Matrix Games Forums

RTS, man that term has baggage eh.

I think though, my beef lies more with the "S" than any other portion of the term. I tend to think of "strategy" as something connected with "thinking". There is no thinking with the mainstream conventional RTS genre. and, if you actually DO need to think while playing one, well, you have my sympathies on your stunted intellect

Calling a Close Combat game anything more than real time is unnecessary. Yes, it doesn't have turns, and that is about the extent of it. It plays in real time, as opposed to turn time.
Although the term "real" I think occasionally goes to some people's heads, as if the time used in turns is not a reflection of increments of actual time.

But there is no moronic resource gathering, nor production of units in steady streams. You don't get to do a Zerg rush, you either have an intelligent plan of attack before you even begin, or your opponent likely already owns you.

I wouldn't even own Close Combat if it had no genuine connection with the realm of tangible wargaming.

No one that plays ASL seriously, is likely to have much interest in wasting time on the conventional RTS offerings.
No game made to emulate Squad Leader is going to get far, if it's dummied down for a person that had never even experienced Squad Leader.

Close Combat, Combat Mission, and Steel Panthers are all seriously designed wargames. They took a differing path from each other, but they all had the same goal. A tangible feeling squad level wargame.

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

Yep, the term "continuous time" is more appropriate.

Dunno about that; I associate that description more with Airborne Assault and Armored Task Force. I think "real-time strategy" is actually a pretty good description of Close Combat if you lose the associations of that phrase. The only problem is that that description and the 'RTS' acronym is almost exclusively associated with a very specific type of game - and Close Combat is not such a game.

Well it all comes down to perception and from mine it is the closest thing...

I played ASL in the early nineties I believe...got distracted and didnt have time for it anymore...to busy.
I found CC and was mesmerized with it bought CCII and was just as impressed. Not until about three years ago did I start to play head to head. What a difference to match wits with people in that game. Everything from sudden ambushes, use of fire lanes, flanking, hand to hand combat, beserk squad members, infantry flamethrowers and to a certain extent leaders (rallying broken troops), use of smoke, sneaking/concealed movement all these things I was initially introduced to with ASL. So the jump from one to another was seamless for me. Like I said in another post... if you havent played CC head to head (as opposed to the AI) you havent really played CC

To be fair there are quirks in the CC system (at least with the version I play) tanks "wandering" on their own into the los of an AT weapon, prisoners inducing "friend block" when trying to fire on the guarding unit, and the dreaded "alt los tricks" to name a few. However the intense, nerve wracking nature head to head play more than make up for its faults

Of the three games mentioned I only own to CC and Combat Mission.
I dont have any experience with SPWAW, but I did just download the free version to check it out

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Close Combat is not RTS.  It's unfair to the game to refer to it that way.

Look I played the game(s) and I know what RTS is. To tone it down to "continous" time is just silly. It's in real time it's NOT TURN BASED. That's the bottom line. But, to add more point....ASL is not "continous time" either. Nor is SPWAW.

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Close Combat is not RTS. It's unfair to the game to refer to it that way.

Look I played the game(s) and I know what RTS is. To tone it down to "continous" time is just silly. It's in real time it's NOT TURN BASED. That's the bottom line. But, to add more point....ASL is not "continous time" either. Nor is SPWAW.

All games are turn based, some have faster turns than others. Continuous time simply makes pressing "Next Turn" redundant.

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

Yep, the term "continuous time" is more appropriate.

Dunno about that; I associate that description more with Airborne Assault and Armored Task Force. I think "real-time strategy" is actually a pretty good description of Close Combat if you lose the associations of that phrase. The only problem is that that description and the 'RTS' acronym is almost exclusively associated with a very specific type of game - and Close Combat is not such a game.

I actually find the description pretty fitting, since you can adjust the speed of ho time flows in CC.

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Close Combat is not RTS. It's unfair to the game to refer to it that way.

Look I played the game(s) and I know what RTS is. To tone it down to "continous" time is just silly. It's in real time it's NOT TURN BASED. That's the bottom line. But, to add more point....ASL is not "continous time" either. Nor is SPWAW.

All games are turn based, some have faster turns than others. Continuous time simply makes pressing "Next Turn" redundant.

Very well, ASL doesn't have "faster turns", SPWAW doesn't have faster turns, they both use the IGOUGO method, CC has faster turns therefore it's not ASL or even close and uses the RT method or as some would say CT either or it is not IGOUGO.

To put it another way CC doesn't have automatic pause for input of strategy or tactics like a "slower" turn based game does.

I guess we can start calling turn based games "automatic paused games". So, ASL and SPWAW are APG's. Or No Action while I think games with an organized stoppage of the game at constant intervals of completion of each players turn.

I would say CC is a live action toy game while ASL and SPWAW are traditional grognard wargames. The difference here is the kid who likes things that move and go pow pow vs the more intelligent child that prefers a chesslike atmosphere of thought and strategy and tactics at liesure. The twitcher eyecandy kid vs the thinker.

And where yah been Dinny? Haven't seen you around in awhile. How's Paradox treating you these days? hehe

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

I would say CC is a live action toy game while ASL and SPWAW are traditional grognard wargames. The difference here is the kid who likes things that move and go pow pow vs the more intelligent child that prefers a chesslike atmosphere of thought and strategy and tactics at liesure. The twitcher eyecandy kid vs the thinker.

As a matter of interest, have you ever played competitive chess? There ain't no 'at leisure' there, just the pressure of the clock. Maybe the kid that would prefer CC is the one who can handle the pressure to make the right decisions within severe time constraints - the same constraints you have in most of the real world. Not least on a battlefield.

I used to love arcade games as a kid, it's not like I didn't enjoy them.

I have both CC as well as SPWaW, both because they are good games.

But, where I personally see the problem in the debate, is the perception that the speed of one game, delivers a "superior simulation" according to some opinions.

That is the core of my own personal beef. CC is not "more realistic" than SPWaW by virtue of it not having turns, nor is SPWaW more of a wargame by being more thorough in a thought out fashion.
Both are good games, while on the other hand, one CAN find games out there that simply suck, real time or turn based. A mode of design will not prevent a game from sucking

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

I would say CC is a live action toy game while ASL and SPWAW are traditional grognard wargames. The difference here is the kid who likes things that move and go pow pow vs the more intelligent child that prefers a chesslike atmosphere of thought and strategy and tactics at liesure. The twitcher eyecandy kid vs the thinker.

As a matter of interest, have you ever played competitive chess? There ain't no 'at leisure' there, just the pressure of the clock. Maybe the kid that would prefer CC is the one who can handle the pressure to make the right decisions within severe time constraints - the same constraints you have in most of the real world. Not least on a battlefield.

You mean "clickfest" chess, LOL [;)]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

I would say CC is a live action toy game while ASL and SPWAW are traditional grognard wargames. The difference here is the kid who likes things that move and go pow pow vs the more intelligent child that prefers a chesslike atmosphere of thought and strategy and tactics at liesure. The twitcher eyecandy kid vs the thinker.

As a matter of interest, have you ever played competitive chess? There ain't no 'at leisure' there, just the pressure of the clock. Maybe the kid that would prefer CC is the one who can handle the pressure to make the right decisions within severe time constraints - the same constraints you have in most of the real world. Not least on a battlefield.

On the battlefield I would be fighting for myself in an individual mode not controlling full squads, platoons, companies, divisions an on an on and having to move them, tell them where to take cover who to fire at, etc. etc. That's the problem with RTS games there is too much to do with hand and mouse that you don't have on the battlefield either. I would also have a radio if I were in command and be able to speak into a mike to deliver orders. These are things the games do not model that are RTS, CC doesn't either.

Turn based slows down that time into intervals where I can use my hand and mouse to issue all those orders and such. That's why turn based rules and anything real time or continous time suks (unless they are games where I play as an individual like FPSers or RPG's). I'm not looking for realism of the battlefield, emotions, and activities when I buy/play a game. I'm looking merely and only for the strategic and tactical moves needed to win the scenario. Let's face it not one single game is realistic when it comes to war. No game can begin to come close when it comes to warfare. But, this discussion is about which game is closer to ASL as a computer game and that's the main point. SPWAW is the closest and CC the futherest away.

I can vouch for Peter's game, it's going to be good. And it isn't the only thing he has cooking.
 
Dave, Marc and Peter need to talk about it.
 
E

In reply to ravinhood

I would say CC is a live action toy game while ASL

LOL Well judging by your intial reaction to my post Id say coming from you thats not a suprise.

First, you strike me as one who is so married to his beliefs that youd probably argue for them even if you knew they were wrong.

Second your cling desprately to your turn based board style games that you cant seem to let go of them even in the face of innovations. Not really a knock on board games, but this is the 21st century, dude its time to move on...

Third, your argument that in real tactical situations you have time to ponder things blah blah blah. I would hardly think that was the case. I believe in tactical situations you have to react quick and make snap decision without the luxury of meandering around trying to decide the utmost best thing to do.

The speed of CC probably overwhelms you and for people who like to micromanage... the game would just be plain to much for you.

Finally, you seem to lack the ability to comprehend the simalarities of CC and ASL. It is beyond me that something so obvious is out of reach for you. According to your argument since CC is not a literal translation it is not even a translation. Here is where we part... I can see that figuratively it is a translation. You probably also lack the ability to think in metaphors and also to think in analogies (which is how I see the simalarities between ASL and CC). I guess it comes with the territory. Boardgames and turned based games are easily manipulated because the style of game play isnt really fluid and in a way they offer a certain sense comfort to one who cant think fast or make decisions on the fly (or those who just dont like to).Certainly this is not the case with all board style turn based gamers but since you so vehemently argue your point I cant help but come to this conclusion.

I feel strongly about this because I look at all the games on this site and see some really good ideas... However some look just like the board games I have in my closet. If I wanted that I would just go buy a bookcase game. With all the new technology out it is beyond me that more often than not that that route is taken with many of these games.

Second your cling desprately to your turn based board style games that you cant seem to let go of them even in the face of innovations. Not really a knock on board games, but this is the 21st century, dude its time to move on...

 
By your arguement you should be playing CM and Panzer Command ready to move up to ToW or Drop Team WWII, patiently waiting for CMx2 WWII or CMSF.

Hmmm...no... not really waiting for those (Ill make those choices for myself...thanks) but I wouldnt be afraid to try something different... provided it it caught my interest...

... I did see panzer command...looks interesting (someone mentioned it at the CCII TH forums) couldnt find a demo version though...

Check the PC forum below for details on the upcoming demo.

[:D] LOL Cant figure out if your sitting there eating popcorn waiting for Panzer Command or the next barrage of comments on this thread...

another Saturday night in the forum...

ORIGINAL: Ocelotl

I feel strongly about this because I look at all the games on this site and see some really good ideas... However some look just like the board games I have in my closet. If I wanted that I would just go buy a bookcase game. With all the new technology out it is beyond me that more often than not that that route is taken with many of these games.

Three reasons for that, I think.

The first is that it really is what a large number of potential purchasers actually want.. even when they are perfecltly well aware of the alternatives, and not usually as hostile to them as ravinhood.

The second is that nobody, yet, has come up with a better alternative at the operational or strategic level. I suppose you could argue WitP is to some extent, but I think the modelled conflicts where that style would 'work' are limited. At the tactical level the form is pretty much dying out to be replaced by games such as CC, CM, PC, Armored Task Force, CotA, etc but the Airborne Assault series really takes that as far up the scale ladder as it can go (its largest scenario is just about equatable to TAOW's smallest).

The third is that simply because they look like bookcase games it doesn't necessarily mean they always play like them - and they often don't. The 'bookcase game' look is chosen for the same reason it originally evolved, to present the information that the player needs in the most effective and quickly absorbed way possible. But, for example, Flashpoint Germany and Tin Soldiers are both very much 'computer' games despite looking like a board-game and a miniatures game respectively.