Civ should be real-time

[Nikolai]

Real time???!!! What are you doing here after all??? You are blasphemic!!! If Civ should be RTS, Sid would have created it like that!!!(am I sounding like the people that pointed out that we aren't created to fly because God didn't make wings on us? That's fine!!! )

[Maniac]

Hey! Who's that one looser that voted on real time?

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by M@ni@c
Hey! Who's that one looser that voted on real time?

The POLL starter?

[Tventano]

Civ is and should be turnbased. For a long time I thought that strategy and turn based were equal and that all real time games would turn in to a click-fest. This is not true.

Europa Universalis is real time, normally you would play on 1 month a minute, but it can be speeded up or slowed down as wished. More importantly time can be stopped and all commands can be given and everything can be looked at with time fully stopped. So it gives the feeling of a turn based game. During times not so much interesting is happening, just set the speed on 1 year a minute.

I only did play a few EU games, but the reason I did not play more has nothing to do that it is not turn based.

[SK138]

I am a big fan of RTS games, but my first ever strategy game was Civilization, it wasn't RTS but it was still the greatest game I ever played, then Civ2 came out. Civ2 was great but then I got a little hooked on Warcraft 2, five years later, Warcraft 2 is in a pile with other games I don't play, Civ2 is in my CD-Rom. I have a ton more RTS games the turn-based games, and the RTS games are fun, I like them a lot better than most of the turn-based games but they still can't compare to the Civ and SMAC series and I doubt they ever will.

[Kuciwalker]

Real-time is for TACTICAL WARGAMES!!!! WARGAMES!!!! WARGAMES!!!! NOT CIV!!!! ARE YOU MENTALLY RETARDED?! DO I NEED SURGICAL TOOLS TO PUT THIS THROUGH YOUR SKULL?! WARGAMES!!!! WARGAMES!!!! WARGAMES!!!!

That felt good.

[tniem]

Originally posted by skywalker
Real-time is for TACTICAL WARGAMES!!!! WARGAMES!!!! WARGAMES!!!! NOT CIV!!!! ARE YOU MENTALLY RETARDED?! DO I NEED SURGICAL TOOLS TO PUT THIS THROUGH YOUR SKULL?! WARGAMES!!!! WARGAMES!!!! WARGAMES!!!!

Last time I checked a lot of simulation games were real time. And it does take some brains to play SimCity so I wouldn't call someone that wanted a RT Civ mentally retarded.

Especially since Sid himself originally envisioned a RT game when he dreamed up civ.


and like that I became a king...

[Bereta_Eder]

TURN BASED

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by tniem
Especially since Sid himself originally envisioned a RT game when he dreamed up civ.

True, but do you see a RT civ now? Regardless of what he thought of in the beginning, civ is civ. Take it or leave it.

[Oligarf]

Originally posted by Gramphos

The POLL starter?

I actually voted 'I like the idea of real-time, but want to play in turn-based if I want to.'
I agree with you all that turn-based civ should stay, but I see possibilities for RTS. (speed, multiplaying and so on)
I think I am reasonable to say TB should stay.
I don't think everyone that has replied is reasonable.
Just give the idea a chance. RTS = C&C/Starcraft isn't the way things work.
Games are sold because they are more innovative than their predecessors.
If developers stop with innovating the industry is doomed.
I had some little quite simple innovative idea, but most of you shoot me down.
Can't appreciate that.
But for some more better replies, replies that has been thought about, I'd become 'happy' again.

[Gramphos]

I don't like real time, as your progress is very depending on your hardware, and how used you are on handling a computer fast.
If you have a bad mouse, that you almost can't move you can't control your troops, and you get behind. Also if your processor can't keep the game smooth you lose time, and if your monitor can't have that extra big resolution, so that you can control many units in the same time you lose time.
You will also have no time to write to allies, and work with diplomacy deals if the time is ticking. You could get wiped out while trying to trade with your neighbor. Civilization is not made for real-time playing, it is made so that you shall have time to think on what you do, not only act on instinct.

I hope this was the answer you wanted to be happy

[Oligarf]

I think that RTS should be optional.
A internetserver could divide the people in different groups, those with superb computers, and those with a little less superb computers.
I never said TB shoud disappear, I think the game could kick ass online, just if it was RTS.
And for the time-matter, how long a year takes could be determined by the host, so a fast game has short years, but years could offcourse be longer in time.
A smart system in the game could eventually change the time progress to better fit with the progress of the different players.

[dennis580]

Well in order for me to even consider playing a RTS game it would have to have a turn based map like Shogun: Total War which has RT combat, but was played on a turn based map.

[The Mad Viking]

Infidel! Blasphemer!


Real Time Strategy is a fvcking OXYMORON, like Government Worker and Military Intelligence!!!

The market is full of Real Time Shytte, if that's what you like, fine, but keep your hands off CIV!!!

Keep this heretic posting up, and you will be exiled to playint CTP 4ever!


I think the mods should make such heresy a offense!

I think I forgot to take my medication!

[Provost Harrison]

Heresy! Someone, bring the noose, there's going to be a hanging

[saracen31]

doh! I've never found a RTS with the depth of strategy of Civ - they're nice to look at and all, but I like to sit back & think about what I'm doing with no time restrictions.

[Admiral PJ]

Realtime civ would be great, it WOULD seriously improve multiplayer, and help with the battles especially. turn based battles are a problem, its hard to synchronise attacks for combined assaults, things like air cover for ground units are tricky as well as bomber escorts/fighter attack etc.
Civ was originally going to be real time, I guess they had trouble allowing control for all the units ( although just real time battles would work)

PJ

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Two questions.

First, who voted for RTS?

Second, how long is the line to kill/vaporize/annihilate this person?

Actually, I don't need to wait in line. *teleports to front of line*

*casts Ultima, Meteo, Flare, Holy, Doom, Fire 3, Bolt 3, Melton, Luminaire, Dark Matter, Black Hole, X-Zone, and HyperDrive all at the same time on the heretic*

If that doesn't get rid of him, I don't know what will. Oh, wait, yes I do! *summons Ragnarok, which turns the heretic into an advance copy of Civ III*

*everyone fights each other for the advance copy*

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

Do we still burn heretics at the stake? Or has that been outlawed by TPTB?

CYBERAmazon

(P.S. — POWER TO TBS!!!!!)

[Slasher]

I know the starter of this poll personally and we talked about this.
We talked about why major empires fell in history. Because they just were too big for one man to rule.
And that is exactly what doesn't happen in civ.
Many people use the ICS-tactic (Infinite City Sprawl), I mean, they keep on building cities so their empires will be very strong later on.
In a TB game, when a player declares war, you'll have plenty of time to react and your opponent can't take all of your cities. Especially not when your empire is very large.
In real-time, though, such empires are uncontrollable, as in real life.
If war is declared then, you need to watch out.
If you discover new technology, make use of it, or your ass will be kicked.
It also depends on how the AI works. When I play Civ2 I always have war. I really dislike this and for Civ in real-time it would be deadly, I mean if that happens, the whole Civ-idea would be @!#!-up. We know that. We agree with Skywalker on that.
We thought Civ in real-time should as close as possible as Civ TB.
Maybe for Civ IV of Civ V, because I can't wait for Civ3.
As Uberkrux said: civ 3 will be released on October 17th, or the firaxis building is being burned.
We had this idea after a LAN. The third-person found it really boring, because he had to wait and wait. And for example a 2 minute time limit, doesn't help.
So if the game was real-time, he hadn't have to wait, neither would the players on the internet.
And as the Civ-team has nice animations, they could probably use them very well.
We thought more people would like this idea, but I guess you don't.

And really, it doesn't matter how fast your PC is. You can't lose time on your opponents. They will have to wait for you, or else the game will be out of sync. It won't run simultaneously anymore.
You don't hear from RT WARGAMES having this problem.
Finally I want to turn down the idea of simultaneous turns, although it's a nice compromise. You'll still have to wait for the slowest player, or the player who forgets to hit Return/Enter.
Remember we do think RT Civ should be optional.

[Slasher]

Damn, what a long story

[Zopperoni]

Hey-hey...I'm the 100th voter ...and TB 0wneZ...

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Slasher
We talked about why major empires fell in history. Because they just were too big for one man to rule.
And that is exactly what doesn't happen in civ.

I remember that I've read that a big civ needed a high culture, otherwise parts far away would form thier own civ, and leave your. (Bu I may be wrong)

Many people use the ICS-tactic (Infinite City Sprawl), I mean, they keep on building cities so their empires will be very strong later on.

Firaxis has worked really hard to stop ICS

In a TB game, when a player declares war, you'll have plenty of time to react and your opponent can't take all of your cities. Especially not when your empire is very large.
In real-time, though, such empires are uncontrollable, as in real life.

In real life there are more then one man controlling all the armies. You have generals and soon, so the armies will know what to do themselves, without any commands more than permission. That does not exist in civ.

And really, it doesn't matter how fast your PC is. You can't lose time on your opponents. They will have to wait for you, or else the game will be out of sync. It won't run simultaneously anymore.

Yes it will wait for you, but if you computer works really hard to keep up with the other you will have hard to move the mouse smooth.

You don't hear from RT WARGAMES having this problem.
Finally I want to turn down the idea of simultaneous turns, although it's a nice compromise. You'll still have to wait for the slowest player, or the player who forgets to hit Return/Enter.
Remember we do think RT Civ should be optional.

RT WARGAMES has less tings to control the Civ. It is unrealistic to get Civ work in real time without lowering the standard.

[The Mad Viking]

String another noose on the gallows, there's TWO of them to HANG!

[shade]

=>5 people voted RTS and 6 consider it!!!
ARE THEY TOTALLY INSANE!!!!!!!!!!
Ever thought how you are going to handel an empire of about >50 Cities spread over the entire globe,using >300 units while beeing attackt by all AI perfectly controling their >500 units and >100 cities=>You would get whiped out within 5 minutes,one citiy after the other would fall,you would never be able to keep up with everything.(consider this :in a decent game where you let one AI grow to the same size you are(or bigger)how long does one of your turns take(while you are not even moving all units)and how long does the AI turn takes(wich moves almost every unit)=>with this I want to show how much faster the AI can do the thinking at RTS)
When playing settlers I always had One problem,when my empire grew bigg enough i had to much borderline and when attacked then you don't know where to react first and you get whiped out before you know it.
So RTS for a game with hugh maps like Civ and enormous empires(except maybe OCC games)isn't possible.
The only option that maybe could be usefull is RTS is battles(like in CTP when you go to battle screen you switch there to RTS(if you want) and there you have active command over your army,that might be doable,but nothing more.

CIV in RTS,the idea,yuech!!!


Shade

[gremalkin]

RTS Games are about mouse control and hand to eye co-ordination on the whole.. That's what makes them crap..

CIV is turned based, will remain turn based and always will be turn based!!!!

Sign me up for the lynch mob.. Though if it's alright by you guys I'll just stand at the back and shout obscenities...

[Provost Harrison]

I'll bring the cheesewire

Make civ into an RTS, but you will find that the result will not be civ if you manage to make it playable...

[Shiva]

Real time is just real lame. I'm sorry but untill someone can program AI's for every unit so that it can think for its self all real time will be is a click fest. Whoever can herd thier group of shortbus riders the fastest wins.
Maybe some day they'll be able to do that but its nowhere close to being at that point.

[aneeshm]

Though I condemn the idea of civ being totally a RTS game , there could be possible a VERSION of RTS civ for rts fans .

P.S. I'm NOT one of the them !

[Sliparac]

Originally posted by shade
Ever thought how you are going to handel an empire of about >50 Cities spread over the entire globe,using >300 units while beeing attackt by all AI perfectly controling their >500 units and >100 cities=>You would get whiped out within 5 minutes,one citiy after the other would fall,you would never be able to keep up with everything.(consider this :in a decent game where you let one AI grow to the same size you are(or bigger)how long does one of your turns take(while you are not even moving all units)and how long does the AI turn takes(wich moves almost every unit)=>with this I want to show how much faster the AI can do the thinking at RTS)
When playing settlers I always had One problem,when my empire grew bigg enough i had to much borderline and when attacked then you don't know where to react first and you get whiped out before you know it.

Hmm, so you're saying RTS Civ would be more challenging, realistic (harder to maintain a large empire and to protect your borders) and interesting...

In TBS Civ, if you have a few good cities = you've virtually won the game with a military victory, in RTS Civ, attempting to conquer the world would be much more dangerous, just like in the real world...