Re: [GD-Design] RTS vs. turnbased

[Mickael P. <mpo...@ed...>]

>>> It's still real-time.  I think Jan and myself think of "Wargames" as
>>> more like the turn-based stuff of yore, such as Panzer General and
>>> Wargame Construction Set and the stuff that Battlefront sells.
>>
>> I had some talks about turn-based games or not. I've been working on
>> "Incubation" some years ago and I absolutely liked the turn based
>> aspect of the game. There seems to be a fan base out there who
>> *wants* those kind of turn based games but every time I talked about
>> it to some publishers their reaction was : "Turn based ?!? No one
>> wants to play that ! It's long and boring ! Make your game real time
>> !"
>
> Well, I think it depends in the target audience. If you aim for the
> more hardcore staretegy gamers you would be better off using
> turnbased, as that allows the players to focus on strategies, check
> unit stats, view terrain in detail and other things that an RTS game
> just doesn't have the time for. On the other hand, if the target
> audience is the casual gamer that plays RTS games and does not bother
> with the strategic content, then you're better off going RTS.

Actually, there are some multiplayer turn based games that sold very well,
and was quite entertaining: think about "Heroes of Might and Magic" by 3DO.


> There are variations on turnbased gaming too:
>
> 1. the traditional turnbased. When it's your turn to move you click a
> unit, move it as much as you want, see what it managed to do, get the
> next unit, repeat. Typical game here is Civilization, Steel Panthers.
>
> 2. turnbased with action phase. During an orders phase you give
> orders to your units, but they don't actually do anything yet. All
> action is resolved during an action phase where the units move and
> all action takes place. This seems to be very liked for more tactical
> wargames, as it is more "fair". You can't use a single fast moving
> unit as a scout into unknown territory and let it find all enemies,
> then follow up with the "heavies" once you know the locations of the
> enemies. A good example here is Combat Mission.
>
> I myself prefer the latter category.

There is also the "time limited" turn based game system. I think SquareSoft
used it on some FinalFantasy games. A lot of Japanese RPG games are real
time during the adventure, and switch to turn based systems for the fight
resolution.

Also Bioware RPG can be switched between real time and "paused" mode. This
system is quite nice, because it allows you to fastly wippe out small
opposition, while still giving you the opportunity to pause the game to
develop a better strategy in front of strong opponents.

This led to the point that the real important fact is not if you should be
real time or not, but if your are using not real time efficiently. The
advantage of turn based systems is that you have all the cpu time free to:

1) Display awesome animations and effects (eg: Japanese RPG fights in
general where the animations are done in a way to maximize the visual
results by knowing in advance who will be hit or not in the action)

2) Allow the player to perform very complex actions (eg: Merging/Splitting
armies, exchanging magic items in HOM&M, consult your counsellors for the
best strategy to adopt in Civilization)

3) Perform some heavy path-finding computation instead of using cheap bugged
real time path-finding, or give the IA opponent a real smartness with
evaluation of conflicts zones, sensibles areas, evaluation of forces on the
map, and so on.

If a turn based game could have been done in real time without sacrifying
anything in the gameplay, IMO it's a bad game.

    Mickael Pointier