OT) Best Turn Based Game: Fantasy or Space or War

[Saarud]

Do you know if ADG has still World in Flames in its computer game conVersion pipeline?

As far as I know yes. I haven't really followed that project for awhile. But I wouldn't hold my breath anyway... while World in Flames is an excellent boardgame I doubt that a good AI could be programmed for such an advanced game. Remember the computer Version of Advanced Third Reich? Still World in Flames on the PC could be used as an excellent tool for multiplayer games keeping track on the boring things and allowing you to play against someone on the other side of the globe.

Anyway the first giga WW2 boardgame system I invested in was the Europa by GDW later GDR. Phew is that a big game with big big maps and 10s of thousand counters if you have them all. Too much micromanagement for my taste with all those counters to keep track on. Though playing a small module against a friend could be very fun.

[Atraikius]

[quote] quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by klausD:

The boardgame was not that complex like the computer game but for an old wargamer (ASL, Streets of Stalingrad, Advanced 3rd Reich to name just a few) complexity has no meaning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL yes I have those game and ASL is just one class itself when it comes to complexity. The reason I love ASL is because of it's complexity and I just love to sit and read the rules but I would rate it rather low on playabilty as it envolves more reading and rereading rules than actual playing.

ASL is my favorite game of any sort, just can't find people to play against. As for complexity, did you ever play SL towards the end, I had played that since it first came out, and by the time they made ASL, SL was a nightmare and ASL is fairly simple.

[klausD]

Perhaps if you have played the AH boardgame Empire in Arms you might be glad to hear that a company is in process of converting it to PC. They are trying to keep it as true to the boardgame as possible.

Thats fine. I played Empires in Arms 2 times and it was great. I am not so fond of the new Eagle Game Napoleon in Europe with pLastik peaces (not a bad idea but the game mechanics are not tested well) Do you know if ADG has still World in Flames in its computer game conVersion pipeline?

glad to hear that there is somebody out there which is also very informed about serious games. (maybe there are more at this forum, but they are probably not posting )

Klaus

[Fyron]

Originally posted by klausD:

quote:

---

It is because some people have an unfounded fear of anything mentioning the phrase "real-time". They see C&C and Warcraft/Starcraft and think that is all that real-time is. They do not realize the possibilities, and how pauseable real-time (where you can issue as many orders and view whatever you want while the combat is paused) is better for combat than any turn-based system.

Not at all, sorry. The problem is not the "understanding". Its the "not accepting". I do understand the concepts of real time, and I played not only command and conquer. I tested many real time games (even pausables like SFB etc.)

What you do not "understand" is that EVERY kind of real time game, if pausable or not, favors action to thinking. I am not willing to play a game in which it is important if I hit the mouse button at the correct second just to give some orders before he does the same a second later. And if he dont press his mouse button because he is thinking too slow, he will be annihilated. Very funny. This is not the game I want to play.

If you like to play games where it is important at which time I am hitting the mouse button play one of the myriad "4x" real time games out there. But dont try to convert one of the few remaining fortresses of good turnbased gaming, the SE series to trendy realtime. (trendy for me because I am playing games, computer and board, since 20 years now, and I was observing the upcoming of the real time mania first handed)

The problem is that pro real time opinions like yours (which are of course as valid as mine from a neutral point of view) are signalizing Aaron that its ok if he do SE5 with a Rt-tactical engine (instead of letting it as it is) Of course somebody (like me) has to do something against such lobbying.

tschüß
Klaus

---

I still stand by my statement that you do not understand properly. I will try to alleviate your confusion.

There have not been many games that implemented real time properly. If the SE4 combat were taken and made into real time instead of purely turn based, it would still function exactly the same, except that the absurdities of turn-based combat are gone. A speed scale will easily allow you to slow it down enough to eliminate any alleged focus on "action instead of thinking".

I personally hate RTS games. They are not strategy games, but tactical games. It is not hard to create a real time engine for SE5 that makes combat exactly like SE4, except without the stupid quirks that only appear by having disjointed movement and firing phases. Real time would essentially be identical to se4 combat, except the turn processing is done in real time, instead of one ship, one weapon at a time. This is in no way a bad thing. Pause after a few seconds, issue new orders. There is no focus on "action instead of thinking" unless you make combat have a really fast pace.

It has absolutely nothing to do with fitting some hyped up RTS phase. It has everything to do with making combat balanced and more realistic, and eliminating all of the problems of all turn based combat systems. You can not ever get rid of them, except by making the impulse phases continuous. Real time combat is essentially a turn based combat system that has lots of impulse phases each turn, but has those phases continuous instead of segmented.

Real time does not equal pop-culture RTS games. The two things are not similar in any way.

glad to hear that there is somebody out there which is also very informed about serious games. (maybe there are more at this forum, but they are probably not posting )

I am going to have to ask you to stop wrongly associating the term real time with "unserious games". This only hurts your case (and by quite a bit). Using a proper real time system in no way makes a game not "serious". Again, RTS is not all you can do with a real time engine. This is why I said you do not understand; you have constantly and consistently confused this issue.

[ March 22, 2003, 01:39: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

mom 2? can somebody provide a link to the article?

maybe it's to small.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^

[ March 26, 2003, 07:10: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[dogscoff]

I'm jumping in here without reading the entire thread (just the Last page) but here's my 0.02...

The strategic elements of se5 (ie all the action on the galaxy map) MUST stay in turn-based, or simultaneous, or basically whatever system we have now.

For combat, a real-time system might be made to work, but I'd prefer to see this done entirely by the AI with indirect human guidance, ie like strategic combat from se4 (although the strategic combat Ai=I would have to be improved considerably). Even with a "pause" mode in realtime tactical combat, you'd still miss opportunities if you weren't quick enough on the pause button, and the whole thing would be a horrifically slow mess with multiple humans anyway.

What I'd absolutely *love* to see- and this would be so cool with Starfury's classy new 3D graphics- would be an option to save a combat replay to a file which can then be emailed to and played back by anyone else who owns the game.
A number of cool features could be added to this including:
- option to define and change camera angles throughout the combat
- option to popup ship & fleet information windows during the replay, to show damage etc.
- option to add musical score, voice commentary and/or text/ graphical captions.
- option to save to mpeg or some other common format (perhaps with a "made in se5" logo ever-present in one corner.)

Now just consider the possibilities for a minute, and think how cool it could be. There would be SE5-built mpegs all over web in no time, and people would want to buy the game just to make their own space battle scenes. I mean you could practically make your own episode of Bab5.

Also, imagine that you've just pounded your human opponent's fleet in an epic battle. Two hours later he gets a combat replay file by email, replaying every Last hit in slow-motion, all backtracked by some suitably triumphant piece of music... it's the ultimate gloat.

[ March 25, 2003, 11:12: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[klausD]

Remember the computer Version of Advanced Third Reich?

Yes, it was not that good. It had an inferior AI and the rest - well.

Imp Fyron

I will try to alleviate your confusion.

Thanks for helping me

It is not hard to create a real time engine for SE5 that makes combat exactly like SE4, except without the stupid quirks that only appear by having disjointed movement and firing phases. Real time would essentially be identical to se4 combat, except the turn processing is done in real time, instead of one ship, one weapon at a time.

IMO its not only not hard its fully impossible. The spirit of tactical SE4 combat lies in that what you call "stupid quirk". What you dont like -the "disjointed movement and firing phases" are very important and nice to play (at least for turnbased fans) This kind of sequence is not a quirk, it a achievement of long standing gaming traditions. (computer and board)

I personally hate RTS games. They are not strategy games, but tactical games.

Then I dont understand why you are for a real time engine in SEV ship combat. If I hate something I am not for it.
BTW - RT games could be both strategic and tactical in scope. As TB games could be. The mode of play has nothing to do with the scale of game.

It has everything to do with making combat balanced and more realistic, and eliminating all of the problems of all turn based combat systems.

Maybe you have a different approach what "balanced" and " realistic" mean than I. Maybe you an explain when a game is for you realistic and balanced.
Secondly there are no problems at all with "all turn based combat systems". They are fine as they are. (at least if they are good designed)

tschüß
KlausD

[Phoenix-D]

"IMO its not only not hard its fully impossible. The spirit of tactical SE4 combat lies in that what you call "stupid quirk". What you dont like -the "disjointed movement and firing phases" are very important and nice to play (at least for turnbased fans) This kind of sequence is not a quirk, it a achievement of long standing gaming traditions. (computer and board)"

What Fyron's refering to as a "stupid quirk" is the way an -entire side- moves and fires at once. All your ships can be destroyed before they even do anything. Even turn-based systems can get rid of this, through initiative and not letting one side move all its units at once, and/or having phases of "Player 1 moves, Player 2 moves, both fire".

I'd prefer a system like Combat Mission's myself; give orders, clcik go, watch them play out.

Phoenix-D

[QuarianRex]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
What Fyron's refering to as a "stupid quirk" is the way an -entire side- moves and fires at once. All your ships can be destroyed before they even do anything. Even turn-based systems can get rid of this, through initiative and not letting one side move all its units at once, and/or having phases of "Player 1 moves, Player 2 moves, both fire".

This problem isn't really present in SEIV. You tend to start far enough away that niether player can get the "jump" on the other. By the time you close into combat distance your fleeet is broken up enough due to varying ship speeds and different ship strategies that the benefits of your fleet acting in unison tend to be minimized. At least it's not like in MOO2 where your fleet was often wiped out before it could break battle formation.

The only situation where this isn't the case is with something like warp-point defense. In this case the fleets begin in combat range and the defender gets to open the gates of Hell upon the attacker. As it should be. If it was switched to an initiative based system you wouldn't be able to pull that same thing off, at leadt not without giving the attacker some kind of "surprise" penalty, but that just wouldn't be the same.

Besides, without the quirks of turn-based satellites would be virtually useless.

[Chronon]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
I'd prefer a system like Combat Mission's myself; give orders, click go, watch them play out.

I agree - that's exactly what I would like to see (especially for simultaneous games). Including, as Dogscoff suggested, the 3D camera that can be moved around and a playback option (I'm not sure about the ultimate gloat idea, though ) It might be even more fun if there were Admirals for each fleet - perhaps with special bonuses for movement, combat, capture, or experience.

Alternatetively, something like Homeworld's combat system would also work well (but not for simultaneous games).