Civ should be real-time

[shade]

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...

Euhmmm...please read again,Yes it would be challenging in the way that it would be impossible to maintain an empire,it would become a frustrating clickfest that you would/could only lose.Really,it would be no fun seeing your empire beeing wiped out while there's nothing you can do about it because you are just to slow to control such a hugh RT-empire.
RTS would only make it harder for you to control the game,the AI startigy would not change or get better,it would just attack 'en masse' and you would be run over.(try playing halflife/doom/... only using 2 arrowkeys,nothing more,it would probably have a same fustration factor).Just try to understand that Civ is just to BIGG to play RT(common how will you cycle through 50 units and 20 cities every minute???(that is even a small empire))


Shade

[Oligarf]

Multiplay has been skipped for the release of CIV III, would those Firaxis people have read this topic? Deciding they should implement RTS?

I have never intended to destroy the TBS feel of CIV, my intention was: make CIV Internet ready.

Civilization in RT on the NET is a potential AoE II, Starcraft beater.

BTW
People who call Quake RTS are ill.
And all they people that want to hang me, please in real-time. Imagine that in Turn-based.

[Oligarf]

What my friend and others pointed out is right, large empires fell because it was impossible to handle them in the given time. Culture rating is a strange way to handle this fact. In real-time a playing with a small empire is far more interesting, your chances have grown, cause you can manage your empire better than that Goliathic empire. Making quick use of new technology becomes even more important. In RT it is possible to play a short game. Simultanious turns could be an option, but looks like RTS, takes a lot of time too. And I hope I'm clear now, RTS only as an option, with TBS as the main single-player challenge. RTS for the fast multiplay, maybe online, experience.

Just reading through. I voted NO.

[shade]

People who call Quake RTS are ill.

That's me you're aming at ,I guess???(In that case plz read again and you might notice that I just wanted to show how frustrating the game would be and how handicaped you would feel)

What my friend and others pointed out is right, large empires fell because it was impossible to handle them in the given time.

That's al right,but this is a game,No empire survives the test of time,and I think it would be rediculous that you would only be able to survive like say 1000 years while the game time is 6000 years.(don't expand=>you get whiped out,expand=>your empire collapses==>you only lose )

Shade

[lord of the mark]

whats with all the heretic bashing here

you people are not THINKING.

i have played aoe and found it not my cup of tea. And i certainly dont think much of warcraft, C&C etc.

But simcity, Sid's original inspiration for civ, was real time, and it si by no means a clickfest. Games like caesar 3, which introduce a combat element are also real time, and much closer to civ like games than to C&C clickfests.

I have not yet played EU, but until I do, I cant say that RT cant work on a larger historical scale. From all i have read of EU, it works quite well.

I rather suspect that we will get something along these lines in Brian Reynolds upcoming game. It will be RT, and i CANNOT see Brian releasing a mindless clickfest.

A speed variable, fully pausible RT game can give all the advantages of TBS, with a greater sense of immersion and without some of the combat inaccuracies inevitably created by TBS. (though it doesnt solve the MP problem) Its time to break out of the TBS vs RTS box.

LOTM

[Gramphos]

One more thin about why Civ not shall be in RT is the scale. If RT should work the mapsize would have to be increased more to allow the units to move slower over the map, and the would require very mush better computers. No Civ is not made for RT.

[Shadowstrike]

Look at things this way. We're a mostly turn based crowd here. So are most players of civ. From an economic standpoint, making civ3 realtime would be unwise due to:

a) added time patched civ3 over to realtime
b) additional time to fix bugs caused during patching over
c) driving away everyone, RTSers and TBSers alike because the former considers it a slow game, and the latter a fast game

Therefore, making Civ3 realtime is both illogical and stupid from a economists standpoint. And since our soceity revolves around money and the acqusition of wealth, that just makes it plain stupid.

Theory proved.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Shadowstrike
Look at things this way. We're a mostly turn based crowd here. So are most players of civ. From an economic standpoint, making civ3 realtime would be unwise due to:

a) added time patched civ3 over to realtime
b) additional time to fix bugs caused during patching over
c) driving away everyone, RTSers and TBSers alike because the former considers it a slow game, and the latter a fast game

Therefore, making Civ3 realtime is both illogical and stupid from a economists standpoint. And since our soceity revolves around money and the acqusition of wealth, that just makes it plain stupid.

Theory proved.

Yeah, its kinda late to do something like this for Civ3, what with the game shipping in less than 2 months

The original poster did mention CIv4 as an option.

And its certainly true that EU, Shogun, Impressions city builders,etc havent achieved the success in the marketplace that Civ2 did achieve or that Civ3 is virtually certain to, if someone does make blockbuster in the mixed genre between now and when the desinging gets serious on Civ4, Sid may come around.
Again the dark horse is Brian. If anyone can take the EU approach, and make it successful I think its him.

LOTM

[Shadowstrike]

But remember, if the EU approach is taken, it risks serious competition with that game. That would also not be good for business. Why go try for another niche when one exists already?

[Skanky Burns]

I hate it when players play a game that they like, then a completely different game in a different genre that they also like, and then for some stupid reason think that the first game should be more similar to the second game. If you like a game such as AoK or Starcraft, get THAT company to make another game similar to it!! Dont ruin an entire series just for some dumb idea to change genres.

For an example, look at the XCom series. XCom 1, 2 and 3 were a combination realtime/turnbased strategy. It played well, and although it wasnt 100% balanced and had quite a few bugs, it built up a following. Then came XCom 4, around the time X-Wing and such were a hit. So the makers of XCom decided the next sequal would be a flight sim!?! Another more recent XCom sequal is a a FPS. Basically, they just made a new game and tacked on a previous hits name so it would sell. This constant genre switching has alienated their fan-base, resulting in fewer and fewer sales for each successive sequal...

Sure, you could make a real-time civ-based game. It might even be enjoyable. Dont ruin a proven balanced game-play style with an idea that may or may not work... Dont kill Civ off just like they did with XCom.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by lord of the mark




And its certainly true that EU, Shogun, Impressions city builders,etc havent achieved the success in the marketplace that Civ2 did achieve or that Civ3 is virtually certain to, if someone does make blockbuster in the mixed genre between now and when the desinging gets serious on Civ4, Sid may come around.
Again the dark horse is Brian. If anyone can take the EU approach, and make it successful I think its him.

LOTM

I think a campaign system that is lacking and Japans feudal wars being a nich theme is what held Shogun back. The online is basic deathmatch with no bigger picture at all. Its too bad single players campaign couldnt mesure up to at least Nobunaga's Ambition. Too bad Koei doesnt port games to english anymore but as I said "nich"

[Felch]

Talk about sheep. The consensus seems to be, "I don't like RTS because that's not how it ever was."

Well, if you want to play Civ1 play it. Don't kirk out on people who think differently.

[Oligarf]

Originally posted by Felch X
Talk about sheep. The consensus seems to be, "I don't like RTS because that's not how it ever was."

Well, if you want to play Civ1 play it. Don't kirk out on people who think differently.

Nothing to add for me.
You are right.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Shadowstrike
But remember, if the EU approach is taken, it risks serious competition with that game. That would also not be good for business. Why go try for another niche when one exists already?

and there are lots of games with unique factions/races/civs - almost all RTS, MOO,SMAC, EU, etc and Civ was the only important series with generic civs - yet they went for unique civs. Why? Because they thought it was a feature that would draw mainstream gamers, and was more important to their commercial success than generic civ diehards.

Clearly we are not in that situation YET for TBS vs mixed genres. There are far more pure TBS loyalists than generic civ loyalists (as witness these forums) and as yet little large scale commercial success for the mixed genre in a grand strategy game. BUT - IF that were to change, I think Friaxis would try to learn the lessons.

LOTM

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Felch X
Talk about sheep. The consensus seems to be, "I don't like RTS because that's not how it ever was."

Well, if you want to play Civ1 play it. Don't kirk out on people who think differently.

Maybe instead of whining that a great game series wont make a change that would go away from its roots you guys ought to find some RTS thats close and have them add what you want. You should be able to find alot of them since most suck anyways.

[Shadowstrike]

IMHO, Firaxis has deviated away from what most civvers would have prefered Civ3 to be (that is, a game encompassing religion, provinces, rise and fall of empires, etc.) and added in features to appease the general crowd (AOE-esque unique units, etc.) That has already been regarded as a very bad move by some people. Turning Civ3 into a RTS will simply turn off the traditional crowd, destroying all brand image. Lets see how well Starcraft does as a TBS. NOt very well probably. See why Blizzard doesn't do something like that.

