Farbror Posted August 17, 2004 Which do you prefer, turn-based strategy or real-time strategy? I prefer turn-based, since I feel most real-time-games comes down to a match of who knows the hotkeys best. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marek Posted August 17, 2004 I'm planning on reviewing Rise of Nations for the thumb, a review which will inevitably discuss the issues of TBS vs RTS at length, since Rise of Nations sort of steals elements from both and tries to sit happily in the middle. I'm primarily a TBS man myself. (ugh that would sound so wrong in Dutch, where TBS means going to a prison-like mental institute ... erm yes anyway...) I like playing games such as Civ where you can really take your time and think stuff through. You know, the kind of strategy game where you can plan things out years in advance, like slowly building up your war machine for an invasion and moving them all one by one to your border. While I've had countless hours of fun with Warcraft and C&C, with C&C: Generals I've come to realize that this style of strategy games is particularly fun in multiplayer, and not so extremely interesting anymore in singleplayer. I don't like having to build a base each time only to have it erased for the next mission. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ryam BaCo Posted August 17, 2004 pretty easy for me: i hate strategy games so i don't care. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Simon Posted August 17, 2004 They're just different sub-genres of strategy, and I suppose I have soft spot for both. Both styles suit pretty different kinds of game. I can't imagine playing Civilization II real time, as the game feels like it's rewarding all your careful turns of empire planning and troop-shifting. That your strategic forethought has resulted in success is what's satisfying. Likewise, I can't see a Command & Conquer game working in real time. Why is this? Well, I haven't really thought this idea through, but it sprung to mind, maybe it's right. Perhaps turn-based gameplay suits more epic, long time-span games where you're not working towards a specific goal. It's more a 'sandbox'-type thing where you can be what you want. In Civilization you do make your own way, you don't have to be any certain kind of leader or have to achieve certain things by a certain time. It's long-form gameplay that lends itself to turns and careful thought. Real-time, on the other hand, seems more fitting for strategy games constructed in levels or missions - where it tends to be a short time span and obviously you have clear objectives (secure this territory, defeat all troops here etc.). In real-time games as diverse as Syndicate, Theme Hospital, and Command & Conquer, this seems to be true. My favourite strategy game is actually Pirates! Gold (soon to become the probably-awesome remake) and I'm not sure exactly what that is. If anything its real-time, but it involves strategy in various different kinds of gameplay that are fused together to make an addictive whole. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kode Posted August 17, 2004 My favorite strategy games are WarCraft III and Age of Empires II. That said, I guess it'd be fair to say that I prefer Real-Time to Turn-Based, but really, though, I find turn-based strategy games very appealing. They have the potential to be really great, but it just so happens that I haven't played a really good one yet. I tried Civ III for a while, but although it kept me going for a week, 5-6 hours at a time, I just never felt like playing it again. Maybe if there's another really good one that I haven't played I might give it a shot because the whole concept of turn-based strategy, moving away from the old click-fest that most RTSs are, sounds great. I suppose you could call the Worms series "turn-based strategy" as well. I really love that game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toblix Posted August 17, 2004 When I burst one of my boils, the pus comes out turn-based. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick Posted August 17, 2004 Real time I sometimes try and make board games into real time games, like chess. Real time chess. Much more fun. Or real time snakes and ladders. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tabacco Posted August 17, 2004 Realtime pool is fun too Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Angella Posted August 17, 2004 I like prefer to have my ass handed to me in real-time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Emma Posted August 18, 2004 Having just completed Fallout 2 I'm going to go with... real time. Turn based is far too tedious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindset Posted August 18, 2004 I enjoy both. They both work for different kind of games. I like variety. I do, however, have a problem with RTS games in multiplayer, because I like taking my time to build the base. Making it aesthetically pleasing and kick-ass. That's why I always lose. Anyone else have a similar problem? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AGA Posted August 18, 2004 Having just completed Fallout 2 I'm going to go with... real time. Turn based is far too tedious. If you thought Fallout 2 was tedious, you're INSANE! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Redwall Posted August 18, 2004 Real-time, but that's more because of an obsession with Command & Conquer than an actual preference. In the name of Westwood! Westwood lives in death! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Emma Posted August 18, 2004 If you thought Fallout 2 was tedious, you're INSANE! How dare you call me insane! I just saved Marek from cyanide poisoning! But yeah, anyway, nearly every person I've spoken to about Fallout 2 has mentioned the HORRIBLE pace battles are set at. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toblix Posted August 18, 2004 You should try talking to me about Fallout 2. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick Posted August 18, 2004 I enjoy both. They both work for different kind of games. I like variety. I do, however, have a problem with RTS games in multiplayer, because I like taking my time to build the base. Making it aesthetically pleasing and kick-ass. That's why I always lose. Anyone else have a similar problem? This is best done by playing at LANs and setting a 20minute no attack rule. This way everyone gets to build up a huge force and a nice base before all the war begins. It's unfortunate that when playing online you pretty much have to use (or be prepared for) rush tactics, but oh well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marek Posted August 18, 2004 Agreed, that's the one way to make RTS fun in multiplayer. Rushing is lame. With Generals, we quickly developed an additional rule: no superweapons. The game quickly turned into a race for who first had a ton of scuds or ion cannons and everyone stopped attacking with conventional weapons. Once we agreed that the superweapons sucked, the games became a lot more intense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrHoatzin Posted August 18, 2004 I am not a big fan of either. Did my share of Warcraft 2, Starcraft and at least three incarnations of Heroes of Might and Magic. I don't hold one of those dear. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindset Posted August 18, 2004 Oh yeah, definitely. Superweapons sucks. I hate them. I loathe them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toblix Posted August 18, 2004 I also used the "No Superweapons" rule for a while until I found that I didn't want to sit for six hours just to be recto-raped because there was a space of thirty-six seconds in which I didn't hammer every unit building button in my base. With superweapons enabled, there's no defensive play. You have to prevent the enemies' building SCUD Storms and whatnot. Of course, there's no "right or wrong" way to play the game (and, indeed, the "No Superweapons" rule was there in Zero Hour), but towards the end of my Generals LAN career I found I preferred ten short, intense matches to one long buildfest. But that's just me. :that perverted pink walking horse: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
