The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Hmmmm...
er-no the saviour getting rid of dans post
Hey! no.
Only the best for Sniper.
You couldn't have coped with my old PC then, could you?
And C & C Red Alert, haven't played that for ages but i can't play with out of date graphics.
In case you were wondering, a 16MB system is a nightmare to try and play games on. And it had this really tiny monitor. I tried to do something on the old system recently, and it is impossible having used a system with 128Mb RAM and a 17inch monitor (which looks really big)
I could only play AOE (1) until recently 'cause I only had a Pentium 166 with 16MB RAM. Fortunately I have upgraded at long last, and I agree that it is hard to go back to AOE (1) after having played AOE2.
I don't like AOE as much now it's so dated.
Has anyone ever had the problem of not being able to run something because your computer can't show AVI files?
My can't... and I can't figure out why. I can't play AOE because of it, and it's driving me wild.
Real-Time Strategy is more of a online bashy actiony thing... much more exciting than Turned based...
But Turned Based is good for Sunday afternoon, running in the background... :D
My can't... and I can't figure out why. I can't play AOE because of it, and it's driving me wild.
Real-Time Strategy is more of a online bashy actiony thing... much more exciting than Turned based...
But Turned Based is good for Sunday afternoon, running in the background... :D
Page: