Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Computer Wargaming: Real Time vs. Turn Based

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Patrick Carroll View Post
    But my response--which is sure to be an unpopular one--is that I don't want a true simulation; I want a good game.
    I don't see why that would be 'unpopular' although I don't see that they are mutually exclusive (which may not be what you're saying I admit )

    As to "find[ing] the necessity to physically move every piece every turn to achieve the same result that I can achieve in HTTR with two or three clicks rather frustrating," I heartily agree. That's why I've long since lost interest in big wargames and big scenarios. The smaller, the better. The fewer units I have to move each turn, the better. Last time I tried one of the typical hex-grid wargames (it was an HPS title), I pretty quickly got sick of it and went off to play other games instead. Mainly, there were just way too many units to have to move each turn. Only the smallest scenarios were tolerable.
    Fair enough. Some of us like the big battles though.

    And whatever concrete detail is there, I want it to be accurate; I don't want Greek phalanxes holding their own against German panzer units, as can happen in ludicrous games like Civilization.
    The combat in Civ is so abstract though that I tend to ignore these things if they happen.
    Signing out.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
      I don't see why that would be 'unpopular' although I don't see that they are mutually exclusive (which may not be what you're saying I admit )
      I just mean I think "cinematic" games will continue to be the more popular, for the same reason moviegoing is more popular than game playing. But I personally prefer game playing to moviegoing and don't care for movielike aspects to the games I'm playing.


      Fair enough. Some of us like the big battles though.
      Well, I like big battles too. I just don't want to have to micromanage them (i.e., move a hundred or more units each turn and take care of a lot of housekeeping details). I'm happy to re-create Gettysburg as long as it's more like AH's Smithsonian edition of Gettysburg and not like the advanced 1977 edition. The latter was darned near impossible to play; the former was quite small and playable for a wargame.

      Of course, I wish the Smithsonian edition could've been as historically accurate as the 1977 version. Because it left a lot to be desired in that department.


      The combat in Civ is so abstract though that I tend to ignore these things if they happen.
      Civ isn't a very good example, since it's not really a wargame per se. Maybe Panzer General would be a better example of a game where inaccuracy spoils things. PG had the potential to be a fine wargame, and it looked historically accurate at first glance; but soon after getting into it, you discover that some pretty ludicrous things happen and it's not historically accurate after all. It's fun and playable, but that's not enough for me.

      Matrix's Tin Soldiers games are a good step in the direction of what I'm looking for in a wargame. I could do without all the graphic detail, and there are some other features that go against my grain, but on the whole it's reasonably playable and reasonably accurate as far as I can tell.
      --Patrick Carroll


      "Do all you have agreed to do, and do not encroach on other persons or their property." (Richard Maybury)

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Patrick Carroll View Post
        I was impressed with Gettysburg for a while. I'd say it gave me a better sense of what military command is like than any other game I've ever played. And I might still be playing the game sometimes today if I had a computer it'd run on.
        Interestingly enough, I just found out that there is a patch that lets the game run on Windows 2000/XP. You can find it here:

        http://dlh.net/cgi-bin/dlp.cgi?lang=...nxp.zip&ref=ps

        Got the link from wargamer.com, so I am assuming it has been tested out ok.
        "I am not an atomic playboy."
        Vice Admiral William P. Blandy

        Comment


        • #49
          Went with turned based. Although real time is ok for company or lower level games. It is completely unreal for anything above that level. The time is so compresses and even with the interface niceties you really lack anything comparable to a real battalion or higher level staff to deliver its support in a time period equivalent to the compressed time scale. The only rational solution is the turned base.

          As to so call "Real Time Strategy" games, they are neither Real Time nor Strategic so I have never seen the point.
          Boston Strong!

          Comment


          • #50
            I prefer WEGO and so chose "Turn Based".

            I bought COTA and was disappointed. It may simulate C3 well, but I found other aspects lacking. Perhaps I just sucked in playing the game, but too often units (in combat) moved and rotated in strange ways. It felt a bit like the infamous "dance of death" of CM.

            -40 Tons

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by JSMoss View Post
              As to so call "Real Time Strategy" games, they are neither Real Time nor Strategic so I have never seen the point.
              Both games have their ups and downs, and both appeal to me when I'm in certain moods.

              If it's a long day, and I have some serious time to spare (or have something else to do on my computer at the same time), I'll open up a turn based game.

              However, I never understand how people feel that 'real time' is less accurate than 'turn based'. The most quoted examples of this are games like Starcraft, where ones memorization of hotkeys was more essential to success than skill.

              I think we can all agree that those 'RTS'es do not deserve the term 'strategy', and are therefor not representative of what 'real time' has to offer.

              But games like the Close Combat series showed the potential of real-time in the strategy market. I think that the future of wargaming has a number of different potential areas of growth.

              I personally would love to see a combination of the turn based scale games with the freedom and realism of real time. Imagine a scalable clock speed like in the Silent Hunter games, but applied to a large scale theatre operations. You could spend all the time you need to plan your operation, then watch it unfold in real time (most likely you'd speed it up, because who has 2 weeks of their life to spare to refight Operation Market Gardens?).



              DoD, you're an idiot.

              Comment


              • #52
                I agree real time for operational level would make a lot more sense is the clock was appropirately scaled. Pausable real time might be the closest we could get currently. Also needed at that level is accuracy in information based on the technology of the time and also accuracy of order transmission based on the technology of the time link with a predisposition of units to act according to characteristics of the unit leader with the leader getting more dominance over the player as accuracy of information declines due to distance, weather , etc.

                Napoleonic units that were further from the leader were more likely to act or not act on the leader initiative or lack thereof as distnace increase, but sometime even Bradley had to get in his face to get Patton to obey. Ignored transmission are known even in fairly modern times.
                Boston Strong!

                Comment


                • #53
                  i have to say turn based even though i grew up on RTSs i find turn based games to be more involved with minipulation and getting into your enemies head is fun. it also gives me time to set up a stratagy and move forword with it just RTSs i can never fully pull it off

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X