[isaac brock]

Wow, civ in realtime would be great. Then when they're done they can release it as a first person shooter! Gee, these forums sure are full of good ideas!

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by isaac brock
Wow, civ in realtime would be great. Then when they're done they can release it as a first person shooter! Gee, these forums sure are full of good ideas!

I think you miss the -smilie to show your sarcasm in that post. I almost stopped read after your first sentence, and almost missed the second one. I was about to think that you mean what you said about civ in realtime. That could easily have been avoided with a .
Civ as a first person shooter.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Gramphos
Civ as a first person shooter.

Oh no!! Here comes a deadly settler unit!!
Ahhrrggg... hes building a road on me!!

[shade]

Oh no!! Here comes a deadly settler unit!!
Ahhrrggg... hes building a road on me!!

Would an engineer the be armed with a Bulldozer??


Shade

[Internationalist]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Sure, you could make a real-time civ-based game. It might even be enjoyable. Dont ruin a proven balanced game-play style with an idea that may or may not work... Dont kill Civ off just like they did with XCom.

Btw, I'm still waiting for the time they'll come to their sences and release it again as a TBS.(What can I say, I'm a an optimistic person )

There are so many rts games.Go play one of them and leave the King of games alone!

[Lemmy]

Originally posted by Internationalist


Btw, I'm still waiting for the time they'll come to their sences and release it again as a TBS.(What can I say, I'm a an optimistic person )

There are so many rts games.Go play one of them and leave the King of games alone!

they did come to their senses, http://gamespot.com/gamespot/filters...913875,00.html , but then they left their senses again

[Father Beast]

I can't believe this thread is still alive. Obviously, CIV3 is not going to be RTS, so go play an RTS if you want and don't try to destroy all the other genres.

I'm glad somebody mentioned Xcom. the main map was actually real time, but the combat, which is generally agreed to be the most intense ever, was turn based. Sort of the opposite of the upcoming moo3, which will be TBS main map and rts combat.

I wonder why nobody ever copied the XCOM combat model?

[Office_Fox]

Though I have to log-off in a second and hove not read the thread, I have an inkling of what the future of civ type games might be.


The game is real time, but with infinite pauses to allow you to command your troops or industry. Time is still turn based-ish, but each turn is a 'tick' of about a month or less. Thus, each field would have a seasonal system whereby the food increases during summer, and desreases during winter.

This would let you rapidly move through the 'boring years' of the firts few cities while maintaining control over scouts, etc.

Then, when a WWII scale conflict arises, you can just pause every 'tick' to command your forces in detail.

[The Rusty Gamer]

What about turn-based but with the option of a maximum time length which you can set. Look at a game like Deadlock. You can set the total maximum time per turn (in seconds) and also the time left to finish your turn if all the other players have finished already (for simultaneous turn-based).
Simulteanous turn-based is also a good option - it was implemented in CivNet, so why not Civ3?

[Oligarf]

Should Firaxis think about an other game like Civilization but in Real-Time. I understand that some people like the idea, but don't want lose the TBS. I didn't want to make CIV RTS only! Others wanted that apperently. I am sure Sid can think of a nice name for a RTS Civilization.

Making such a game seems more useful to me than delaying an almost useless Multiplayer option for Civ III and working on something called SimGolf. That's Will Wright's job.

Sid did good things with Railroad Tycoon, Civilization I and Colonization (where is Colonization II, there is surely a market for that game, all you economist around here). A RTS CIV would add nicely to that list.


Any comments?

Oligarf

[Trifna]

When deciders are asking themselves how to move a troop, they don't have 5 minutes tio think. They have lotta time, more than what you're taking in-game probably.

Anf for fun factor, I like the purism of a turn-based game also (call it fun factor). It involves a great deal of intelligence and thinking.

[Oligarf]

Originally posted by Trifna
When deciders are asking themselves how to move a troop, they don't have 5 minutes tio think. They have lotta time, more than what you're taking in-game probably.

Anf for fun factor, I like the purism of a turn-based game also (call it fun factor). It involves a great deal of intelligence and thinking.

Are you taking that much time in TBS? BE REAL!
I take quick decisions all the time in CIV II.
So that is not the trouble.

Oligarf

[Fresno]

The bloodthirsty majority here doesn't appear very 'CIVILIZED' to me...

I don't see why a RTS OPTION would harm the game.