Real time or Turn based servay,

Sleepy Hollow · Post by **Sleepy Hollow** » Sat Jul 07, 2001 1:40 am

Just out of interest, what do people prefer? Real time or turn based war games?

Warpup · Post by **Warpup** » Sat Jul 07, 2001 6:28 am

Turn based, except for flight sims (guess it wouldn't be a sim if it were turn based!) and tactical naval games. Don't like turn based grand strategy, although I just got Europa Universalis and it seems pretty good.

fnguy · Post by **fnguy** » Sat Jul 07, 2001 6:41 pm

Definitely, Turn based, since most of the time in an RTS game, the AI sucks too bad for you to trust it to run any part of your side of the game.

VictorH · Post by **VictorH** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 12:22 am

Turn Based!

Supervisor · Post by **Supervisor** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 12:35 am

Turn based for this style type of gaming, real time for sims (fighting, flight etc.) I like the opportunity to evalaute and ponder my next move. I wasn't impressed when ex: Fallout Tactics changed their ways and went real time (option was still there for turn based though which was nice). I guess alot has to do with what you are used to playing also.

MacCready · Post by **MacCready** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 1:05 am

Tough question,I like both.

Concerning Real Time.

It is closer to actual fighting because,in real war you don't have a lot of time to "ponder" your next move.
I've played real time since I bought "Dune 2" by Westwood. (1995) The best WW2 real time game bar none is a game called "Sudden Strike"(2000)

If your not on your toes,your going home in a box.

Concerning Turn based.

I like turn based games because everything is planned out and executed (hopefully) with precision.
Also a drawback of most real time games (not sudden strike)is its simply out produce and crush your opponent.
Whats most appealing about Steel Panthers WAW and the new game Combat Leader
is the real world weapons,the ability to outfit your army,and the vast catalog approach to the equipment.Not to mention all those Combat possibilities.

[ July 07, 2001: Message edited by: MacCready ]

11Bravo · Post by **11Bravo** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 9:46 pm

Turn based.

I like time to think, and I never get more than a few moments at a time to play these games before interruptions occur.

New York Jets · Post by **New York Jets** » Sun Jul 08, 2001 10:24 pm

I prefer turn based for wargaming, with a few exceptions like Sid Meier's Gettysburg. Although, it is a bit frustrating at times to go back to a heretofore "secure" part of your line only to find it has melted away.

Europa Universalis does a good job of melding turn based with real time in that you can fully access the interface even while paused or adjust the speed so that time passes very slowly. The Caesar III/Pharaoh gameplay really requires a real time engine.

Given the opportunity and time, however, I like a good old turn based board wargame like ASL or the Advanced 3rd Reich/Rising Sun system, and there is no substitute for the look on the face of a well skewered opponent in a good face to face multi-player session of some "screw your neighbor" game like Republic of Rome.

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Trog ]

sinner · Post by **sinner** » Mon Jul 09, 2001 1:16 am

Turn based.

For wargames, and as a recent wargamer (only 14 years in the trade), turn-based are the best.

Think of it as a grandiose chess game. Well, I like to play chess as if it were a wargame... so it's funny to send the cavalry to bring havoc in the enemy's communication lines or sending your armoured troops (rook) in coordination with your artillery (bishop).

Set up your infantry to slowly-but-surely advance and control the hill (the center piece of the board).

Of course, it doesn't work with true chess players, but I always have a blast

I wish I could have some Flak 8,8 on AT role while playing chess. You only have one Panther (queen), so it's hard.

On the other hand, for flight simulators or first-person shooters (done in proper military drill), real-time is a must. But that's about it.

Salut and off-board artillery.

Mai Thai · Post by **Mai Thai** » Mon Jul 09, 2001 11:27 am

Hi to everyone.

I like turn based strategy games like spwaw and Combat Mission since i was playing the first Panzer General, but i don't dislike some real time strategy like the close combat series (the third is the best, imho).
I think in some way it is a question of taste but lets say thanks to have them.
bye

ANZAC_Tack · Post by **ANZAC_Tack** » Mon Jul 09, 2001 12:27 pm

I live for Close combat,but...
I feel like it need more features, nothing turn based can do for me, it must be real time for internet play,and be strategy.CC has hed my time for 3 years,but it is becoming apparant it needs more features that engine just can't do.

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Mon Jul 09, 2001 4:05 pm

I swing both ways.

I enjoy the rough and tumble of realtime and the detail of turn based.

Marty 1 · Post by **Marty 1** » Mon Jul 09, 2001 5:12 pm

I like real time for tactical small unit actions. Real time above a battalion level seems odd to me. For now turn based is my preferred way.

I would have liked to see the system that Road To Moscow was suppose to be, a slow continous time I believe. That would work on a higher level I think. One day the AI may be available to allow it to control not only your opponent but your own forces. Until then I'll stick primarily to turn based.

New York Jets · Post by **New York Jets** » Mon Jul 09, 2001 5:17 pm

Originally posted by ANZAC_Tack:
I live for Close combat,but...
I feel like it need more features, nothing turn based can do for me, it must be real time for internet play,and be strategy.CC has hed my time for 3 years,but it is becoming apparant it needs more features that engine just can't do.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Close Combat is an awesome game. I feel it does one of the best jobs at portraying actions of that scale. It was actually another attempt to convert my favorite game system of all time to computer, Advanced Squad Leader. If you don't already play ASL and you have some time and opponents you ought to give it a try.

Muzrub · Post by **Muzrub** » Mon Jul 09, 2001 5:40 pm

Close Combat is an awesome game. I feel it does one of the best jobs at portraying actions of that scale. It was actually another attempt to convert my favorite game system of all time to computer, Advanced Squad Leader. If you don't already play ASL and you have some time and opponents you ought to give it a try.

The board game or the PC?.

Is the PC game as bad as they say?. :p

Mighty Muzrub in search of the truth.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Tue Jul 10, 2001 5:04 pm

Its not that I "hate" real time, I merely refuse to be a slave to constant hardware upgrades to play the latest "toy" game.

That and I find all to often, that the real time games seem aimed at the ill informed uninterested in accuracy consumer. There might be a few designs out there that are well made, but again they are all to often to demanding on my computer.

I am happy to play turn based games. Its all I want. And there are plenty enough good ones out there that I wont have to stray for lack of something to play.

pxreiman · Post by **pxreiman** » Tue Jul 10, 2001 5:16 pm

Turn based - and here's why - in real life I can accomplish a lot in a little time because my options -from how, when and where I communicate to what I can tell my subordinates to do - is essentially unlimited. Even better, I can expect those units to use some common sense when I issue instructions. In wargames, I need to manage my units much more closely and my commands are at best limited to a few options. So in real time strategy games, the time line is the same as in real life, but all my options are compressed through the machine interface - without adding realism or playabilty. On the otherhand, if I am going to have my options decreased and have to micromanage my units and still keep the big picture in mind, then turns are a logical solution.
There is the option of phases or simultaneous execution that will give the player that "fluid" feeling. But uber all- if you want realtime - play pong. pardon my rant.

New York Jets · Post by **New York Jets** » Tue Jul 10, 2001 6:57 pm

Originally posted by Muzrub:

The board game or the PC?.

Is the PC game as bad as they say?. :p

Mighty Muzrub in search of the truth.

The board game Advanced Squad Leader represents the pinnacle of WWII tactical simulation in the board game category. (IMHO)
Chapter H of the ASL Rules Manual is still one of the finest reference materials on the equipment used by the various forces in the conflict.

Squad Leader the PC Game represents, on the other hand, a pathetically lame attempt by Hasbro to use a venerated franchise name (Squad Leader) for purposes of marketing.
I tried to play it, but after 5 minutes of looking at the screen it was too painful to watch.

So, Advanced Squad Leader the board game is a "must have" additon to any gamer's library. Squad Leader the PC game is strictly coaster material.

[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Trog ]

Tommi · Post by **Tommi** » Wed Jul 11, 2001 12:56 am

It depends. I kinda like them both, but if I have to choose one or the other, I'll take turn based. At least then I know the game won't be a clickfest (i.e. the fastest mouse wins).

Actually, I'd choose the Combat Mission-style WEGO system, where you give orders like in any other turn based game and then those orders are executed simultaneously with your opponents orders. That eliminates the biggest weakness (IMHO) of turn based systems - separate movement "phases" and opportunity fire.

Real time has its advantages, especially in small unit strategy, but I feel I'm constantly fighting the game interface more than the opponent. When playing against the computer, you're always slower in giving orders to your units than the computer, that's why I like RT games to have a command-while-paused option. It also gives you some time to think and see what's going on.

Just my 2 cents.

PS. Would someone PLEASE tell me what LOL means?! Living on lubes? Low on Liquor?

Marty 1 · Post by **Marty 1** » Wed Jul 11, 2001 1:45 am

Originally posted by Tommi:
It depends. I kinda like them both, but if I have to choose one or the other, I'll take turn based. At least then I know the game won't be a clickfest (i.e. the fastest mouse wins).

Actually, I'd choose the Combat Mission-style WEGO system, where you give orders like in any other turn based game and then those orders are executed simultaneously with your opponents orders. That eliminates the biggest weakness (IMHO) of turn based systems - separate movement "phases" and opportunity fire.

Real time has its advantages, especially in small unit strategy, but I feel I'm constantly fighting the game interface more than the opponent. When playing against the computer, you're always slower in giving orders to your units than the computer, that's why I like RT games to have a command-while-paused option. It also gives you some time to think and see what's going on.

Just my 2 cents.

PS. Would someone PLEASE tell me what LOL means?! Living on lubes? Low on Liquor?

Laugh out loud