Real Time vs. Turn Based?

Post by **BattleGoat** » Jun 05 2002

What do you like better and why? Supreme Ruler 2010 was originally designed as a Turn-Based game, but through the on-going tweaking that a game needs, it has since been turn into pseudo Real Time. Is this good news to you? Let us know...

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Jun 05 2002

sounds like a good move BG

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Jun 05 2002

I think a working combination of real-time and turn based is the best.

Ashbery76 · Post by **Ashbery76** » Jun 05 2002

I like E.U which is real time but with different speeds.

Post by **George Geczy** » Jun 08 2002

Europa Universalis has some interesting ideas with "real time" gameplay for a traditional strategy game, though if you notice a lot of the action happens in "bursts"; for example, units move from province to province, but the are always either "here or there"; once a given amount of time clicks away, they "arrive".

For many 'strategic level' strategy games, especially those with more detailed military units, turn based is the norm (Panzer General Series, Civ or Alpha Centauri, etc).

Firaxis have announced that the new Civ3 expansion pack adds 'turnless' game play, though it will be interesting to see how their ideas work out compared to what we've done in SR2010. It's a bit of new ground for this type of game.

-- George.

<Lead Programmer, BattleGoat Studios>

Mojo · Post by **Mojo** » Jun 09 2002

Please keep true turned based as an option! It seems everyone is going on the real-time bandwagon, and maybe I'm a purist, but I think a game of this magnitude requires a traditional turn based engine. You could have it be a WEGO system, meaning the player and the computer plan out their moves at the same time (planning phases), then all sides movements (movement phase) are resolved simultaneously - like was done in games like High Command and American Civil War: 1861 to 1865 (great freeware game BTW-link for download given below

). This can get rid of some strange inconsistancies produced when sides have different movement phases. Just my nickel's worth of free advice.

link to ACW 1851-1865 (great free strat game-TRY IT!):
http://www.adanaccommandstudies.com/IntroACW.html

_________________
Nice place: clean water, fresh air, blue skies. Like pirates we tried it, we took what we deserved. Half a million years later we've used up our reserves. We're crying, "What happened?" We get what we deserve.
-Ministry (from song Isle of Man)

[ This Message was edited by: Mojo on 2002-06-09 10:17 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Mojo on 2002-06-09 10:19 ]

Post by **George Geczy** » Jun 09 2002

Please keep true turned based as an option! It seems everyone is going on the real-time bandwagon, and maybe I'm a purist, but I think a game of this magnitude requires a traditional turn based engine.

The original design planned us to allow both Turn based and Real Time modes; the turn based was to be true simultaneous resolution, which is both realistic and fair.

But a couple of problems creep up - first of all, simultaneous resolution is a bit abstract to many players: give orders first, then hit "End Turn" to see what happened. Some dedicated wargame players are used to it, but it lacks the "instant gratification" that many game players are used to. It can also bog things down in multiplayer.

Shifting to 'Real Time' as our primary mode of operation is risky too, however. We're not making an 'RTS' Command-and-Conquer or Age-of-Empires clone, and this game is clearly much different than that. So our challenge is to allow 'turnless' processing and still maintain a true strategic/economic/diplomatic game.

We have various things added to attempt to make strategy players satisfied with the mix - including the ability to pause time, and change the game speed.

Still, it is true that it does change the flavour of the game, but we can only make one game at a time - a lot of time thinking about this has led us to believe that real-time will give the best game play and make the most enjoyable game. Though we love to hear from others out there that agree/disagree!

-- George.

<Lead Programmer, BattleGoat Studios>

Mojo · Post by **Mojo** » Jun 11 2002

I would like to see a pure turn based available for those, such as myself who plan to play only in single-player mode.

[ This Message was edited by: Mojo on 2002-06-11 18:26 ]

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Jun 11 2002

what would a time variable type be called ?

Anyone remember harpoon ?Their time system allowed many different time passage settings.

If you wanted turn base you would just set the time passage to zero,issue your orders then up the time passage to whatever setting you were comfortable with.
When you felt you needed time to give a new set of orders all you had to do was repeat as needed.

What would that qualify as ?

Post by **George Geczy** » Jun 12 2002

If you wanted turn base you would just set the time passage to zero,issue your orders then up the time passage to whatever setting you were comfortable with.
When you felt you needed time to give a new set of orders all you had to do was repeat as needed.

Well, I don't know what that's called, but it is the direction we're going in with our design changes.

We will likely also offer some other options to tune the game in Single Player mode for turn-based fans, but I don't think these will carry over to the Multi-Player side.

-- George.

harley9699 · Post by **harley9699** » Jul 02 2002

I lean more toward the "Panzer General Series, Civ or Alpha Centauri, etc" Lots of times, I want the more 'relaxing' part of turn-based rather than the frantic rts of an EE or AoE.

[ This Message was edited by: harley9699 on 2002-07-02 08:43 ]

Post by **BattleGoat** » Jul 02 2002

It DEFINITELY wouldn't be the clickfest realtime of EE or AofE. Instead it would be more like the constantly moving time of Europa Universalis in which you can control the speed of the clock.

3iff · Post by **3iff** » Jul 03 2002

Jagged Alliance 2 uses a real time/turn based system. You can pause the game and do things, then unpause and the game chugs away at whatever time interval you set. When something important happens, the game reverts to turnbased mode. It stays there until there is no more combat and then reverts to realtime.

I dislike realtime immensely, unless I can slow it down to my kind of speed, but the JA2 system works perfectly.

As long as I can pause and issue orders or jump into turnbased mode I'll be happy.

If I lose, I want it to be because I made the wrong decision, not because I didn't click fast enough!

Post by **BattleGoat** » Jul 03 2002

If I lose, I want it to be because I made the wrong decision, not because I didn't click fast enough!

I agree 1000%. I do like to play Empire Earth and the like, but I just can't generate the "Tank Rush" that others do. So you can bet SR2010 won't just wear out your mouse finger

Post by **George Geczy** » Jul 03 2002

Jagged Alliance 2 uses a real time/turn based system. You can pause the game and do things, then unpause and the game chugs away at whatever time interval you set. When something important happens, the game reverts to turnbased mode. It stays there until there is no more combat and then reverts to realtime.

While I haven't tried JA2, this is certainly the target we are shooting for, as David says.

Things change a bit in Multiplayer mode, where we will let the game have certain ground rules available (ie lock speed on/off, no pausing on/off, etc), but for single player the method described above is our current design goal.

-- George.
<Lead Programmer, BattleGoat Studios>