The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
In recent years there has a large increase in the number of Real Time Strategy games available for the PC, but Turned-Based Strategy has been in a steep decline. In some ways, I think that this is unfair to the turn-based genre, even if those few Turn-Based strategy games which have been released have been way below the graphical standard which is expected today. The genre is being held back by something that does not really relate to it's essence.
If you compare, for example, the recent release of Call To Power 2, against, say Age Of Empires 2, which is now a year or two old, AOEII is vastly superior in terms of technology. CTP2 looks, along with the civilisation games, like something from the 486 era, despite the brilliant gameplay of the game.
So then, think about the gameplay. In AOEII, the strategy generally comes not during a battle, but before and after it. You must prepare units, buildings, and everything else that is important to a civilisation, but then when you come to take part in a conflict, battles are won not on tactics but on sheer numbers of units. It's no wonder that so many people say that the phrase "Real-Time Strategy" is really an oxymoron; by being in real-time, any strategic element is lost. In a turn-based strategy game, you have as long as you would like to think about what to do next, and so strategy really does become the most important thing to consider - mad mouse-clicking will not help you here. There are people who prefer some speed to games, and this is something which turn-based games cannot really provide. For most PC strategy gamers who do not want to use excessive "rushing" techniques, however, they seem to offer the best system for strategy, especially in combat (look at the entire Battle Isle series).
This isn't, of course, always the case. There have been many real-time games which have had a very deep strategy, and it is also true that turn-based games have many flaws. As well as so many having very poor graphics, it is very hard for a multiplayer game to take place, since there will always be several people doing nothing, and the person who has the last turn will always be at a big disadvantage. There are, however, some examples of games which have been able to combat the flaws in both genres. Take, for example, the recent release of Battle Isle : The Andosia War (Bluebyte). The battling part of the game is played using a turn-based system, within a time limit. This means that you have time to think about what your moves will be, but still have an element of pressure; you cannot spend more than the allocated time on any turn. The resource managment part of the game, which is usually omitted from a turn-based game, is played in real-time, and so has the potential to be as good as anything in any solely real-time game. The multiplayer element exists by having two teams of one or more people, which gives a reasonably interesting experience, though a rather slow one.
I am not saying by any means that this is a game which is perfect; the truth is far from it. It is flawed in many ways : the interface is fiddly, and the resource management (real-time) part of the game is not as good as the turn-based part; in fact it is very simple and rather poor. However, when flaws like this can be fixed this seems to be the way forward for games, especially since the development team have forgotten that turn-based games have bad graphics! It is able to benefit from the advantages of both real-time and turn-based games, but without many of the flaws. The way forward for strategy games is something which really cannot be foreseen, especially with consoles beginning to surpass the PC both in terms of power, and in terms of games available. One thing seems pretty certain though: the turn-based genre, long left of gather dust, will have to undergo some sort of rebirth, if the games which we play are going to continue to improve. With the upcoming release this year or next of Civilisation III, which promises to have a totally overhauled graphical engine, this seems to be beginning already.
If you compare, for example, the recent release of Call To Power 2, against, say Age Of Empires 2, which is now a year or two old, AOEII is vastly superior in terms of technology. CTP2 looks, along with the civilisation games, like something from the 486 era, despite the brilliant gameplay of the game.
So then, think about the gameplay. In AOEII, the strategy generally comes not during a battle, but before and after it. You must prepare units, buildings, and everything else that is important to a civilisation, but then when you come to take part in a conflict, battles are won not on tactics but on sheer numbers of units. It's no wonder that so many people say that the phrase "Real-Time Strategy" is really an oxymoron; by being in real-time, any strategic element is lost. In a turn-based strategy game, you have as long as you would like to think about what to do next, and so strategy really does become the most important thing to consider - mad mouse-clicking will not help you here. There are people who prefer some speed to games, and this is something which turn-based games cannot really provide. For most PC strategy gamers who do not want to use excessive "rushing" techniques, however, they seem to offer the best system for strategy, especially in combat (look at the entire Battle Isle series).
This isn't, of course, always the case. There have been many real-time games which have had a very deep strategy, and it is also true that turn-based games have many flaws. As well as so many having very poor graphics, it is very hard for a multiplayer game to take place, since there will always be several people doing nothing, and the person who has the last turn will always be at a big disadvantage. There are, however, some examples of games which have been able to combat the flaws in both genres. Take, for example, the recent release of Battle Isle : The Andosia War (Bluebyte). The battling part of the game is played using a turn-based system, within a time limit. This means that you have time to think about what your moves will be, but still have an element of pressure; you cannot spend more than the allocated time on any turn. The resource managment part of the game, which is usually omitted from a turn-based game, is played in real-time, and so has the potential to be as good as anything in any solely real-time game. The multiplayer element exists by having two teams of one or more people, which gives a reasonably interesting experience, though a rather slow one.
I am not saying by any means that this is a game which is perfect; the truth is far from it. It is flawed in many ways : the interface is fiddly, and the resource management (real-time) part of the game is not as good as the turn-based part; in fact it is very simple and rather poor. However, when flaws like this can be fixed this seems to be the way forward for games, especially since the development team have forgotten that turn-based games have bad graphics! It is able to benefit from the advantages of both real-time and turn-based games, but without many of the flaws. The way forward for strategy games is something which really cannot be foreseen, especially with consoles beginning to surpass the PC both in terms of power, and in terms of games available. One thing seems pretty certain though: the turn-based genre, long left of gather dust, will have to undergo some sort of rebirth, if the games which we play are going to continue to improve. With the upcoming release this year or next of Civilisation III, which promises to have a totally overhauled graphical engine, this seems to be beginning already.
Page:
In recent years there has a large increase in the number of Real Time Strategy games available for the PC, but Turned-Based Strategy has been in a steep decline. In some ways, I think that this is unfair to the turn-based genre, even if those few Turn-Based strategy games which have been released have been way below the graphical standard which is expected today. The genre is being held back by something that does not really relate to it's essence.
If you compare, for example, the recent release of Call To Power 2, against, say Age Of Empires 2, which is now a year or two old, AOEII is vastly superior in terms of technology. CTP2 looks, along with the civilisation games, like something from the 486 era, despite the brilliant gameplay of the game.
So then, think about the gameplay. In AOEII, the strategy generally comes not during a battle, but before and after it. You must prepare units, buildings, and everything else that is important to a civilisation, but then when you come to take part in a conflict, battles are won not on tactics but on sheer numbers of units. It's no wonder that so many people say that the phrase "Real-Time Strategy" is really an oxymoron; by being in real-time, any strategic element is lost. In a turn-based strategy game, you have as long as you would like to think about what to do next, and so strategy really does become the most important thing to consider - mad mouse-clicking will not help you here. There are people who prefer some speed to games, and this is something which turn-based games cannot really provide. For most PC strategy gamers who do not want to use excessive "rushing" techniques, however, they seem to offer the best system for strategy, especially in combat (look at the entire Battle Isle series).
This isn't, of course, always the case. There have been many real-time games which have had a very deep strategy, and it is also true that turn-based games have many flaws. As well as so many having very poor graphics, it is very hard for a multiplayer game to take place, since there will always be several people doing nothing, and the person who has the last turn will always be at a big disadvantage. There are, however, some examples of games which have been able to combat the flaws in both genres. Take, for example, the recent release of Battle Isle : The Andosia War (Bluebyte). The battling part of the game is played using a turn-based system, within a time limit. This means that you have time to think about what your moves will be, but still have an element of pressure; you cannot spend more than the allocated time on any turn. The resource managment part of the game, which is usually omitted from a turn-based game, is played in real-time, and so has the potential to be as good as anything in any solely real-time game. The multiplayer element exists by having two teams of one or more people, which gives a reasonably interesting experience, though a rather slow one.
I am not saying by any means that this is a game which is perfect; the truth is far from it. It is flawed in many ways : the interface is fiddly, and the resource management (real-time) part of the game is not as good as the turn-based part; in fact it is very simple and rather poor. However, when flaws like this can be fixed this seems to be the way forward for games, especially since the development team have forgotten that turn-based games have bad graphics! It is able to benefit from the advantages of both real-time and turn-based games, but without many of the flaws. The way forward for strategy games is something which really cannot be foreseen, especially with consoles beginning to surpass the PC both in terms of power, and in terms of games available. One thing seems pretty certain though: the turn-based genre, long left of gather dust, will have to undergo some sort of rebirth, if the games which we play are going to continue to improve. With the upcoming release this year or next of Civilisation III, which promises to have a totally overhauled graphical engine, this seems to be beginning already.
If you compare, for example, the recent release of Call To Power 2, against, say Age Of Empires 2, which is now a year or two old, AOEII is vastly superior in terms of technology. CTP2 looks, along with the civilisation games, like something from the 486 era, despite the brilliant gameplay of the game.
So then, think about the gameplay. In AOEII, the strategy generally comes not during a battle, but before and after it. You must prepare units, buildings, and everything else that is important to a civilisation, but then when you come to take part in a conflict, battles are won not on tactics but on sheer numbers of units. It's no wonder that so many people say that the phrase "Real-Time Strategy" is really an oxymoron; by being in real-time, any strategic element is lost. In a turn-based strategy game, you have as long as you would like to think about what to do next, and so strategy really does become the most important thing to consider - mad mouse-clicking will not help you here. There are people who prefer some speed to games, and this is something which turn-based games cannot really provide. For most PC strategy gamers who do not want to use excessive "rushing" techniques, however, they seem to offer the best system for strategy, especially in combat (look at the entire Battle Isle series).
This isn't, of course, always the case. There have been many real-time games which have had a very deep strategy, and it is also true that turn-based games have many flaws. As well as so many having very poor graphics, it is very hard for a multiplayer game to take place, since there will always be several people doing nothing, and the person who has the last turn will always be at a big disadvantage. There are, however, some examples of games which have been able to combat the flaws in both genres. Take, for example, the recent release of Battle Isle : The Andosia War (Bluebyte). The battling part of the game is played using a turn-based system, within a time limit. This means that you have time to think about what your moves will be, but still have an element of pressure; you cannot spend more than the allocated time on any turn. The resource managment part of the game, which is usually omitted from a turn-based game, is played in real-time, and so has the potential to be as good as anything in any solely real-time game. The multiplayer element exists by having two teams of one or more people, which gives a reasonably interesting experience, though a rather slow one.
I am not saying by any means that this is a game which is perfect; the truth is far from it. It is flawed in many ways : the interface is fiddly, and the resource management (real-time) part of the game is not as good as the turn-based part; in fact it is very simple and rather poor. However, when flaws like this can be fixed this seems to be the way forward for games, especially since the development team have forgotten that turn-based games have bad graphics! It is able to benefit from the advantages of both real-time and turn-based games, but without many of the flaws. The way forward for strategy games is something which really cannot be foreseen, especially with consoles beginning to surpass the PC both in terms of power, and in terms of games available. One thing seems pretty certain though: the turn-based genre, long left of gather dust, will have to undergo some sort of rebirth, if the games which we play are going to continue to improve. With the upcoming release this year or next of Civilisation III, which promises to have a totally overhauled graphical engine, this seems to be beginning already.
I'm loking forward to Civ3...
Looks like its going to be amazing...
Looks like its going to be amazing...
I don’t mean to put down turn-based games, but they are slower...and they do tend to lose the interest of most universal gamers. Turn based games do have the distinct advantage of being far more complex than a RTS ever can be.
While RTS games include a series of teams or alliances, they can’t exchange tech or give units. The options in low graphics games are what normally makes the game so good. TBS's don't have much of these and depend of the storyline to get the ratings and sell the games.
I like turn based games, the suspens is amazing especially when you have your charachters facing off against on BIG Baddie. They go one by one and then the last charachter defeats the boss and your happy.
Admittedly TBS's have their strong points BUT gamers can get right into the action with RTS's. TBS's leave you as a spectator and sometimes, with the shallow storylined games, that isn't enough, despite full on suspense and drama!
While RTS games include a series of teams or alliances, they can’t exchange tech or give units. The options in low graphics games are what normally makes the game so good. TBS's don't have much of these and depend of the storyline to get the ratings and sell the games.
I like turn based games, the suspens is amazing especially when you have your charachters facing off against on BIG Baddie. They go one by one and then the last charachter defeats the boss and your happy.
Admittedly TBS's have their strong points BUT gamers can get right into the action with RTS's. TBS's leave you as a spectator and sometimes, with the shallow storylined games, that isn't enough, despite full on suspense and drama!
That is the problem of, course, they are very slow. However if you are looking for a challenge, real-time strategy can (sometimes) be too fast paced, especially for an older gamer. And yes, I can't wait for Civ 3, especially if the graphics are much better than recent turn-based releases!
I also disagree when you say that TBS games don't have many options; the depth and number of options are what make CTP2 a big hit. The story is really very simple.
Although I never was 'such' a big fan of the Civ spin-offs...
Apart from Civ3 which as yet, doesnt really have a release date...
Worms World Party... Superheros and a new turn based Julian Gallup game are all about to be released...
So maybe things are about to change for the turn based stratagy?
Apart from Civ3 which as yet, doesnt really have a release date...
Worms World Party... Superheros and a new turn based Julian Gallup game are all about to be released...
So maybe things are about to change for the turn based stratagy?
I think Age of Kings is the best strategy game around. The history is true to life, the charachters, although not quite the detailled masterpieces, are very good and well shaped. The game play is ace, and Internet play is 10 times more exciting. I love the game and would play it forever, The Add-on pack in pure gold and putting the huns and greeks in the mix is ace. Those boats are great! RTS for me is a lot more exciting I feel that there is much more excitement about the game, where as TBS's tend to be a bit samey, and with the great landscapes of AOK and Cossacks I think that the furute of strategy games has got a big RTS branded on it!
I'm not big TBS fan...
In fact just about my only interest these days is the Civ series... and maybe Gallups old titles...
But TBS are a very different gaming experience to RTS...
Although both straegy games there style and requiremtns make them almost as different as FPS and adventure titles...
In fact just about my only interest these days is the Civ series... and maybe Gallups old titles...
But TBS are a very different gaming experience to RTS...
Although both straegy games there style and requiremtns make them almost as different as FPS and adventure titles...
Very good post i must say.
I love Command and Conquer like games, and i like Age of empires but after playing C & C i can't play Age of empires because it's too slow.
I love Command and Conquer like games, and i like Age of empires but after playing C & C i can't play Age of empires because it's too slow.
Too right
Page: