
Empire in Arms..
Moderator: MOD_EIA
Their We-Go format? Simultaneous movement is as old as... well, very old. 

Michael Akinde / Strategy
Imperium - Rise of Rome (http://www.fenrir.dk/imperium/)
Imperium - Rise of Rome (http://www.fenrir.dk/imperium/)
I'm hoping for PBEM, myself. Why, you ask? I'm married...I have to get my game time when I can and I could see appointments getting missed, returning to find my nation patitioned by the hungry. Having done EIA over a tabletop...it took six months to do the whole grand campaign, with almost nightly participation by the entire seven players.(we didn't even have to dismantle the game every night...just dust it off occasionally) And this was only possible because we were stationed on the Japanese Island of Okinawa, were all hardcore gamers, and were all resolved to save some bread during our 6-month deployment.
I've tried the RTS thang. With the game Cossacks...click fest galore... The worst thing was you'd finally get opponents together..get a game started...only to have someone bail because there was a bit of lag.
Actually my biggest hope is an extremely competent AI. Then, I can keep busy waiting for PBEM turns to arrrive.
Cheers!
Gary
I've tried the RTS thang. With the game Cossacks...click fest galore... The worst thing was you'd finally get opponents together..get a game started...only to have someone bail because there was a bit of lag.
Actually my biggest hope is an extremely competent AI. Then, I can keep busy waiting for PBEM turns to arrrive.
Cheers!
Gary
Jesus ...., with all respect. This closet germanism is allways killing me.
Sigh...
I just think some people just don't get the concept of a continuous time game along the lines of Europa Universalis 2 or Closecombat or Patrician 2....
I do not suggest a clickfest game in which hotkey knowledge and speed are a requisite of good gameplay. Games like cossaks, age of empires, age of kings, command and conquer are not the form of continuous time games that would make this fun. However, if anyone has played Patrician 2 or Europa Universalis 2, they would understand that game speed can be extremely slow or even paused to issue orders.
The myth that one could not keep up in such games is just not true and the fallacy that they are 'clickfests' really needs to be put to rest.
Wife and kids? Yeah I have those. Even own my own business to boot. How do I have time for continuous time games like Europa Universalis? Well I usually play each night with the same group of people for a couple hours. These games even have wonderful inventions called the 'save game' feature. It's similar to leaving a board game out on a table, but a cat or a kid can't come along and knock pieces around. Does anyone miss a 'turn' because of the save game feature? Well only if they tell us ahead of time to let the AI play because they can't make it that night. Otherwise they don't miss a thing.
"and events that normally would happen in a REAL battle, don't get to happen in the RTS game."
Yeah same thing could easily be said for a turn based game. Play steel panthers lately? Yep, I can see how someone could have 3 hours time counting out the hexes to move their guys around in whats supposed to be a 60 second move phase. Seems that would happen in a REAL battle...:rolleyes: Anyone that thinks that continuous time games of the likes I've mentioned above have any more 'gamey' features that compromise realism are just showing a prejudice towards continuous time games. Every game, turn based, we-go, and continuous time have fudged reality for a playable game. Each one has it's nuances and to claim superiority of one over the other in a realistic manner just doesn't add up.
"It usually is because the player's eye-hand coordination wasn't fast enough (or the player was paying attention to a different part of the map), which causes a completely non-historical result to happen when applied to a historical simulation."
Yeah we all have read about Squad leaders getting to take 3 hours to move their squads around the battlefield, having instantaneous information relayed from each squads viewpoint, and having instantaneous knowledge of each squads morale, fatigue, and ammo load out. :rolleyes: Sorry, but a company leader wasn't able to react fast enough to all situations on a battlefield. Sometimes due to a lack of information, sometimes due to 'distractions' in the form of enemy fire. Distractions in the thinking process are a big part of warfare....Do you think it's 'historical' as the company commander that you have zero distractions? (aside from a wife or a kid that is)
This is a classic quote, "In them, you can have a couple of light cavalry regiments guarding your flanks and an unsupported enemy horse battery will unlimber nearby and pummel the nonactive cavalry until they are decimated and rout -UNLESS you move them."
A situation just like what you described occured to Captain Alexander Mercer in a book titled, Soldiers at War: Firsthand accounts of warfare from the Age of Napoleon. He was an artillery captain and was left alone as his supporting infantry faded away. He held his position as he didnt receive any other orders, seeing no one around his battery for a few hours. He pummeled a cavalry unit many times over as they attempted charge after charge on his position. Maybe what you perceive as historical, isn't really so.
I have no doubt this game will be turnbased. The type of gamer it's geared for is a turn based person. However, just as Europa Universalis was game of the year and strategy game of the year over at wargamer.com, I think it shows that such long period games can play well in continuous time AND be good games to boot without being hard on the 'ole reflexes.
Reiryc
I just think some people just don't get the concept of a continuous time game along the lines of Europa Universalis 2 or Closecombat or Patrician 2....
I do not suggest a clickfest game in which hotkey knowledge and speed are a requisite of good gameplay. Games like cossaks, age of empires, age of kings, command and conquer are not the form of continuous time games that would make this fun. However, if anyone has played Patrician 2 or Europa Universalis 2, they would understand that game speed can be extremely slow or even paused to issue orders.
The myth that one could not keep up in such games is just not true and the fallacy that they are 'clickfests' really needs to be put to rest.
Wife and kids? Yeah I have those. Even own my own business to boot. How do I have time for continuous time games like Europa Universalis? Well I usually play each night with the same group of people for a couple hours. These games even have wonderful inventions called the 'save game' feature. It's similar to leaving a board game out on a table, but a cat or a kid can't come along and knock pieces around. Does anyone miss a 'turn' because of the save game feature? Well only if they tell us ahead of time to let the AI play because they can't make it that night. Otherwise they don't miss a thing.
"and events that normally would happen in a REAL battle, don't get to happen in the RTS game."
Yeah same thing could easily be said for a turn based game. Play steel panthers lately? Yep, I can see how someone could have 3 hours time counting out the hexes to move their guys around in whats supposed to be a 60 second move phase. Seems that would happen in a REAL battle...:rolleyes: Anyone that thinks that continuous time games of the likes I've mentioned above have any more 'gamey' features that compromise realism are just showing a prejudice towards continuous time games. Every game, turn based, we-go, and continuous time have fudged reality for a playable game. Each one has it's nuances and to claim superiority of one over the other in a realistic manner just doesn't add up.
"It usually is because the player's eye-hand coordination wasn't fast enough (or the player was paying attention to a different part of the map), which causes a completely non-historical result to happen when applied to a historical simulation."
Yeah we all have read about Squad leaders getting to take 3 hours to move their squads around the battlefield, having instantaneous information relayed from each squads viewpoint, and having instantaneous knowledge of each squads morale, fatigue, and ammo load out. :rolleyes: Sorry, but a company leader wasn't able to react fast enough to all situations on a battlefield. Sometimes due to a lack of information, sometimes due to 'distractions' in the form of enemy fire. Distractions in the thinking process are a big part of warfare....Do you think it's 'historical' as the company commander that you have zero distractions? (aside from a wife or a kid that is)
This is a classic quote, "In them, you can have a couple of light cavalry regiments guarding your flanks and an unsupported enemy horse battery will unlimber nearby and pummel the nonactive cavalry until they are decimated and rout -UNLESS you move them."
A situation just like what you described occured to Captain Alexander Mercer in a book titled, Soldiers at War: Firsthand accounts of warfare from the Age of Napoleon. He was an artillery captain and was left alone as his supporting infantry faded away. He held his position as he didnt receive any other orders, seeing no one around his battery for a few hours. He pummeled a cavalry unit many times over as they attempted charge after charge on his position. Maybe what you perceive as historical, isn't really so.
I have no doubt this game will be turnbased. The type of gamer it's geared for is a turn based person. However, just as Europa Universalis was game of the year and strategy game of the year over at wargamer.com, I think it shows that such long period games can play well in continuous time AND be good games to boot without being hard on the 'ole reflexes.
Reiryc

Reiryc,
(I knew this was coming.)
The ubiquitous, pause button & variable RTS speeds are certainly features that have made it into RTS gaming. (Yes, I too owned EU2 -for a while.)
The only problem that I have seem with those items is when you are playing against someone who doesn't like the speed at which you are playing OR hates to see that pause button pushed so often. (Some folks even make house rules where you cannot even use them!) Set turn lengths eliminates this problem, IMO.
There is one thing about the Capt. Mercer example that you forgot to mention.
He was clearly supported by two Brunswick squares and along with other circumstances had absolutely no need to retire when other batteries near him definitely had the need to take refuge. In addition, in1870 he stated in one of his letters that he felt the Brunswickers would break and run if his men had attempted to take refuge in those supporting squares. He saved that part of his line.
-----------
"Captain Mercer, stationed in front of the two Brunswick squares, had no need to retire because his flanks were covered by the volleys of the front rank of each supporting square and his guns were protected by a raised embankment. After the first two volleys of cannister from his six guns, the welter of dead Frenchmen and horses piled to his immediate front prevented any horsemen from reaching him. He and his men were therefore well protected and had no need to withdraw."
From WATERLOO, New Perspectives by David Hamilton-Williams, (page 323)
-----------
So, in regards to our discussion about ahistorical results being given to an historical simulation -in the light of RTS gaming, I beg to offer that the example of the (obviously brave) Captain Mercer doesn't even apply here.
My friend, when I say "To each their own," I really mean it. I am for players having the option of turning off the set turn lengths and being able to play a game in a RTS fashion if they want to.
Why not!
Heck, I'm for everyone being happy.

Say Reiryc. Just where does "Reiryc" come from?? Is it a character in a book or a movie? Which one? I'm curious. Thanks.
(I knew this was coming.)

The ubiquitous, pause button & variable RTS speeds are certainly features that have made it into RTS gaming. (Yes, I too owned EU2 -for a while.)
The only problem that I have seem with those items is when you are playing against someone who doesn't like the speed at which you are playing OR hates to see that pause button pushed so often. (Some folks even make house rules where you cannot even use them!) Set turn lengths eliminates this problem, IMO.
There is one thing about the Capt. Mercer example that you forgot to mention.
He was clearly supported by two Brunswick squares and along with other circumstances had absolutely no need to retire when other batteries near him definitely had the need to take refuge. In addition, in1870 he stated in one of his letters that he felt the Brunswickers would break and run if his men had attempted to take refuge in those supporting squares. He saved that part of his line.
-----------
"Captain Mercer, stationed in front of the two Brunswick squares, had no need to retire because his flanks were covered by the volleys of the front rank of each supporting square and his guns were protected by a raised embankment. After the first two volleys of cannister from his six guns, the welter of dead Frenchmen and horses piled to his immediate front prevented any horsemen from reaching him. He and his men were therefore well protected and had no need to withdraw."
From WATERLOO, New Perspectives by David Hamilton-Williams, (page 323)
-----------
So, in regards to our discussion about ahistorical results being given to an historical simulation -in the light of RTS gaming, I beg to offer that the example of the (obviously brave) Captain Mercer doesn't even apply here.
My friend, when I say "To each their own," I really mean it. I am for players having the option of turning off the set turn lengths and being able to play a game in a RTS fashion if they want to.
Why not!


Say Reiryc. Just where does "Reiryc" come from?? Is it a character in a book or a movie? Which one? I'm curious. Thanks.

Vive l'Empereur!
Ah yes, that did happen, however I refer to a situation that happened before he was positioned between the brunswickers...
Well according to mercer himself, "Be that as it may, we were conversing on the subject of our situation, which appeared to him rather desperate. My answer was, 'It does indeed look very bad...' In this case I made up my mind to retreat...We were still talking on this subject, when suddenly a dark mass of cavalry appeared....On the ridge no squares were to be seen; the only objects were a few guns standing in a confused manner, with muzzles in the air, and not one artilleryman. After caracoling about for a few minutes, the crowd began to seperate and draw together in small bodies, which continually increased; and now we really apprehended being overwhelmed, as the first line had apparently been."
It was only later, that Mercer was ordered to move by Sir Augustus Frazer toward a ridge that contained the Brunswickers. His first engagement was alone after the first line had run back out of his view. Soon in his rear, after engaging the french to his front, the 14th infantry regiment came into sight to support him, forming square at the sight of those cavalry forming in front of him. However his battery was alone for a time as he fired on the french.
Your arguments about people who forbade pause button, prefer faster speeds, etc can equally be applied to those that want X number of turns sent per day or else the game will not be played/continued. Things of this nature can easily be remedied by agreeing ahead of time what is acceptable and what is not. But to suggest this problem exists with only continuous time is a fallacy.
Reiryc
Well according to mercer himself, "Be that as it may, we were conversing on the subject of our situation, which appeared to him rather desperate. My answer was, 'It does indeed look very bad...' In this case I made up my mind to retreat...We were still talking on this subject, when suddenly a dark mass of cavalry appeared....On the ridge no squares were to be seen; the only objects were a few guns standing in a confused manner, with muzzles in the air, and not one artilleryman. After caracoling about for a few minutes, the crowd began to seperate and draw together in small bodies, which continually increased; and now we really apprehended being overwhelmed, as the first line had apparently been."
It was only later, that Mercer was ordered to move by Sir Augustus Frazer toward a ridge that contained the Brunswickers. His first engagement was alone after the first line had run back out of his view. Soon in his rear, after engaging the french to his front, the 14th infantry regiment came into sight to support him, forming square at the sight of those cavalry forming in front of him. However his battery was alone for a time as he fired on the french.
Your arguments about people who forbade pause button, prefer faster speeds, etc can equally be applied to those that want X number of turns sent per day or else the game will not be played/continued. Things of this nature can easily be remedied by agreeing ahead of time what is acceptable and what is not. But to suggest this problem exists with only continuous time is a fallacy.
Reiryc

Reiryc,Originally posted by Reiryc
Your arguments about people who forbade pause button, prefer faster speeds, etc can equally be applied to those that want X number of turns sent per day or else the game will not be played/continued. Things of this nature can easily be remedied by agreeing ahead of time what is acceptable and what is not. But to suggest this problem exists with only continuous time is a fallacy.
Reiryc
Nice chat.
If you think about it, my argument about the pause button and RTS game speed cannot be equally be applied to turn based games. Here is why:
(In any event, remember that I am happy with advocating a choice for both -in one game.)
On most sites for finding opponents, there usually is a little area where folks say how many turns per day they are capable of sending. It is something that is known ahead of time and usually won't change unless the need for it to change has been communicated. (I still think that wargamers are an honorable lot.)

Now, if one doesn't accept that, there is always TCP/IP internet play where there is absolutely no waiting. It is my favorite.

I know that some folks pay by the minute for the internet, but that was a choice that they made. Caveat emptor? There are plenty of unlimited time ISPs and even some FREE ISPs to choose from. (BTW, those "deals" for a cheap computer based upon the subscription to a specific ISP aren't all that great.)
Regarding the subject of the pause button and RTS gaming speeds, the need for using them can change at any time based upon the situation one finds themselves in. At the beginning of a scenario or game, things can rip along at a pretty fast pace due to a lack of contact between the opposing forces. Now if the situation gets hairy, the need for the game to slow down or pause can increase dramatically. If you happened to have agreed to not pause or slow down, then you're out of luck. You better start clicking real fast and hope real hardyou've made the right choices on the fly.
The choice for slowing down or pausing usually benefits the one most who is on the side that isn't the most successful. The one who is successful usually wants his (or her) opponent to make those bad decisions, so a pause or slowing down of the game won't be looked at in the best light. (Unless of course, the bonds of friendship are there.)
It can easily be argued that in situations where one doesn't have enough time to think things through properly, the most mistakes will invariably occur. In my opinion, something gets overlooked that historically wouldn't get overlooked an on a real Napoleonic battlefield.
Mercer's brave choice not to move in the example that you cite is just that -a choice. It was choice made by Captain Mercer in the face of his (then) current circumstances.
If that choice for a similar unit took place in a historical simulation, it would be a choice made by the player because he (or she) is the one who makes all the individual choices -for the entire army.
But, if things are flying along at a breakneck speed and cannot be paused, the chances can be pretty high for a tactically improper choice to be made made by a player because he (or she) might not be able to see the need for a tactically proper choice until it is too late.
In any event, the Napoleonic Era saw very little happen at a breakneck speed. This can be said at all levels whether it be strategic, operational, or tactical. I feel that we are given a chance to re-enact (if you will) the role of a Napoleonic commander when we wargame that era. Obviously, one won't take 15-20 years to play a game of the level of 'Napoleonic Wars', but on the other end of things, a couple of days or even a week is not too much to ask for.
Lastly, where does 'Reiryc' come from??????????
Cheers,

Vive l'Empereur!
-
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Re: HOWDY
I have no problem with the existence of RTS games, and even acknowledge that RTS can be better in some circumstances. I however get annoyed at people who think that TBS is hopelessly obsolete, that RTS is the wave of the future that everyone must convert to eventually and is superior to TBS in all circumstances.Originally posted by Le Tondu
Zagys,
No arguments here. I'm with you. I know some people like RTS games and that is fine. To each their own!I really hope that the RTS gamer has some great games to choose from.
Yes that is about what I meant. It is not realistic that a player is forced to make in seconds a decision or action that their historical counterpart would have had days or weeks to make.Originally posted by Le Tondu
In my opinion, RTS games move way too fast and events that normally would happen in a REAL battle, don't get to happen in the RTS game. It usually is because the player's eye-hand coordination wasn't fast enough (or the player was paying attention to a different part of the map), which causes a completely non-historical result to happen when applied to a historical simulation. This seems to mostly happen for medium to large battles where in order to see all the action, you must scroll the map.
(I believe that you were trying to say something like that? Please correct me if I am wrong.)
I agree about the arcade comparison. Most of the people who consider themselves strategy game fans today wouldn't have touched a strategy game with a ten foot pole before the RTS revolution. The same is true for RPGs.Originally posted by Le Tondu
So again, IMO, RTS games are more of a game and a step or so away from being a true historical simulation. Now that I think about it, they're more like an arcade game that just happens to have a specific historical application with all of the historical trimmings.
Yes, there is an ocean of RTS games out there, TBS games are very rare nowadays.Originally posted by Le Tondu
But you know, the RTS gamer still has plenty of reasons to be happy. There are loads of games in the RTS format out there for the buyer to choose from and I doubt that they'll dry up anytrime soon.

I think the biggest criticism (and to a certain extent a valid one) leveled against TBS is that it is not realistic to actually take turns, a real enemy would not wait for your army to move before moving his own. The "we-go" format gets around this, and is essentially real-time but without the unnatural time pressure associated with the traditional RTS format. Best of both worlds, so to speak.Originally posted by Le Tondu
I'm looking forward with great expectation to see how Matrix handles all of this. From their press release, it looks really interesting. As for what has already been out, I can handle the old-time turn based games -anytime, but I really like Big Time Software's 'Combat Mission' (WW II) and what they call their "we-go" format.
![]()
"On most sites for finding opponents, there usually is a little area where folks say how many turns per day they are capable of sending. It is something that is known ahead of time and usually won't change unless the need for it to change has been communicated. (I still think that wargamers are an honorable lot.) Most have jobs and/ or a spouse. (They find it necessary to limit their wargaming in order to be able to do other things that are important to them, so that isn't too hard a thing to accept.)"
Erm, so this same argument doesn't apply to continuous time games? I dont know how many times in EU2 I've let ppl know that I will need to pause the game when it get hectic ahead of time. I've seen games where we have stopped to change the overall game speed. Not sure why you think the phenomena of deciding on game speed (read speed or turns daily) is limited to turn based games.
I've never had a problem, nor consider it to not be honorable to hear someone say that the game speed is too fast in the middle of a game. Do you think this only applies to turn based lovers?
"Regarding the subject of the pause button and RTS gaming speeds, the need for using them can change at any time based upon the situation one finds themselves in. At the beginning of a scenario or game, things can rip along at a pretty fast pace due to a lack of contact between the opposing forces. Now if the situation gets hairy, the need for the game to slow down or pause can increase dramatically. If you happened to have agreed to not pause or slow down, then you're out of luck. You better start clicking real fast and hope real hardyou've made the right choices on the fly. "
Then never agree to not pause? I don't see why anyone would agree to this knowing the nature of the game we are playing. I always tell people in EU2 that I occasionally pause the game before play and during. I would never play a game of EU2 in which somebody stated that no one could pause. Maybe the issue is poor planning by the player, not that the game moves in continuous time.
"The choice for slowing down or pausing usually benefits the one most who is on the side that isn't the most successful. The one who is successful usually wants his (or her) opponent to make those bad decisions, so a pause or slowing down of the game won't be looked at in the best light. (Unless of course, the bonds of friendship are there.) "
This is based on games for like age of kings, age of empires, and command and conquer... Where pausing is so one can catch up because the strategy is about speed in doing things. I don't think this applies to games like closecombat (if played properly), Europa Universalis and Patrician 2.
"It can easily be argued that in situations where one doesn't have enough time to think things through properly, the most mistakes will invariably occur. In my opinion, something gets overlooked that historically wouldn't get overlooked an on a real Napoleonic battlefield. "
I will have to disagree with this. Examples abound of a commander making a decision 'on the spot' in a napoleonic battlefield. Some decisions for the good, some for the bad. Yet they share a commonality, on the spot, immediate decision making.
"If that choice for a similar unit took place in a historical simulation, it would be a choice made by the player because he (or she) is the one who makes all the individual choices -for the entire army."
Yep.
"But, if things are flying along at a breakneck speed and cannot be paused, the chances can be pretty high for a tactically improper choice to be made made by a player because he (or she) might not be able to see the need for a tactically proper choice until it is too late."
Again, why would things be flying along at breakneck speed? Is the player incapable of knowing that a breakneck speed is too much for them to properly give orders and thus can not make terms of game speed prior to starting? Additionally, on a tactical level, often times in real life a commander on the spot will make a poor decision because he missed something. That's the reality of war. If everyone could have the appropriate time to fully assess the situation, then there wouldn't be a historical record full of mistakes being made by hasty decisions whereby the commander on the spot lacked information due to circumstances beyond his control.
"In any event, the Napoleonic Era saw very little happen at a breakneck speed. This can be said at all levels whether it be strategic, operational, or tactical."
I have to disagree here as well. I just returned a book to the library a few weeks ago in which the author debunks the myth that decisions were hardly made on the spot at the tactical level. Additionally, these were made on fly sometimes with disastrous results and at times with great results. But to say that things didnt happen at breakneck speed tactically I think misses the reality in which these men were put through. I can tell you I would consider that cavalry unit charging me at full speed would surely put me to thinking about what to do without the ability to take 3 hours to count hexes and set up my units to square properly around me.
"Obviously, one won't take 15-20 years to play a game of the level of 'Napoleonic Wars', but on the other end of things, a couple of days or even a week is not too much to ask for. "
A full campaign of EU2 will often take a few weeks to play, it's just the nature of the length of game.
"I however get annoyed at people who think that TBS is hopelessly obsolete, that RTS is the wave of the future that everyone must convert to eventually and is superior to TBS in all circumstances. "
I would probably guess that those who play rts feel the same way about tbs people. Those that think that tbs is the ONLY way a game can be properly simulated. Such thinking is not only reserved for those who play/prefer rts.
"Yes that is about what I meant. It is not realistic that a player is forced to make in seconds a decision or action that their historical counterpart would have had days or weeks to make."
Well this can be argued. Depending on the type of decision being made. Depending on what decision is being made, a combat for example in which tactical choices are made and changed based on the situation occuring, then no commanders wouldnt have weeks or days to decide. Additionally, with tbs, a person has unlimited time to decide on every single circumstance between turns.
"I agree about the arcade comparison. Most of the people who consider themselves strategy game fans today wouldn't have touched a strategy game with a ten foot pole before the RTS revolution. The same is true for RPGs. "
Gotta love the elitest condemnation that eminates in this quote.
:rolleyes:
"Yes, there is an ocean of RTS games out there, TBS games are very rare nowadays. "
Ever honestly ask yourself why that is?
"The "we-go" format gets around this, and is essentially real-time but without the unnatural time pressure associated with the traditional RTS format. Best of both worlds, so to speak."
Yes it's a nice system, but none-the-less a system. In combat mission for example I think it is of less benefit than say in atomics v4v or w@w series. I think the lower in simulation one goes, where things are controlled at an individual level (tanks, artillery, squads) then continuous time is a better use of gameplay mechanics. When it comes to operational level, I think the we-go format works well. Finally at the strategic level, I think turn based is good, but also we-go.
Reiryc
Erm, so this same argument doesn't apply to continuous time games? I dont know how many times in EU2 I've let ppl know that I will need to pause the game when it get hectic ahead of time. I've seen games where we have stopped to change the overall game speed. Not sure why you think the phenomena of deciding on game speed (read speed or turns daily) is limited to turn based games.
I've never had a problem, nor consider it to not be honorable to hear someone say that the game speed is too fast in the middle of a game. Do you think this only applies to turn based lovers?
"Regarding the subject of the pause button and RTS gaming speeds, the need for using them can change at any time based upon the situation one finds themselves in. At the beginning of a scenario or game, things can rip along at a pretty fast pace due to a lack of contact between the opposing forces. Now if the situation gets hairy, the need for the game to slow down or pause can increase dramatically. If you happened to have agreed to not pause or slow down, then you're out of luck. You better start clicking real fast and hope real hardyou've made the right choices on the fly. "
Then never agree to not pause? I don't see why anyone would agree to this knowing the nature of the game we are playing. I always tell people in EU2 that I occasionally pause the game before play and during. I would never play a game of EU2 in which somebody stated that no one could pause. Maybe the issue is poor planning by the player, not that the game moves in continuous time.
"The choice for slowing down or pausing usually benefits the one most who is on the side that isn't the most successful. The one who is successful usually wants his (or her) opponent to make those bad decisions, so a pause or slowing down of the game won't be looked at in the best light. (Unless of course, the bonds of friendship are there.) "
This is based on games for like age of kings, age of empires, and command and conquer... Where pausing is so one can catch up because the strategy is about speed in doing things. I don't think this applies to games like closecombat (if played properly), Europa Universalis and Patrician 2.
"It can easily be argued that in situations where one doesn't have enough time to think things through properly, the most mistakes will invariably occur. In my opinion, something gets overlooked that historically wouldn't get overlooked an on a real Napoleonic battlefield. "
I will have to disagree with this. Examples abound of a commander making a decision 'on the spot' in a napoleonic battlefield. Some decisions for the good, some for the bad. Yet they share a commonality, on the spot, immediate decision making.
"If that choice for a similar unit took place in a historical simulation, it would be a choice made by the player because he (or she) is the one who makes all the individual choices -for the entire army."
Yep.
"But, if things are flying along at a breakneck speed and cannot be paused, the chances can be pretty high for a tactically improper choice to be made made by a player because he (or she) might not be able to see the need for a tactically proper choice until it is too late."
Again, why would things be flying along at breakneck speed? Is the player incapable of knowing that a breakneck speed is too much for them to properly give orders and thus can not make terms of game speed prior to starting? Additionally, on a tactical level, often times in real life a commander on the spot will make a poor decision because he missed something. That's the reality of war. If everyone could have the appropriate time to fully assess the situation, then there wouldn't be a historical record full of mistakes being made by hasty decisions whereby the commander on the spot lacked information due to circumstances beyond his control.
"In any event, the Napoleonic Era saw very little happen at a breakneck speed. This can be said at all levels whether it be strategic, operational, or tactical."
I have to disagree here as well. I just returned a book to the library a few weeks ago in which the author debunks the myth that decisions were hardly made on the spot at the tactical level. Additionally, these were made on fly sometimes with disastrous results and at times with great results. But to say that things didnt happen at breakneck speed tactically I think misses the reality in which these men were put through. I can tell you I would consider that cavalry unit charging me at full speed would surely put me to thinking about what to do without the ability to take 3 hours to count hexes and set up my units to square properly around me.
"Obviously, one won't take 15-20 years to play a game of the level of 'Napoleonic Wars', but on the other end of things, a couple of days or even a week is not too much to ask for. "
A full campaign of EU2 will often take a few weeks to play, it's just the nature of the length of game.
"I however get annoyed at people who think that TBS is hopelessly obsolete, that RTS is the wave of the future that everyone must convert to eventually and is superior to TBS in all circumstances. "
I would probably guess that those who play rts feel the same way about tbs people. Those that think that tbs is the ONLY way a game can be properly simulated. Such thinking is not only reserved for those who play/prefer rts.
"Yes that is about what I meant. It is not realistic that a player is forced to make in seconds a decision or action that their historical counterpart would have had days or weeks to make."
Well this can be argued. Depending on the type of decision being made. Depending on what decision is being made, a combat for example in which tactical choices are made and changed based on the situation occuring, then no commanders wouldnt have weeks or days to decide. Additionally, with tbs, a person has unlimited time to decide on every single circumstance between turns.
"I agree about the arcade comparison. Most of the people who consider themselves strategy game fans today wouldn't have touched a strategy game with a ten foot pole before the RTS revolution. The same is true for RPGs. "
Gotta love the elitest condemnation that eminates in this quote.
:rolleyes:
"Yes, there is an ocean of RTS games out there, TBS games are very rare nowadays. "
Ever honestly ask yourself why that is?
"The "we-go" format gets around this, and is essentially real-time but without the unnatural time pressure associated with the traditional RTS format. Best of both worlds, so to speak."
Yes it's a nice system, but none-the-less a system. In combat mission for example I think it is of less benefit than say in atomics v4v or w@w series. I think the lower in simulation one goes, where things are controlled at an individual level (tanks, artillery, squads) then continuous time is a better use of gameplay mechanics. When it comes to operational level, I think the we-go format works well. Finally at the strategic level, I think turn based is good, but also we-go.
Reiryc

Reiryc,
I am really sorry my friend, but I find your way of quoting another's statement rather difficult to read, follow, and respond to.
May I suggest putting the original statement in bold? Either that or your answer in bold.? The method used by Zagys is a really excellent one. Don't you agree?
Oh well, we all have our own preferences in terms of gaming styles and I guess that we'll just have leave it at that. Can we just 'agree to disagree' and still be friends??????????? I respect your opinion (for you) in terms of gaming styles. As for myself, I prefer something different.
I think that song from the 70s is really correct when they sang: "It takes of every kind of people to make the world go round........"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another note....................
HEY REIRYC!
(I'm yelling here.)
Where does your username come from????????????????????????????????????????
How did you come up with it??????????????????????????????????????????????
Thanks.

I am really sorry my friend, but I find your way of quoting another's statement rather difficult to read, follow, and respond to.
May I suggest putting the original statement in bold? Either that or your answer in bold.? The method used by Zagys is a really excellent one. Don't you agree?
Oh well, we all have our own preferences in terms of gaming styles and I guess that we'll just have leave it at that. Can we just 'agree to disagree' and still be friends??????????? I respect your opinion (for you) in terms of gaming styles. As for myself, I prefer something different.
I think that song from the 70s is really correct when they sang: "It takes of every kind of people to make the world go round........"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another note....................


Where does your username come from????????????????????????????????????????
How did you come up with it??????????????????????????????????????????????
Thanks.

Vive l'Empereur!
"I am really sorry my friend, but I find your way of quoting another's statement rather difficult to read, follow, and respond to."
I don't know how to do the quotes or bold and don't wish to learn. I figure the good 'ole quotation mark should suffice.
"Oh well, we all have our own preferences in terms of gaming styles and I guess that we'll just have leave it at that."
Well I've never been arguing what is the best play style per se. What I have been arguing is that to say one is better or to condescend towards one play style is unacceptable. We all have a preferred method of gaming, this to me is obvious.
"Where does your username come from?"
I have not answered this because I see no reason to. I figured my leaving it alone (multiple times) would give the impression I did not want to answer it.
Reiryc
I don't know how to do the quotes or bold and don't wish to learn. I figure the good 'ole quotation mark should suffice.
"Oh well, we all have our own preferences in terms of gaming styles and I guess that we'll just have leave it at that."
Well I've never been arguing what is the best play style per se. What I have been arguing is that to say one is better or to condescend towards one play style is unacceptable. We all have a preferred method of gaming, this to me is obvious.
"Where does your username come from?"
I have not answered this because I see no reason to. I figured my leaving it alone (multiple times) would give the impression I did not want to answer it.
Reiryc

Reiryc,Originally posted by Reiryc
"Where does your username come from?"
I have not answered this because I see no reason to.
Reiryc
This is getting too weird.
Um, the reason to answer it is because a friend is asking you to. At the very least it is someone who has been trying to be your friend.
I noticed that you forgot to answer: "Can we just 'agree to disagree' and still be friends?"
Is that too much to hope for? Or, am I reading you correctly in that you prefer open hostilities?
Vive l'Empereur!
-
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
You make much hay about the superiority of the real-time system in tactical combat, are you not aware that Napoleonic Wars is a strategic game?Originally posted by Reiryc
I just returned a book to the library a few weeks ago in which the author debunks the myth that decisions were hardly made on the spot at the tactical level. Additionally, these were made on fly sometimes with disastrous results and at times with great results. But to say that things didnt happen at breakneck speed tactically I think misses the reality in which these men were put through. I can tell you I would consider that cavalry unit charging me at full speed would surely put me to thinking about what to do without the ability to take 3 hours to count hexes and set up my units to square properly around me.
Really, well I have never heard of such people.Originally posted by Reiryc
I would probably guess that those who play rts feel the same way about tbs people. Those that think that tbs is the ONLY way a game can be properly simulated. Such thinking is not only reserved for those who play/prefer rts.
Again, Napoleonic Wars is a strategic game, so this point is moot.Originally posted by Reiryc
Well this can be argued. Depending on the type of decision being made. Depending on what decision is being made, a combat for example in which tactical choices are made and changed based on the situation occuring, then no commanders wouldnt have weeks or days to decide. Additionally, with tbs, a person has unlimited time to decide on every single circumstance between turns.
Am I wrong though?Originally posted by Reiryc
Gotta love the elitest condemnation that eminates in this quote.
:rolleyes:
I thought it was obvious, most gamers have fast paced action and flashy graphics as their highest priority.Originally posted by Reiryc
Ever honestly ask yourself why that is?
I agree totally with this part, but am quite a bit surprised to see you post it. Didn't this argument open with your apparent campaign to add a real-time option to Napoleonic Wars. I concern myself primarily with strategic games, and have little interest in smaller scale games whether they be turn-based or real-time.Originally posted by Reiryc
I think the lower in simulation one goes, where things are controlled at an individual level (tanks, artillery, squads) then continuous time is a better use of gameplay mechanics. When it comes to operational level, I think the we-go format works well. Finally at the strategic level, I think turn based is good, but also we-go.
-
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Yes Im aware it's a strategic game. I think a game like this would play well in a continuous time environment, much like EU2 or Patrician 2.You make much hay about the superiority of the real-time system in tactical combat, are you not aware that Napoleonic Wars is a strategic game?
Somehow, this doesn't surprise me much.Really, well I have never heard of such people.
Well no...beings that we will be engaging in battles that do not occur in a strategic time frame (even the possibility of choosing formations) this point is relevant.Again, Napoleonic Wars is a strategic game, so this point is moot.
Does being right negate the elitest attitude? Whether you're right or wrong I have no idea. I can only give anecdotal evidence with no real supporting data.Am I wrong though?
Care to cite some study or poll? Or is this anecdotal?I thought it was obvious, most gamers have fast paced action and flashy graphics as their highest priority.
Why would you be surpised to see me post it? Just because I think this game would play better in continuous time, doesn't mean that continuous time holds better for all strategic simulations.I agree totally with this part, but am quite a bit surprised to see you post it. Didn't this argument open with your apparent campaign to add a real-time option to Napoleonic Wars. I concern myself primarily with strategic games, and have little interest in smaller scale games whether they be turn-based or real-time.
Reiryc

-
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Yes it would play well, but it would add a time pressure dynamic that could distract from the depth of the game. I think a "we-go" system would better fit the type of playing experience that the designers intend.Originally posted by Reiryc
Yes Im aware it's a strategic game. I think a game like this would play well in a continuous time environment, much like EU2 or Patrician 2.
Player control of battles will be limited to the choice of a broad strategy, there will be no tactical micromanagement requiring quick decision making.Originally posted by Reiryc
Well no...beings that we will be engaging in battles that do not occur in a strategic time frame (even the possibility of choosing formations) this point is relevant.
No I suppose it doesn't.Originally posted by Reiryc
Does being right negate the elitest attitude?

No, I just don't care enough.Originally posted by Reiryc
Care to cite some study or poll?
So what strategic game would you prefer turn-based?Originally posted by Reiryc
Why would you be surpised to see me post it? Just because I think this game would play better in continuous time, doesn't mean that continuous time holds better for all strategic simulations.