Shaka of Carthage Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Real time games have thier place, but the problem with quite a few of them, is that its become so much marketing hype, that alot of games are being designed or sold as "real time", without really understanding what the purpose of having a real time game is. What is it, that most people want when they have a real time game? At the level of a first person or tactical game, it makes sense. But does it at a Operational or Strategy level? If we compare a Empire building game, like Civ vs AoE, what is the real purpose of having RT at this "strategy" level game? Two things. A handicap for the player against the AI and a time limit for one player to do his turn when he is playing another person. You have to make decisions quickly, and hope you choose correctly. Eventually, you will make a mistake, whereas the AI doesn't. Its alot easier to design a competitive game, when the AI gets to "cheat". But now we have a major problem, trying to bring that concept into a "serious" and/or "historical" wargame. The AI can't compare to playing against another human. So one way or another, that wargame will be modified so you can play against other people. Then having real times so it forces you to make mistakes or indirectly giving a time limit doesn't make any sense. Thats the problem with HoI, and why so many wargamming boardgames are still around. What operational and strategical level games need, is the ability for the player(s) to enter their orders and then everyone watches the simultaenous exectution of those orders. The amount of time allowed to enter those orders can vary based on the scale and complexity of the game. Simultaenous movements are what wargamers want, not real time. [ December 07, 2003, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les the Sarge 9-1 Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 I agree, if the order to execute is done simultaneously, it matters not how long I took, merely if I planned better than you did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 Exactly. It becomes a matter of planning, with those random but unavoidable elements of surprise and luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pochenko Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 I think the best WW2 game is Close Combat 3 "The Russian Front". Of course it has it's problems like the small scale of the game (you only command Kampgruppes) but it's quite realistic in weapons power and range. It has good videos to see and the maps are realistics (since they are based on aerial photographs) I know that's quite an old game but I haven't played anything better yet. It's envolving (can you say it in that way??) if you don't care that you can't change history (even if you win with the germans on Moscow, the final battle is on Berlín) but I think it's not so bad since you don't control an entire army and so you can't really change history. I've also played "Soldiers at War" and it's quite good despite it's even in a smaller scale and you can only control the silly americans in the campaign. I know this two are oldies but I thought it was good to mention them. THANKS AGAIN FOR THE FORUM/B] ............................................ GUNS N' ROSES RULES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pochenko Posted December 8, 2003 Share Posted December 8, 2003 I've mentioned them because they are (CC3) real time or turn per turn (SAW) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts