ time, you can examine all
(known) aspects of the battlefield and make a dozen revisions to your
plans in less time than it takes to train a new unit of infantry or
build a new unit of tanks. Stopping to mull over your strategy for an
hour or two isn't likely to get all your troops slaughtered.
Real-time games demand that you act NOW!, almost on reflex and don't
allow you the time to devise any but the most basic strategies because
you'll be dead if you turn away from the game to think for five
minutes.
--
I do not like net lags and spam
I do not like them, Sam I Am
Ben
Dave Sherohman wrote:
> Real war may be real-time, but it doesn't progress at nearly the rate
> of real-time "strategy" games. In _real_ time, you can examine all
> (known) aspects of the battlefield and make a dozen revisions to your
> plans in less time than it takes to train a new unit of infantry or
> build a new unit of tanks. Stopping to mull over your strategy for an
> hour or two isn't likely to get all your troops slaughtered.
> Real-time games demand that you act NOW!, almost on reflex and don't
> allow you the time to devise any but the most basic strategies because
> you'll be dead if you turn away from the game to think for five
> minutes.
On the other hand, turn-based games stretch reality in a variety of ways
as well. I have often been frustrated with the fact that turn-based
gaming disallows strategic elements as basic as a simultaneous attack
(two units attacking one target at the same time). Don't get me wrong- I
prefer turn based games, for exactly the reasons you stated. I think
saying that realtime games involve "no" strategy is stretching it quite
a bit, but the pacing of such games generally does not contribute to
carefully considered plans of battle.
A good compromise would be a realtime game which allows you to freeze
the action to give orders and survey the battlefield, thus giving the
player the best of both worlds.
Regards,
Benjamin E. Sones
feld...@sprynet.com
Maximillian Natzet
Ben writes:
>
> On the other hand, turn-based games stretch reality in a variety of ways
> as well. I have often been frustrated with the fact that turn-based
> gaming disallows strategic elements as basic as a simultaneous attack
> (two units attacking one target at the same time). Don't get me wrong- I
> prefer turn based games, for exactly the reasons you stated. I think
That's not true. I can think of several turn based games where
each player enters his commands for the turn, and then the
computer executes the commands simultaneously.
--
Maximillian F Natzet, Combat Botanist
North American Combat Botany Institue
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA
Nat Huang
Ben <feld...@sprynet.com> wrote in article <32F30E...@sprynet.com>...
>
> A good compromise would be a realtime game which allows you to freeze
> the action to give orders and survey the battlefield, thus giving the
> player the best of both worlds.
Every played Space Hulk from EA (a computer adaptation of the Games
Workshop boardgame)? It allowed you to freeze the action, but only for a
limited period of time, similar to an actual battlefield situation: once
your time ran out you had to wait for the "freezer" to recharge. Great
idea! Not so great game (too hard, and too much based on luck).
Patrick Deupree
: I think that real time strategy games suck. Turned based ones such as
The brevity of this opinion leads me to believe it's a troll, but I figure
there are others responding to it in an honest way so I'll jump in.
I'll start by saying that I do have some bias toward real-time strategy
since I'm current working on such a game. However, there are also a few
turn based strategy games I've thoroughly enjoyed also (e.g. X-Com, Jagged
Allience type games). I'm afraid that Sim City, and Civilization type
games are not my speed.
However, the plain and simple truth is that real-time and turn based are
two completely different games with, generally, two completely different
audiences. When I say that, I say it knowing that, as with all games,
there will be people that cross over between the two genres. However,
someone that's in the mood to play a turn-based strategy will not play a
real-time instead.
At some point in time, someone tacked the term "strategy" onto the end of
"real-time strategy" because of the fact that you manipulate a large
number of units in a battle. However, past that one similarity the two
game types diverge immensly.
I agree with some people in this group that were proposing a new newsgroup
to separate real-time strategy from this newsgroup since they really do
belong in two different places.
Angel L. Rosa
Kelly McWethy wrote:
>
> I would have to go with turn-based. I play these games to learn
> a little bit about history or strategy. I just haven't found many
> real-time games that offer this and of those that do, I often find it
> too hectic to notice appreciate the lessons.
> As far as strategy/wargames....comparing a game like Command and
> Conquer with something like TacOps is not even apples and oranges...It's
> more like fruit and fungus. C&C is a fun game...and you do have to pay
> attention to strategy; but, anyone who enters a more demanding
> wargame-style strategy game using C&C tactics is in for a rude
> awakening.
I have played both styles and I have to say I love both . Civ2 , HOmm2 ,
Xcom , Warcraft2 , C&c are all great games . But I prefer Xcom or Civ 2
and Homm 2 for Single play. Cause it takes to dam long in multiplayer .
That's why real-time is very popular. AS for them not being the same
and having a different newsgroup I have to disagree . They are all
strategy games. You have tactics and you command troops have resources
issue commands . Where is the difference ? Primarily in the Ai.
Turnbased games seem to have better AI . They concentrate more on that.
While realt-time seem to concentrate more on Multiplayer aspect . And
with multiplayer all the rage , they are doing pretty well. When I want
a chess match against tough computer opponent I will play Civ2 in
Emperor mode or Homm2 in Expert mode . But when I have access to a lan
and With a lot of friends we all end up playing Warcraft 2 more than not
.. Turn-based is okay as Multiplayer only if its one on one . And you
have lots of patience . I think all of you should agree with me on that
.. I just can't Wait for Xcom 3 , Starcraft and DArk REign ! :)
REuben Angel Rosa
Kelly McWethy
SteamFaxx
Turn based games seem to work best if there are a lot of units to move
around over distances which much be scrolled to access, and it there are
other considerations of micromanagent to be handled.
Realtime based games work well if there are a limited number of units to
keep up with. Diablo is a good choice, since only ONE guy is required to
be kept track of. Warcraft streched my reach too much, so I didn't even
try Command and Conquer. Real-time also would work better with large
numbers of units if various numbers of those units could "act on their
own", that is if you don't pay attention to them, they can function with
intelligence independently. Then the player could concentrate on using one
or a few units without worry that his other ones would goof off.
Han
SteamFaxx <stea...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970205152...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Real-time also would work better with large
> numbers of units if various numbers of those units could "act on their
> own", that is if you don't pay attention to them, they can function with
> intelligence independently. Then the player could concentrate on using
one
> or a few units without worry that his other ones would goof off.
>
--
To add to this...Turn based also is currently necessary for games in which
the units have distinct personality. I guess the only one I can think of
is Jagged Alliance. I don't think computer AI's in games are sophisticated
enough to handle different characters with which you have a "game plan"
for. Like, I wouldn't trust how the computer would handle some of the
Mercs in JA while you're controlling another one, if JA was a real-time
game.
-=[Han]=-
John Secker
In article <32fabd86...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Sensat
<sen...@nonce.net> writes
>"Han" <nguye...@ems.prc.com> wrote:
>
>>To add to this...Turn based also is currently necessary for games in which
>>the units have distinct personality. I guess the only one I can think of
>>is Jagged Alliance. I don't think computer AI's in games are sophisticated
>>enough to handle different characters with which you have a "game plan"
>>for. Like, I wouldn't trust how the computer would handle some of the
>>Mercs in JA while you're controlling another one, if JA was a real-time
>>game.
>
>
>From time to time, this TB-vs-RT wrangle keeps rearing its noisy head.
>The ironic thing is that those who argue about it most, are likely
>those who understand the issue least (no offense intended to any, just
>my observation.)
>
>I'll keep my comments brief. The crux of the issue isn't TB-vs-RT,
>which are simply time-flow schemes to be used in the most appropriate
>fashion. The issue is single-play vs multiplay games. Simply put,
>with the heightened profile of the Internet, multiplay is considered
>as an essential aspect to computer strategy games (regardless of the
>actual degree of multiplay taking place), perhaps only behind the
>requirements of multimedia.
>
>For multiplay strategic games, RT has proven to be a viable and
>popular time-flow scheme. TB is problematic in multiplay, generally
>speaking, because of the fundamental issue of people not wanting to
>wait while his opponent(s) is taking his turn. Realize that the
>typical computer user's attention span is very short, and anything
>that requires waiting for more than 15 seconds (my guesstimation) will
>induce frustration. The social dynamic is very different when one is
>sitting in front of the console, as versus when one is sitting at the
>table with acquaintances.
>
>--Sensat
I had a whole reply written, when I realised that I'm not clear whether
you are giving your own preferences here, or your views on games
producers' marketing strategies. If the former, then I would strongly
disagree that multiplay (or multimedia) are essential features of
computer strategy games. However if you are saying that the marketing
departments demand multiplay, and that real-time is a more suitable
vehicle for this, and so the designers produce more real time games,
then you are probably right. IMHO real time is much more suitable for
on-line multiplay, for the reasons you give; turn-based is the only real
option for pbem, and for single-player games, it all depends on personal
preference. Thing is, the multiplay issue seems to be driving everything
at present, while I would guess (without much evidence) that at least
99% of computer games are played single player.
--
John Secker
jaltona
SteamFaxx wrote:
>
> Turn based games seem to work best if there are a lot of units to move
> around over distances which much be scrolled to access, and it there are
> other considerations of micromanagent to be handled.
>
> Realtime based games work well if there are a limited number of units to
> keep up with. Diablo is a good choice, since only ONE guy is required to
> be kept track of. Warcraft streched my reach too much, so I didn't even
> numbers of units if various numbers of those units could "act on their
> own", that is if you don't pay attention to them, they can function with
> intelligence independently. Then the player could concentrate on using one
> or a few units without worry that his other ones would goof off.
Whether turn-based or real-time, there are a lot of great games out for
both sides of the coin. If the real-time stupidity in AI is keeping you
from trying these games you might want to snatch a look at Dark Reign
(Activision). AI seems to be the key feature in this title, and I can't
wait to see the results. In my opinion, it is second only to the
interface in importance.
Buck DeFore
Dave Sherohman
sen...@nonce.net (Sensat) wrote:
>For multiplay strategic games, RT has proven to be a viable and
>popular time-flow scheme. TB is problematic in multiplay, generally
>speaking, because of the fundamental issue of people not wanting to
>wait while his opponent(s) is taking his turn.
I disagree. _Sequential_ turn-based play requires waiting for all
opponents to take their turns. _Sinultaneous_ turn-based play,
however, has no such requirement as all players take their turns at
the same time. The only waiting involved is if you finish your turn
before the opponent finishes his.
This scheme is entirely workable, as demonstrated by MAX, a game which
I love greatly. My major gripe is that they wrote the program to
introduce this concept to the mass market before I did... (Yes, I had
thought of it before I heard of anyone else doing it; I'm not just
trying to copy InterPlay or jump on their bandwagon. But they got it
to market before I even got around to starting my version. Such is
life, right?)
Theodore Miller
I personally greatly prefer turn-based games. I want to think about what
I'm doing, mull over my choices, look things up in the manual, etc.,
rather than having to scramble around trying to handle several things at
once in a limited time.
Does a preference for turn-based or real-time games relate to other
preferences? I know it does in my case; I prefer e-mail, where I can
consider what to say and revise it, to phone conversations, where I have
to answer immediately. And I dislike driving a car because it's too real-
time, have to react then and there rather than taking time to think
things through.
Baba43
You are good with words sensat, I'll give you that. You manage to come
across as a credible authority on strategy games. I can't deny I was
impressed with your seemingly deep analytical skills at first. But, if one
bothers to follow your comments and arguments for a while, eventually your
act falls apart. It is really not possible to take you seriously for long.
Because the only thing you *really* care is to prove that you are the
smarter one. The subject can be almost anything really.. What matters to
great sensat is that he always "wins". Nobody shall ever prevail in a
battle of wits against you. Isn't that really how you see this forum?
Kind of pathetic actually...
Oh well. Takes all kinds.
David Wolverton
Dave,in fact the person who did this first was Dan Bunten in the game
Global Conquest out in 1992.A demo of the game (its now shareware) is
available at
http://www.mcs.net/~prb/html/gconq.html
A win95 port is in the works so that play over the net will be possible and
this game is 4way!
Dave Sherohman <es...@corlabs.com> wrote in article
<32fa2f43...@news.usinternet.com>...
Dirk Jan Out
Jonny T (jon...@agt.net) wrote:
: I think that real time strategy games suck. Turned based ones such as
: Civilization rule over suck things like Warcraft?
: Opinion?
I hold the firm opinion that people who express themselves like Beavis
and Butthead, and who refrain from using arguments to support their
propositions should also refrain from posting to the Internet.
But then again, that's just one man's opinion....
Dirk-Jan Out o...@trc.nl
Thomas B Gross
: Oh well. Takes all kinds.
I thought what Sensat had to say was right-on; baba must have some
axe to grind on some other issue. whatever, but then I hate to lose
usenet discussions too! :-)
I particularly agree with what he had to say about multiplayer as a
game feature. I've been using the internet for 15 years and a large
part of my reality exists only in cyberspace.
On the other hand, the best thing about computer games is you don't have
to find another human if you want to play. So I guess what I really
want is a browser that's a game...
/tom
John Secker
In article <32fa6d0f...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Sensat
<sen...@nonce.net> writes
>John Secker <jo...@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I had a whole reply written, when I realised that I'm not clear whether
>>you are giving your own preferences here, or your views on games
>>producers' marketing strategies. If the former, then I would strongly
>>disagree that multiplay (or multimedia) are essential features of
>>computer strategy games. However if you are saying that the marketing
>>departments demand multiplay, and that real-time is a more suitable
>>vehicle for this, and so the designers produce more real time games,
>>then you are probably right.
>
>multiplay (and multimedia) are essentials for a commercially
>successful title. For multimedia (defined as music, sound FX, and
>some graphic animation), it is an observable fact. No best-selling
>mainstream retail game on the market can go without some attention to
>multimedia. Multimedia may not make a game good, but it certainly is
>needed to make a good game sell. If you believe otherwise, then
>please name two best-selling gaming titles at retail in the past year
>which have no sound, no animation, and minimal (or low-res) graphics.
>It is more than the dictates of marketing departments, it is the
>dictate of the game-buying public, and the marketing departments are
>only catering to that dictate.
>
>There is a less strong case for multiplay. Certainly, the number of
>gamers engaging in multiplay is much smaller than those engaging in
>single-play, overall. But aside from being an unexplored frontier
>with vast potential, the Internet is a very visible--and thus,
>influential--presence that substantially affects game design
>considerations. The computer enthusiasts who frequent the Internet
>(and Usenet) have a disproportionately greater impact in conveying
>their desires than their number would indicate. Via Usenet and the
>web, they have a much closer line of communication to the gaming
>developers and publishers than the average consumer. And it is a
>natural to state that those who have Internet access, also want to be
>able to play games on the same medium. (This holds true at least for
>the US side, as I understand most Europeans face a high cost of
>access, and are thusly restricted in their discretionary online
>activities.)
>
>Admittedly, the multiplay aspect of current games are more hype than
>substance. Very few gaming titles are online-friendly, even those
>that professed to be primarily for multiplay. Some multiplay games
>aren't even tested for multiplay, and would crash or simply be
>unplayable. I think the industry is in a transition, and true
>multiplay games are still further down the road. In lieu of
>substance, then we get marketing hype to replace it. I have no
>illusions on this score.
>
>> IMHO real time is much more suitable for
>>on-line multiplay, for the reasons you give; turn-based is the only real
>>option for pbem, and for single-player games, it all depends on personal
>>preference.
>
>is only one of many aspects of a game. There are many other aspects
>to be taken into account. For example, let's take the complaints of
>the "anti-RT" (or pro-TB, if you rather) gamers into account. We can
>boil them down to two points: RT games are clickfests, and RT games
>don't let you have enough time to think out strategies.
>
>The first complaint is an UI complaint, not a time-flow complaint.
>Games with inefficient UIs will require many inputs, and under the
>real-time flow, will lead to the clickfest syndrome. The answer here
>is a better UI, not ditching real-time. In my observation, all
>current RT strategic games--from C&C to WC2 to on down--have
>substantial inefficiencies in their UI, or game design, or both. For
>instance, the requirement of manipulating every individual trooper in
>a battle is an absurd idea, yet it is required of all these C&C-type
>games. By moving the control scale up one level, to small groups of
>unit, we can drastically cut down on the required volume of player
>inputs. There are other methods.
>
>The second complaint isn't so much a complaint, but more of stating a
>preference. The statement is that the gamer doesn't like multiplay
>games, but prefer single-play games. Because in multiplay games, the
>gamer is going to be limited in the amount of time he has to process
>his turn, regardless of whether the game is turn-based or real-time.
>He simply doesn't have the choice of sitting there and chewing his cud
>and take however much time he wants, because there are others playing
>the same game he is playing, and they won't have the patience to wait.
>The only time he can do this is when he is playing alone vs the
>computer. Again, the complaint has nothing to do with real-time or
>turn-based.
>
>(I realize that PBEM is always an option, but the term multiplay
>really means head-to-head multiplay, not I'll-wait-for-a-couple-of-
>days-for-your-next-move multiplay. PBEM has been with us for quite a
>while, and if it hasn't become a mainstream option by now, then it
>likely won't be for the foreseeable future.)
>
>So, yes, I agree that for single-play games, the gamer can do whatever
>he wants, and the designer can use whatever time-flow method he cares
>to. I see your "99% of gamers play single-play games" as an extreme
>and unproven assertion, and don't take it seriously. For myself,
>multiplay vs single-play is purely a personal preference. There is no
>"good" or "bad" to be evaluated, and there is nothing that says that
>one is necessarily "better" than the other. For those who want to see
>more games catering to single-play, the answer is simple: Buy more
>games that cater to single-play, and let the publishers know you want
>single-play games. Money is what drives game design, not ideological
>or philosophical discussions, especially not on Usenet.
>
>--Sensat
I think we are having a heated agreement here. You are quite right that
multimedia, and to a lesser extent multiplay, are necessary now for a
mainstream commercial success - I simply regret that fact. Two points
though - I didn't say that 99% of gamers play single-play; I said that
99% of games are played single-play, which is a very different point
(although equally unsupported by evidence). The other point concerns
your final comment; as you rightly said earlier in your message,
Internet/Usenet users have a disproportionate effect in conveying their
preferences - thus it is worth airing our views about what we would like
to buy, in the hope that games companies will respond in their eagerness
to get at our money!
--
John Secker
Dave Sherohman
sen...@nonce.net (Sensat) wrote:
>es...@corlabs.com (Dave Sherohman) wrote:
>>I disagree. _Sequential_ turn-based play requires waiting for all
>>opponents to take their turns. _Sinultaneous_ turn-based play,
>>however, has no such requirement as all players take their turns at
>>the same time. The only waiting involved is if you finish your turn
>>before the opponent finishes his.
>
Happy to oblige.
>Again, do try to get away from the religious RT-vs-TB dogma for a
>second, and look at the issue from the overall game design viewpoint.
That was, in fact, my point. There are endless discussions about
whether RT or TB is better, but very few people seem to recognize that
there is a middle ground between the two. Personally, I feel that
this middle ground makes the most of each style's advantages and
minimizes each one's drawbacks. (Others may disagree, of course,
claiming that simul-turn lacks the fast action of RT or that it
overemphasizes reflexes at the start of the turn relative to true TB.)
>Sure it's workable, as it's not that much different to start with.
Exactly, though our viewpoints seem to differ on which it is more
like. You see it as a minor variation on RT which adds TB
characteristics, I see it as a minor variation on TB which eliminates
the need to wait the full duration of each opponent's turn.
>Your personal feelings about MAX aside, I would note that there is
>little, if any, talk on it as a multiplay game. My sense is that it
>will be as multiplay-popular as the turn-based JADG, or MOO2, which is
>to say, not very popular (for multiplay) at all.
If you say so. Granted, we only do LAN multiplay, not modem or
internet, but multiplayer MAX is quite popular in my office.
In any case, I would expect that a simul-turn game has a great
advantage over a pure TB game in any attempt to get multiplay market
share.
>that point, I think that it would first need to stop crashing when
>people try it for online play. In short, I wouldn't point to MAX as
>any great paradigm for game designers to follow.
You admit that the major barrier to online play of MAX is its tendency
to crash. Therefore, its true mass multiplay appeal cannot be judged
yet. Your feeling is that it will do little better than a pure TB
game; mine is that it will do much better than pure TB. I don't
expect it to do as well as pure RT games, at least in the younger age
groups which form the primary market for most non-TB games, because it
lacks the arcade characteristics. However, it may draw portions of
the traditionally TB/PBEM segments into online play which will help to
make up for the lack of interest in the RT crowd.
Thomas B Gross
Sensat (sen...@nonce.net) wrote:
: John Secker <jo...@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Color me a
: pessimist, but Usenet threads with titles like "turn-based vs
: real-time" is probably somewhere at the bottom of the cliff in terms
: of getting the developers' attention. I would even go beyond that and
: generalize that any thread with the word "versus" in the subject
: heading is good grounds for a kill filter. The noise-to-signal ratio
: is almost always horrendous for these better/worse threads, and
: developers simply don't have the time required to sift out few
: worthwhile nuggets in them. If the goal is getting the developers'
: ear, then these threads is probably the worst possible way to go about
: it.
Not at all. I usually search subjects for certain keywords that
indicate that the post is about one of our games (e.g. "LOTR", "Lords",
"Caesar", "Rise and Rule"). Other than that, this particular thread
caught my eye because, believe it or not, we talk about this issue a lot
internally!
: The Usenet is good for feedback in specific, concrete terms, such as
: bug reports or wishlists for specific features. The Usenet is poor
: for expository discussions of abstracted concepts or ideas, or
: compare/contrast between different ideas.
No and yes.
No because although if I see a bug report specific to one of our
games, I try to be helpful, but 90% of the time it's some configuration
problem for which I simply can't be a help. We have tech support for
this sort of thing, although I too tend not to think of calling
tech support - I'm much more likely to post something on Usenet myself!
(For example, I just bought HOMM2. I really like the game but it hangs
repeatedly on my HP Pavillion 120 MHz with 16 Meg - is there a patch
for this that might fix it?)
Yes because to be honest I stopped reading your rather long message
after this point... :-) But in general the point I am trying to make
is, yes, at least one developer finds these "abstract" discussions
pertinent and interesting...
Tom Gross
Director of Technology
Impressions/Sierra
--
http://world.std.com/~tbg
Dave Sherohman
sen...@nonce.net (Sensat) wrote:
>OK, let's go beyond the "what I see it as", and ask what is
>simul-turn's best asset as versus (sequential) TB and RT. We'll take
>MAX's implementation as a test case, and let's also assume the best
>case for it (i.e. MAX plays fine online with no crashes, etc). You
>are fairly enthusiastic about MAX and simul-turn, so you get the honor
>of defending the homestead.
Oh, boy! I get to defend the homestead!
Actually, I would have to say that you have the position of defense
here, as you are supporting the status quo while I am suggesting that
something different might be better. But this is all mere semantics,
of course, and of little consequence.
>My questions: Why is the concept of simultaneous turn-based, as
>implemented by MAX, any superior than the real-time implementations
>which preceded it? If it is not better in some aspect over RT, but
>merely different, then what aspect of the simul-turn concept makes it
>more compelling to the gamer than an equivalent RT game?
The most important factor is that I like it! <thwack> OK, that's not
a serious argument in support of ST, although it is the most important
factor in my personal decision.
The first point, of course, is that it is different. Different is not
necesarily better, but (as you have pointed out in one of the other TB
vs RT subthreads) difference offers choices and consumers like
choices. Even if MAX were pure unmitigated crap, some segment of the
market would buy it just because its different than anything else
that's (currently) out there.
Not only does MAX offer a choice in that ST is different from any of
the RT or TB games that are currently out, it also offers a choice
within the product - you can choose whether a certain battle will be
played out in a ST or TB style. I would expect the future to lie with
games which allow you to select ST, TB, or RT based upon the whim of
the moment, but I would expect that adding RT to the option set would
be rather difficult to implement. (Incidentally, this is one of the
reasons that I tend to view ST as a variation on TB rather than a
variation on RT.)
As for true advantages of ST over RT, four come to mind. Note some of
these are purely subjective advantages and the segment of the RT crowd
who prefer it for the arcade appeal may consider them to be
disadvantages.
The least ambiguous of these advantages is stronger AI players. While
this is primarily a concern in single play, I feel it to be relevant
to multiplay as well. (I assume that you do as well, given your
statement of "I readily admit that most of the games I play,
regardless of whether they be multiplay or single-play, I play against
the computer" in your latest response to John Secker.) Not only do
most current games with multiplay capability allow you to include AI
foes in a head-to-head game, many of them also offer an option
equivalent to Red Alert's "skirmish mode" in which a single human can
engage in pseudo-multiplay against one or more computer opponents
under multiplay conditions rather than playing out preset positions
(scenarios, missions, whatever).
Traditionally, TB games have had better AI than RT games. While this
is partially due to TB gamers' higher level of concern with the
strength of artificial foes, this is likely to be related to the
reduced demand for processor time to be spent on animation and related
tasks relative to RT games. ST games free up nearly as much CPU time
for strategic calculations as TB games; therefore, they should be able
to support roughly equivalent AI. (Yes, I'm simplifiying the matter
by just calling it a question of CPU time. The fact remains, however,
that TB and ST games use a smaller chunk of system resources for
graphics/animation, which leaves more resources available for AI
processing.)
The second advantage of ST over RT is that it can allow the human
player time to develop strategies as well as giving the CPU more time
to spend on AI routines. This will help to draw in the traditional TB
gamers who prefer games that challenge their minds as much as (if not
more than) their reflexes. On the other hand, for those who prefer a
faster pace in their games, the turn duration can be shortened to the
point that reflexes once again take on a dominant role. Personally, I
feel that MAX starts to break down at high speeds, as you cannot
effectively command more than a handful of units and/or factories at
some of the shorter turn settings, but that's just my preference.
The third advantage is the ability to exert finer control over your
units. In most RT games, you have to watch over your units to ensure
that they don't do something mind-bogglingly stupid - C&C/RA
harvesters wandering through the front gate of the enemy's base
provide a classic example of this. ST games may require a similar
level of micromanagement, but there is a significant difference: You
don't have to turn away from the firefight in order to redirect an
errant harvester. Using MAX units for an example, after you move and
fire your tanks at the start of a turn, you can go and change your
surveyor's orders without having to worry that the tanks might do
something stupid while you're away - they've already done their thing,
so they're just going to sit there until the next turn starts. In RA,
if your tank horde is engaging the enemy, going off somewhere else to
redirect your ore truck could easily lose the battle since you have to
tell the tanks to concentrate their fire on a single target or else
they'll spread it around.
One side effect of these last two points taken together is that
combined arms become much more effective since you don't have to try
to time your commands just right to get your forces to hit the enemy
when and where you want them to. You can assemble your forces and
then send the tanks up first to soak up damage, then bring in the
assault guns to take out the AA guns, and finish up with the GAPs
without having to worry that you might have clicked half a second too
soon and the GAPs will get chewed up before the assault guns do their
part. The ability to control combined arms effectively also allows
the game designer to add the need to use combined arms, thus making
RA-style tank rushes ineffective (or at least far less effective).
Finally, the decreased time pressure of ST allows for greater
differentiation among units. Not only does ST allow for more unit
types (which could easily enough be done in an RT game, though it
would become unmanageable more quickly than in an ST game), it allows
for differentiation within a unit type to be managed more easily as
well. In War2, when you research Rangers at your lumber mill, all
your elves immediately become rangers because they're all clones of
each other. In MAX, I can buy upgrades for my tanks' armor, but the
tanks in the field are unaffected because each is tracked separately.
Yes, this could be done in an RT game, but I don't believe that it
would work nearly as well for the simple reason that you don't have
the time to go through your tanks to see which ones have been upgraded
and which ones haven't, you need a tank NOW, so you just grab the
first one you see and tell it to go.
Essentially, I don't see ST as a great breakthrough or anything like
that. I see it as a way to make TB multiplay capable. If you go down
my list, you will see that every item on it essentially boils down to
"I think ST beats RT because it's like TB in this way."
>>In any case, I would expect that a simul-turn game has a great
>>advantage over a pure TB game in any attempt to get multiplay market
>>share.
>
>Since a (sequential) TB game has about zero head-to-head
>multiplayability, then your expectation isn't saying a whole lot.
Of course. However, you had stated that "My sense is that it will be
as multiplay-popular as the turn-based JADG, or MOO2". Given the
context of the discussion, I took your reference to JADG and MOO2 as
"turn-based" to indicate that they are pure TB games, not ST. As I
have played neither, feel free to correct me if they are indeed ST.
My statement was primarily intended to refute yours, not to indicate
that pure TB games have any great multiplay potential.
OTOH, some sequential TB games have manually-controlled reaction or
opportunity fire options which give the inactive player something
(however little it may be) to do during his opponent's turn. There
are also hotseat games, but these still offer little appeal for h2h
gaming for most potential players.
>Do note, that I have no interest in beating on MAX. Part of the
>reason I did a detailed commentary on MAX was because I was initially
>drawn to it as a game. It has great ambiance, and the graphics and
>the UI are both very good. The rich unit mix is well crafted,
>although as I correctly surmised, it led to a more-incompetent-than-
>usual AI in the final release.
What standard do you consider to be the usual? MAX's AI is a far more
worthy opponent than those I have encountered in such RT games as C&C,
Red Alert, and WarCraft2. It may even be better than that of Steel
Panthers. (As to the discussion of TB multiplay options, there are
many who say that the only reason to play Steel Panthers against the
computer is to train yourself for PBEM. Something to think about...)
John Secker
In article <E5E5q...@world.std.com>, Thomas B Gross
<t...@world.std.com> writes
<snip>
>is, yes, at least one developer finds these "abstract" discussions
>pertinent and interesting...
>
>Tom Gross
>Director of Technology
>Impressions/Sierra
Good for you, and I imagine that this is one reason why your company
produces a good percentage of the games worth buying (IMHO). I feel much
better inclined towards a company which listens to ideas and
alternatives, and responds - even if only to say "we did it this way
because ......".
--
John Secker
Jason McGill
Real Time is stupid, not fun, not real. To explain:
Computers are not the real world.
Most Important:
The need to be glued to the computer screen is not fun.
RT demands this. Any Non-RT is better. Would you
rather be able to play with usenet, have radio on, AND
play game at same time? YES!!! SC (simultaneous
resolution of combat is also cool since you have an
orders phase which you can THINK about).
Nobody can take their time in a real time game. I would
hate the donkey kong version of MOO.
There is no strategy in Real TIME.
RT isn't any more 'real' than anything. Its a computer.
Paul Campbell
Well its fun for me.
I have never and will probably never buy a turn-based war game.
They just don't "do it" for me at all and I think a large proportion
of the game buying population probably feel the same way.
C&C is the only war/battle game I have ever bought for the PC and
I would guess that the same is true for a high proportion of
C&C and warcraft buyers.
The real time aspect of these games is, for me, a *critical* factor
in reaching the suspension-of-disbelief stage and far outways
the dissadvantages of poorer AI and micro-management problems.
I suppose I like the pressure associated with having to make decisions
in real time rather than being bothered about the tactical/strategic
subtleties.
Paul C.
UK.
Darrell999
Someone wrote an excellent letter to Computer Gaming World and made the
point that "real time" games are fine for platoon level combat, but are
ludicrous in strategic situations. His example was Rebellion, in which,
realistically, a strategic battle plan would take careful planning by
generals and admirals. They wouldn't be frantically clicking a mouse to
send a fleet to attack an Imperial stronghold. If Rebellion has real
time tactical battles, fine. But I hope, for the sake of playability and
common sense, that the strategic element would be turn based.
Bruce Rennie
Darrell999 (darre...@aol.com) wrote:
: Someone wrote an excellent letter to Computer Gaming World and made the
It all depends on how much control you are willing to turn over to the
computer. In my case, that's not much.
I pointed out to the Close Combat fans who were claiming that "real" time
was more realistic that turn based that all battles, even small unit
skirmishes involve a some real loss of control. IMO, the most important
factor that influences a battle is the preparation that occurs before the
battle. In most cases there is no time constraints on this "preparation",
at least it's not a real click-fest.
When battle is joined, however, the officers in charge find themselves losing
control over their unit and therefore over the situation. Take an armoured
company commander. In a real situation he may have to stop acting as CO
and simply fight his tank. Maybe his XO will take over, maybe not.
The point is, if you are going to accurately reflect this, then you have
to take control away from the player. I hate this. However, in a real time
game, if you don't do this you run the risk of turning the game into
a mad clicking mouse abuse session. I hate this too.
The way around this is to avoid trying to be too realistic, which is the
path of games like C&C and Red Alert. I play these games and like them,
but they are not "more" realistic than turn based wargames. Just different.
So, in the end, these so-called real time games (continuous time, actually)
are not more realistic. And if realism is not being enhanced, then real-time
should not be used in situations where turn based modes are simpler and
easier on the wrist.
MHO :^}
/bruce
--
*******************************************************************************
* Bruce Rennie Q: Are We Not Men ? *
* bre...@interlog.com *
* *
*******************************************************************************
Gregg Charlton
From what I've read, Rebellion will be played in real-time. However,
time passage will be MUCH slower than it is with Red Alert or Warcraft
II. There are decent real-time strategy games on the market. Interplay's
Castles I and II, Harpoon, SSG's Carriers at War, SSI's Great Naval
Battles are just a few. As long as you have the option to slow down time
to a near standstill, the real-time format is viable for strategy. Games
like Red Alert, although highly entertaining, blur the distinction
between the strategy and action classes.
Thomas Davie
In article <5dt673$o...@news.interlog.com>, bre...@gold.interlog.com (Bruce Rennie) wrote:
>So, in the end, these so-called real time games (continuous time, actually)
>are not more realistic. And if realism is not being enhanced, then real-time
>should not be used in situations where turn based modes are simpler and
>easier on the wrist.
Road to Moscow may very well break the mold for real time/continous action
games in terms of approaching reality. In terms of the amount of information a
strategic level commander would have and the ability to react to changing
situations....I suspect that this is what is going to happen in RTM.
I don't know if this is going to come out the way I mean it but....here goes.
As 'supreme commander' you see the Soviets making a breakthrough in a
particular area of the front. Let's say that you represent OKH. As someone
sitting in front of the screen, you can visibly see a breakthrough attempt. As
the person who is staring at the screen/OKH you want to prevent the
breakthrough, and order available units to stop it. If the time scale is
handled properly( and movement values, etc )you'll probably have the proper
ability/inability to react that the real OKH would have.
I know that on a tactical scale game, turn based is a fudge( that I'm willing
to accept because I don't want to give up control of my units ); however on a
grand strategic scale I think I might be willing to go to a continous action
game. The more that I consider RTM, the more I'm willing to give it a chance.
The last continous action game I bought, Close Combat, I sold after 4 weeks.
Sorry for the incoherent rambling.
Tom
David desJardins
Sensat <sen...@nonce.net> writes:
> For multiplay strategic games, RT [real-time] has proven to be a
> viable and popular time-flow scheme. TB [turn-based] is problematic
> in multiplay, generally speaking, because of the fundamental issue of
> people not wanting to wait while his opponent(s) is taking his turn.
You seem to understand this exactly---apart from your affection for
excessive abbreviation. The issue, then, is that some large fraction of
the gaming audience (probably less than half, but still a very
significant fraction) doesn't want to play "real-time" strategy games.
They enjoy being able to take a variable amount of time to think and to
make their decisions, depending on the situation.
We know for a fact that it's possible for human beings to play and enjoy
turn-based strategy games. People do play and enjoy turn-based strategy
*board* games, despite the fact that they have to wait for their turns
sometimes. There's no reason why those people can't play and enjoy
turn-based strategy games.
The problem, to date, is that no one is producing such games. MAX is
not a turn-based game, not even a "simultaneous" turn-based game. It's
a hybrid where the turn action still takes place in real-time. HOMM2 is
a turn-based game, but it's not designed to be playable in a multiplayer
mode---players can't even look around the map while waiting for their
opponents to move! Much less plan what they are going to do on their
own turns. There simply aren't any turn-based games designed to be
playable online over the Internet.
Perhaps people will produce such games in the future. Perhaps not.
It's obvious what the ingredients of such a game would be. Allow
players, to the extent possible, to do things while the other players
are moving (for example, allocate resources or make other decisions that
don't affect the other players). Allow players, to the extent possible,
to plan their moves simultaneously rather than sequentially. Allow
players, to the extent possible, to see what other players are doing, so
they have something to do other than just sit and wait. Whether such
games will come to pass, and if so whether they will be popular, I think
is too hard to say at this point in time.
David desJardins
--
Copyright 1997 David desJardins. Unlimited permission is granted to quote
from this posting for non-commercial use as long as attribution is given.
Michael B. Heagerty
> > For multiplay strategic games, RT [real-time] has proven to be a
> > viable and popular time-flow scheme. TB [turn-based] is problematic
> > in multiplay, generally speaking, because of the fundamental issue of
> > people not wanting to wait while his opponent(s) is taking his turn.
Definitely. Jagged Alliance Deadly Games was fun, but sitting in my chair
for 10 minutes waiting for my friend to finish his move. Granted, it had a
time limit feature, but this seemed to rush things. I think simultaneous,
real time games are the best way to play "over the phone," as opposed to
face to face. If your playing a game against an opponent who is sitting
there, you can talk and iteract. On the computer, you just sit there.
Boring.
Mike
Skeksis
David desJardins wrote:
> We know for a fact that it's possible for human beings to play and enjoy
> turn-based strategy games. People do play and enjoy turn-based strategy
> *board* games, despite the fact that they have to wait for their turns
> sometimes. There's no reason why those people can't play and enjoy
> turn-based strategy games.
This is just a hypothesis (sp?). Maybe turn based board games are
popular because the players are in contact with other; they can talk,
watch the other person making and executing their plans, and so on,
basically interacting.
Skeksis
David desJardins
Skeksis <ske...@buffnet.net> writes:
> This is just a hypothesis (sp?). Maybe turn based board games are
> popular because the players are in contact with other; they can talk,
> watch the other person making and executing their plans, and so on,
> basically interacting.
Yes, absolutely! I don't know for sure what this means for the future
of computer strategy games. It could mean that they can't be truly
successful in giving people what they get from board games until people
have the ability to see and hear all of their opponents, examine all
parts of the game world, and plan their actions, all of the time.
That's probably another 10 years or more beyond present technology.
But there are certainly ways that games could give players a part of
that. At the very least, players should be able to examine the game
world, watch what other players are doing, and be in some sort of
constant contact with one another. That's all possible with present
technology; it's just that no one has developed turn-based strategy
games that allow all of this. Maybe it is just a matter of time, or
maybe there isn't sufficient demand. But I know that's what I am
waiting for.
Dave Sherohman
se...@worldnet.att.net (Sens) wrote:
>Dave, you made five points in support of MAX and ST. Quotes are
>provided below, for those who want to cross-check. Paraphrasing
>follows:
For the most point, your paraphrases are accurate. I have made a few
minor adjustments and clarifications, of course.
>1) MAX is different from RT games. It offers both ST and TB schemes,
>whereas RT games are, of course, only RT. Variety is good.
Just a reminder: This discussion is primarily about ST, RT, and TB.
MAX is the current implementation of ST which serves as the primary
example, but it is not the epitome of ST design or implementation.
>2) ST games should have stronger AI than RT games, because the former
>don't eat up as much CPU time.
Given the current state of hardware, I'm not so sure that it's a
question of what _should_ be the case. My statement was that TB games
have traditionally had better AI - in many cases, RT has been able to
get away with little to no AI (eg, C&C) and instead relied upon time
pressure to challenge the human player in games against the computer.
>3) ST games allow human players more time to develop strategies.
>
>4) The human player can exert finer control over his units in a ST
>game as versus a RT game.
>
>5) The decreased time pressure in a ST game allows for more
>differentiation between unit types, as well as within the same unit
>type, such as selective upgrades.
No corrections on these three.
>I also would like to see a projected time frame from you, on when your
>predictions will come true, i.e. MAX's multiplay will be popular on
>the online circuit, and the ST mechanism see many adoptees and many
>products as it enters the mainstream for multiplay online games.
>Would you agree 3-6 months as suitable? Let me know.
While the market may move quickly, any well-done game has a
significant development time. While I could see MAX gaining multiplay
popularity within 3-6 months once the modem and internet connectivity
options are brought up to par, I doubt that any other ST games will be
released within the next 3-6 months unless they're already in
production.
I would also like to reiterate that, if ST games become common online
experiences, I have no expectation that they will surpass RT in
popularity. I see their role more as bringing TB gamers into the
online/network gaming scene rather than drawing off all the RT gamers.
In my experience, RT and TB gamers play for different reasons and,
while ST combines RT and TB characteristics, it appears to appeal more
to the TB gamers' reasons for playing than it does to those of the RT
gamers.
Dave Sherohman
sen...@nonce.net wrote:
> The problem with async moves, as can be seen in MAX, is that
>the player with the faster hand will always have the initiative over a
>slower player, making the game more of a hand-speed duel than any RT
>game would.
Not always. In the case of MAX, units which are ordered to attack a
target outside of their range will pursue it, firing immediately at
the beginning of each turn, until it is destroyed. Thus it is the
player who plans ahead that ultimately gets automatic initiative in
movement and fire, not necessarily the one with the twitchy trigger
finger.
> But unlike one Dave S.'s claim that RT games' bad AI is
>because of lack of CPU cycles, I contend that the bad AI is a simple
>result of design neglect or incompetence, not of hardware inadequacy.
Most certainly. My intent in bringing up CPU cycles/system resources
was to hypothesize a reason for TB's traditionally stronger AI.
Another possibility (which is likely to be more relevant than CPU
cycles with modern processors) is that it's easier to apply time
pressure in an RT game than it is to write better AI. Programming the
computer to cheat is also easier than improving the AI, and I find it
apalling how many game producers (and game players!) consider this the
superior alternative.
Dave Sherohman
se...@worldnet.att.net (Sens) wrote:
>>>2) TB games have traditionally had better AI - in many cases, RT has
>>>been able to get away with little to no AI (eg, C&C) and instead relied
>>>upon time pressure to challenge the human player in games against
>>>the computer.
>
>the first to be popularized (C&C) is only a couple of years old. You
>can take the few hundreds (thousands?) of past and current TB games to
>compare to the handful of popular RT games, and I'm sure you might
>pull something out of the hat which may fit your claim, but that's
>hardly an objective measure, is it?
I'm actually thinking of RT games in general, not just RT "strategy"
games. Even on that count, though, there have been several of them
prior to C&C - Dune 2 and Command HQ spring to mind immediately, but I
doubt that they were the first either.
> Perhaps you are talking of
>single-play RT games as well. Then are you prepared to make a case
>for Harpoon's AI being deficient because of its RT nature? Are you
>prepared to make a case for Balance of Power's (one of the most
>complex and capable strategic games on the computer) AI being
>deficient because of its RT nature?
While I haven't played Balance of Power, I will admit to having been
soundly beaten on the few occasions I played Harpoon. However, I have
not said that _all_ RT games have poor AI; I have been speaking in
general terms. There will always be a handful of RT games with good
AI and a handful of TB games with lousy AI. My point is that the
average TB AI is more competent than the average RT AI.
>2) When making an assertion, you need to be more concrete. The term
>"better" is a vague term that needs to be defined before use, as its
>interpretation varies wildly from person to person. What's "better"
>for you?
I define a better AI as one which is capable of providing a greater
challenge without needing to resort to such things as having
mission-specific tactics coded for it by a scenario designer (C&C, RA)
or cheating (far too many to list).
>3) In your previous post, you decry the poor AI of RT games by citing
>C&C's harvester movement as an example. Two problems: Firstly, you
>are comparing apples and oranges. C&C may have a poor movement AI to
>control your units, but then again, TB games generally don't provide
>any AI for your units at all. You have to move each unit yourself,
>and fire each yourself. What's worse, a poor AI or no AI?
You want an honest answer? For the control of my own units (which is
what I was referring to in that case), I prefer no AI over an AI which
gets my units killed on a regular basis. In multiplayer gaming, the
player unit AI is the primary (AI-related) factor - or the only one if
no computer players are included.
> Secondly,
>while you may say C&C has a poor move AI, it is false to generalize
>that deficiency as an inherent characteristic of RT games without
>further qualification. You claim that designers of RT games rely more
>on time pressure in lieu of AI. If that's the case, then it sounds
>more like a problem with the game designers than with the RT
>mechanism, don't you think? But how could that be the case, when you
>can use the time speed adjustor to slow down a RT game to whatever
>speed you desire?
Yes, you can adjust the game speed - this is normally viewed as a
means of adjusting the game's difficulty, which supports my argument
perfectly. (In most of the RT games I've seen, changing the speed is
the only means, aside from cheat codes and the like, to adjust the
game's difficulty.) AI is not used to provide the primary challenge.
Lots of stuff being thrown at you really fast is used instead. If you
can't keep up, you make it easier by decreasing the speed. If you're
a hotshot or just want more of a challenge, you increase the speed.
>I don't like to generate needless antagonism, but I see all of your
>arguments as specious. You blame the RT mechanism for a lot of
>things--poor AI, time pressure, blah blah blah--all of which are
>attributable to other factors.
Everything is attributable to other factors. However, when one factor
(RT) has a high correlation with various attributes ("poor AI, time
pressure, blah blah blah"), there is likely to be a causal
relationship, or at least a common cause.
>That time pressure is a factor for online play is because of the
>overriding time limit on online play. The average length of an online
>gaming session, by my observation, is around 1-2 hours. Maximum
>length would be 2-3 hours. If we're talking about really hardcore
>gamers, then may be 4 hours.
Well, then, we must be _really_ hardcore, since 3-4 hour games are
common in my group and even then, two game nights are frequent. Our
sessions average 6-8 hours. Of course, that's a sample size of one
(group) and, AFAIK, none of us play games by phone, just on the office
LAN.
> But that's it. People have lives and
>priorities and families to tend to. For single-session MP games (such
>as MAX and RA), a game has to be started and finished within this time
>block.
Not true. MAX has and (I believe) RA is supposed to be adding an
option to save multiplayer games, which removes the single-session
limitation.
>Given that we have a fixed time limit per game, and given that we will
>have some number of units under our control in the game, then the
>amount of time allotted for each unit is simplified as (total time /
>number of units). Putting it another way, the amount of time
>available to spend on each unit is dependent on the total time limit
>and the number of units involved.
Until the unit count varies. At a constant game speed, whether it is
a RT game with no adjustments of the speed setting or a ST/TB game in
which every turn runs the same number of minutes, the time available
per unit generally decreases as the game progresses and more units are
produced.
ST and TB games, however, make it much easier to vary the rate at
which the game progresses to keep a more constant amount of time per
active unit. (I specify active units because most of us don't care
whether or not there's time to attend to that scout sitting on the
other side of the board to serve as an early warning system or other
units that we don't want to do anything with.) Unless you're going to
fidget with the game speed slider, a town hall takes, say, 2 minutes
to build in Warcraft. So the game starts out, everyone starts
building their town halls, then you sit there for 2 minutes waiting
for construction to be completed. In MAX, when things are quiet, you
can just hit 'End Turn' a few times until something happens.
Conversely, when there are many units on the map, ST/TB games allow
you to take the full limit of the turn timer (or however long you want
if no timer is used - I normally play with only the secondary timer)
to deal with your units without having to frantically attempt to deal
with 50 units at the same pace as you dealt with 5 earlier in the
game.
> It is irregardless of whatever
>game-flow scheme used. If you want to "decrease the time pressure,"
>then the only way to do that is by increasing the total time (i.e.
>slowing down the game). This is a hard fact. You can't obviate this
>fact unless whatever game-flow scheme you use can stop time.
...or it has an inbuilt method for accelerating the pace of the game
when nothing is going on without unduly affecting other players, thus
leaving more of the game's time span for those situations in which
there's more to be done. (Yes, I acknowledge that this can also be
used to achieve greater time pressure by hitting 'End Turn'
immediately at the beginning of the turn. However, I consider this a
legitimate strategy as it occurs as a result of one player choosing to
use time to hinder the enemy rather than simply being an aspect of the
game engine.)
>[Incidentally, that's why I see sequential-move TB games as never
>going anywhere for multiplay. From the above simplified equation,
>then the time available per unit for a TB game would be ((total time /
># of players) / # of units). Simply put, sequential TB games are too
>inefficient in time usage to be viable under the severe time limit of
>online play.]
Agreed.
>but because time is an active element in a RT game, then these specs
>can be subsumed in the game without the player having to do any
>calculation based on them.
This is more a factor of the player than the game, provided that the
game engine will remember movement orders beyond a single increment of
movement (the base movement distance in RT games, a single turn in
ST/TB games) and automatically continue moving the unit until its
destination is reached. Non-movement characteristics generally result
in even less differentiation between RT and ST/TB - it takes N shots
for unit X to kill unit Y. Making the raw numbers available _allows_
players to do the calculations in advance, but it is not by any means
_required_.
> In C&C, you know a biker is faster than a
>medium tank is faster than a mammoth. You know that an Apache has a
>fast ROF but does minimal damage to armored targets. There are hardly
>any numbers involved, other than the cost to buy a unit.
Actually, the numbers are there and have just as much of an effect
whether you see them or not. It's just a question of whether the
interface shows them to you or not - the underlying engine has nothing
to do with it. And yes, I'm the sort of gamer who stops to verify
that my Ground Attack Planes can survive two bursts of AA fire before
sending one into range of an AA emplacement. I also dug the numbers
out of rules.ini in Red Alert and calculated that a light tank has 1%
more firepower and 2% more hit points per dollar spent than a heavy
tank, but 0.75 squares less range.
>In short, a TB (and ST) game is less efficient than RT game in time
>usage, because there are more factors and specs (read: math) for a
>player to consider, per unit, than a RT game.
More specs means (the potential for) greater differentiation among
units. And again, just because the numbers are there doesn't mean you
have to use them. I rarely check the actual stats of units unless
they're crucial to the immediate situation (eg, the GAP/AA I mentioned
above). Most of the time, the simple indicator of 'one hit will do
this' that you get when you hold the cursor over a target is all the
information I need. (Now that I think about it, just about the only
times I check stats are when I want to know how badly an enemy unit
will damage one of mine, which is just the targeting cursor situation
in reverse. Note that this is because of something the _interface_
doesn't provide and is not tied to any aspect of the game engine or
its timeflow model.)
>The Time Flux Syndrome: (I'm listening to Rush's "Time Stand Still,"
>which seems appropriate enough, heheh).
Quite.
>Just like the computer which always move/fire its units first in
>single-play MAX, a player with fast hands will always have the
>initiative against a slow player in multiplay MAX.
Even if I grant that fast hands will always grant _tactical_
initiative, they will not guarantee _strategic_ initiative. Sure,
your tanks may shoot mine before I can respond. I'll even put my
tanks on Manual Fire so they don't automatically return fire against
your units. None of this will stop me from moving up my Assault Guns
and chewing your tanks to bits.
This kind of direct unit control which allows me to choose when my
units will engage yours and in which order works to reduce the
significance of reflex speed. I will grant you that reflex speed is
still somewhat significant in async ST, but it is nowhere near as
important as it is in RT.
>said before, many of MAX's problems don't manifest fully because the
>unit density is much lower than that of, say, RA. When unit density
>is low, interactivity with enemy units is low, and the number of seen
>problems is also low.
Personally, I see the lower unit density as a feature in and of
itself, regardless of any effects (real or imagined) it may have on
masking flaws. I prefer to directly control smaller numbers of units
rather than grabbing a horde of 50 tanks, pointing off into the
distance, and saying, "Go over there."
>Want to know why I call it a Band-Aid? I'll even take your above
>example to use. Say you have a fighter plane chasing a bomber. You
>plot the fighter to target the bomber so it will automatically chase
>after the bomber at the beginning of every turn without your
>intervention. In the course of chase, the fighter stumbled into an AA
>nest. BAMPH BAMPH it's dead. You have no recourse, since the
>fighter's move is automatic and happens before you even can blink. In
>a RT game, you at least have the option of following the fighter and
>interdicting its movement at the moment of the AA discovery.
Ignoring, of course, the minor detail that the fighter will be dead
before it can detect the AA gun. If the AA gun has been spotted by
another unit, you can change the fighter's orders on the previous turn
to prevent this from happening - and in this case, you can switch
around the map to multiple units on autopilot and decide which to
recall and which to let continue, while RT games make it much more
difficult (if not impossible, depending on the interface) to
effectively follow more than one unit in this fashion.
You are also ignoring the detail that we may be on different parts of
the map, giving you initiative (for the turn) in one battle while I
gain it in another without regard for whose hands are faster.
>But let's say the fighter has pretty smart AI and automatically stops
>at the moment of the AA nest discovery. The bomber certainly ain't
>gonna stop; it gets away scot free. But what happens if the AA was
>insignificant and would've done no damage to the fighter?
If the AA is insignificant, a "pretty smart AI" would take that into
effect and ignore it.
> In a RT
>game, you have the option of changing or not changing the fighter's
>course. In MAX's ST implementation, that's not a choice you have.
>It's...automatic. What was that you said about "finer controls"
>again?
In MAX you also have the choice of changing or not changing the
fighter's orders. It's not automatic - the fighter is following the
orders you gave it. I certainly don't want the game engine to examine
my orders and second-guess me if it thinks they were bad ones (unless
it's intended to model morale effects or something of that sort).
I stand by my "finer controls" statement. If it's false, I invite you
to propose a method to track the movement of 6 units (pursuing 6
different objectives, not just a flight of 6 MiGs headed for the same
target) in an RT game such that any one of them which is about to
stumble into a known enemy position can be recalled before doing so
without significantly impairing your ability to continue production
and the maneuvering of other units. Even in a game such as RA which
has good group management routines and lets you set up hotkeys to
immediately jump to a unit/group, this is impossible. In MAX, the TB
characteristics make it trivial.
>Based on the above, would you ever want to "over-move" your units when
>within engagement range? Well, sure, if it's always a one-on-one
>confrontation with no other units in range.
Yes, I would (and do) over-move units frequently. And I also go back
and check on them at the end of each turn (time permitting, of course)
so that I can change their orders if they're about to go someplace
that I've decided I don't want them to be.
> So then, what of those units
>not having an auto-follow order? Without the auto-chase, then if you
>have faster hands, the fighter moves first and the bomber dies before
>it can move. If the other guy has faster hands, the bomber says
>bye-bye and flies home while the fighter sits frozen.
...unless other strategic or tactical considerations require the
attention of the quicker player elsewhere. ST allows you to set up
such situations (it's that strategic initiative thing again) much more
easily and effectively than RT, thus giving you the freedom do deal
with the dogfight and make sure it goes how you want it to regardless
of reflex times.
> In
>gaming, logic and reason aren't always the best indicator for success,
>the game's position on the best-seller chart is. The ad populum
>argument reigns supreme here.
All too true, unfortunately, as that which is popular and that which
is superior are all too rarely the same. Success is more a matter of
marketing than quality these days.
>Sure, if ST games can get TB players into MP gaming, more the power to
>them. For my part, TB gamers who don't like RT games because of "time
>pressure" or whatever, won't find any salvation in ST games. As (the
>other) David said, TB gamers like TB because of the indeterminate time
>allowance per turn. That just ain't possible in H2H MP play, and ST
>games are no exception.
Sure it is. Turn off the timer. TB gamers who like indeterminate
time allowances aren't all that likely to mind longer gaming sessions
or games that stretch across multiple sessions - most of them are used
to it already from their TB games.
Maximillian Natzet
se...@worldnet.att.net writes:
> 1) There is no "tradition" to speak of for "strategic" RT games, as
> the first to be popularized (C&C) is only a couple of years old. You
What about Command HQ? Thats a strategic real time game, it
was fairly popular and its about 5 or 6 years old. There are
probably examples even older that elude me, but there have been
real time games for a long time, they just played second fiddle
to turn based.
--
Maximillian F Natzet, Combat Botanist
North American Combat Botany Institue
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA