| 8 JUN 2003 at 12:58pm |
Les the Sarge 9-1eCenturion
Posts : 672
Joined: 7 DEC 2002
Status : Online | Oooooooh you guuuunna get it now man. You said a nasty hehe.
Hope you can suffer the beat down for saying all those bad ole things about RTS and realism n stuff eh hehe
As for "hooking" sadly RTS sells for the same reason most movies out there sell. Its what the consumer wants mostly.
People need to never forget, the slice of society that will look for TOAW over HOI will always be sufficiently small to make it seem there is little interest.
But the truth is, turn based grognards are a small niche grouping now and really have always been a small niche grouping.
As a poll I have run would suggest, it is easier to find players that will indulge both, but a good deal harder to find scores of people that want turn based specifically.
People rarely pick substance over eye candy. People rarely pick slow and methodical over fast and furious.
I have lived the world's dogma, that's why I know it's worthless.
|
| 8 JUN 2003 at 2:35pm |
BismarckColonel
Posts : 4434
Joined: 31 MAY 2001
Location: US, Wisconsin
Status : Offline | Although you can't compare strategic HoI with operational TOAW, I agree that the vast majority of RTS games are fluff. Developers took the Warcraft model, stripped away the humor, and used a fantasy model as a serious engine. Paradox is an exception. For serious gaming, I prefer turn-based when I can find a turn-based game on the subject.
Having said that, I'd point out that Sid Meor did two historic RTS games in the '80s for the Apple that worked well. Then he found Civ and never went back.
Jim Cobb, Ph. D. Adjunct Faculty, Cardinal Stritch University 
|
| 8 JUN 2003 at 4:36pm |
MountainManCenturion
Posts : 684
Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Online | I found RTS to be more realistic in allowing reaction to enemy contact.
Steel Panthers was TB, and it was totally unrealistic to advance to a position, be fired upon, and have to sit there unable even to take cover because it " wasn't your turn" and eventually be destroyed. That's not real warfare, or even a simulation thereof. I liked SP, but I found that aspect to be extremely annoying.
RTS allows for a fluid, mobile, "living" battlefield, and it appears that many of us prefer it that way. I do agree, however, that many of the RTS military sims are "fluff", as one poster put it. I did find Sudden Strike to be quite good, and Blitzkrieg is also fairly good, as well as the Cossacks and American Conquest series, for all their faults.
In the end, I suspect TB is a little too slow for many of the MTV-indoctrinated players. It's a lot like chess, and a lot of people just can't sit still or concentrate long enought to play it well. Just my opinion.
[I]"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"[/I]
[I]"Who will guard the guardians themselves?"[/I]
JUVENAL, [I]Satires[/I] , c.AD 100
|
| 8 JUN 2003 at 4:46pm |
BismarckColonel
Posts : 4434
Joined: 31 MAY 2001
Location: US, Wisconsin
Status : Offline | MountainMan,
I think you scored a bullseye with both your points. Good RTSs are out there; you mentioned two of my favorites and I'd toss in Airborne Assault and Homeworld.
Also, if a developer doesn't have another steady income, he goes with the market and the market is now very action based.
I also think TBers are doing themselves a disfavor by being so unremittenly picky.
Jim Cobb, Ph. D. Adjunct Faculty, Cardinal Stritch University
|
| 8 JUN 2003 at 6:45pm |
BushbeeCenturion
Posts : 74
Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Online | JVril, I'm also a huge Jagged Alliance fan. Another to try is Fallout Tactics (not Fallout 1 or 2). They have the same flavor, and Fallout Tactics is a little "smoother" to play. As for a WW2 type tactical like these, I've been screaming for one as well. I've heard Platoon isn't too bad to play, once it's patched to death. 101st Airborne is supposed to be ok, if you can find it.
I'm a TB nut. Chess is one of my favs, so anything faster than SP turns me away. I think there are many different kinds of RTS, with some being very engrossing. For instance, if you've played any Total War, I believe the battle modes could be considered RTS. But couple this with the rest of the game and you have a classic. So someone needs to further categorize the RTS genre!
|
| 8 JUN 2003 at 8:20pm |
Squad LeaderCenturion
Posts : 184
Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Online | I like RTS, in fact I have all five of the Close Combat games and nearly all of the mods. But I also like to control more than fifteen units too. And I can only do that in TB games. There are a number of times that I become so focused on a few units that I forget to give orders to other units in Close Combat and then find my opponent or the AI destroying them.
I like RTS when I want to play short, quick, small battles. But I prefer TBS when I want to play long campaigns with lots of units.
"Always give your best, never get discouraged, never be petty; always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself."
-Richard Nixon
August 9, 1974
|
| 8 JUN 2003 at 9:17pm |
Les the Sarge 9-1eCenturion
Posts : 672
Joined: 7 DEC 2002
Status : Online | Steel Panthers was TB, and it was totally unrealistic to advance to a position, be fired upon, and have to sit there unable even to take cover because it " wasn't your turn" and eventually be destroyed. That's not real warfare, or even a simulation thereof. I liked SP, but I found that aspect to be extremely annoying.
I don't get it Mountain, how is drag-select click on a spot, order to run there pell mell, regardless of casualties (especially when the god like user doesn't notice you are just running into withering fire senselessly) somehow a serious realism concept?
I have SS2 and it might play as software goes, but realism, nope there was not one lick of realism in the game. That is not to say the game wasn't fun to some.
But to say Steel Panthers is unrealistic because it enforces a stepped turn sequence, and then in the same breathe aplaud SS as a good example of realism just makes a person's credibily fly out the window.
Insert generic Les rant here (don't have enough time today for the usual post hehe).
I have lived the world's dogma, that's why I know it's worthless.
|
| 8 JUN 2003 at 9:24pm |
BismarckColonel
Posts : 4434
Joined: 31 MAY 2001
Location: US, Wisconsin
Status : Offline | We've read it all before anyway, Les. I agree RTS lend themselves to bloody rushes but some, Cossacks and Airborne Assault come to mind, make players and the AI pay a dear price for such tactics. Wise use of groupings can make the manuever of large numbers of units managable.
Jim Cobb, Ph. D. Adjunct Faculty, Cardinal Stritch University
|
| 8 JUN 2003 at 10:07pm |
Les the Sarge 9-1eCenturion
Posts : 672
Joined: 7 DEC 2002
Status : Online | AA does look good. I have only had the ability to check out the demo ex of Battlefront, but I think the rework of it at Matrix will have more than a bit of attention from wargamers.
I have lived the world's dogma, that's why I know it's worthless.
|
| 8 JUN 2003 at 10:28pm |
BismarckColonel
Posts : 4434
Joined: 31 MAY 2001
Location: US, Wisconsin
Status : Offline | Les, that's for sure. My major disappoinrment with AA was the lack of a Njymegen scenario. The 82nd did a job on the Jerries at the river crossing. With the kind of spunk, maybe they COULD have relieved the 1st.
I also dream of that engine for other battles. Can you imagine the Bulge, Cobra, Lorraine and the Huertgen with it? I get the shivers!!
Jim Cobb, Ph. D. Adjunct Faculty, Cardinal Stritch University
|
| 9 JUN 2003 at 11:50am |
Les the Sarge 9-1eCenturion
Posts : 672
Joined: 7 DEC 2002
Status : Online | Not sure what magic was worked on me with AA.
I guess it is like most things, some people should stick with crayons, while others are artists. There is just something about AA that clicked for me.
I agree with expanding it behind the current setting. I would hope they chose fresh material of course.
I am thinking stuff like the Crete drop or Ortona. Maybe Kasserine or Guadalcanal. Fights that were stiff fights.
I concur with the Njymegen comment. I still recall the cool river crossing part of A Bridge too Far, that was no picnic.
I have lived the world's dogma, that's why I know it's worthless.
|
| 9 JUN 2003 at 2:50pm |
MountainManCenturion
Posts : 684
Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Online | Les - you advance your troops - they contact the enemy. Unable to take cover or fire at them, your troops stand there in the open until obliterated because "it wasn't their turn." Or, an airstrike arrives and your troops can't take cover. What part of this was hard to understand? How would this be in any way realistic? Despite the inclusion of the "opportunistic fire" option, I never found this to represent real combat action in the way that the more fluid RTS style does.
This isn't realistic, and it is one of the major faults of some TB games that were otherwise outstanding, Steel
Panther foremost among them.
RTS games do not promote "mad rushes" to anywhere. Obviously, you have never played the better ones such as Sudden Strike and particularly on the highest levels of difficulty. "Mad rushes" get you killed and your tanks and other AFV's blown up, since the bad guys have mines, AT guns, panzerfausts and all the other bells, whistles and toys. If you are playing US vs Germany, theirs are better than your from the get-go. You do not "rush" an group of dug-in Tigers with anything, period.
I simply prefer a game in which my troops attempt to respond in a realistic fashion when they make contact with the enemy. In fact, since the enemy will often pursue my forward units without having to wait for another turn to do so, it can get much more difficult to extract yourself from a bad situation than it ever was in Steel Panthers. No rest period between moves to contemplate your belly button and try to figure out a good move. The enemy is advancing and killing your troops right now, and as you manuever, so do they. You must read the enemy's tactics and intent instantly and respond correctly, or you are toast.
I respect your fondness for TB games. I just prefer the RTS. I think both points of view are perfectly valid, and simply suit different styles of play. I'm a little surprised at your unwillingness to accept another viewpoint as equally valid to your own.
After all, it was "my turn". :cool:
[I]"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"[/I]
[I]"Who will guard the guardians themselves?"[/I]
JUVENAL, [I]Satires[/I] , c.AD 100
|
| 9 JUN 2003 at 4:10pm |
Les the Sarge 9-1eCenturion
Posts : 672
Joined: 7 DEC 2002
Status : Online | Mountain want my copy of Sudden Strike 2?
What game were you playing, are you sure it was Sudden Strike?
Mountain have you ever played a turn using game?, you do understand the whole turn is a segmented freeze framed slice of time eh, one turn of ASL is for instance a slice of time 5 minutes long.
If I fire a squad at a moving squad, then a second then a third, that is not to say three squads fired one after the other, no I conducted 3 simultaneous attacks but resolved the effect one after the other.
Why is this reality so hard for people to grasp?
You say it is dumb that the men don't duck after being fired at the first time. But that forgets they were fired on by three groups of units all at the same time. Those attacks were not individual attacks at all.
To say so is an admittance to just not understanding turn using game design.
We need to come to an agreement Mountain. I have played Sudden Stike 2, I have the game here. It was dismally inadequate in realism. Inspite of how "fun" it might be, the game runs like grade 3 children with guns.
They don't do anything till told, and they do whatever they are told even if insane.
If you command the tank drive down the road it does. If fired upon it halts, perhaps. But the game runs units like unruly mobs.
What is odd Mountain, is you say I am refusing your view, and in the same breathe refusing mine. It works both ways eh.
AA is a good example of RTS run in a manner that won't offend a gamer, Sudden Strike 2 is a wargame that will not impress a demanding wargamer.
There are RTS games out there that suck, don't think there isn't.
I have lived the world's dogma, that's why I know it's worthless.
|
| 10 JUN 2003 at 11:32am |
JVrilCenturion
Posts : 13
Joined: 16 APR 2002
Status : Online | Oops, seems like I approached the subject from a tad too holistic a viewpoint. For each his own, but I guess what I really wanted to say was that the game system of Jagged Alliance would just work wonders with a squad level WWII game.
For starters:
The personality of the characters: with the voice sets & marvelously designed unique personalities for some 50 "mercs", I bet there is not a single game where you want to keep your men alive as passionately. Don't want to snipe, but I never got personal with the little men of Sudden Strike;-) This would be unique to create a Band of Brothers- type feeling. You have to play JA to understand what I mean. Of course the experience levels and abilities are nice too, and stuff I never grew out of: the char screen where you can equip your merc from head to toe as you like. Maybe it's the boys' Barbie doll thing.
The world map: would be ideal to capture airports in order to get the supplies in, do paratrooper missions and also give you a sense of the overall campaign as in the later Close Combat series. The towns where you can train militia would instantly be suitable for the Volksturm;-), but maybe the Allied could do something with them too - yes, training would be denazifying the population! Of course there would be Werewolf snipers...
The continous time that turns to TB when combat starts: it's pretty ideal. The AP's the characters have are greatly affected by the overall condition of the soldiers: they must sleep, wounds must be dressed on the spot ASAP, severe injuries demand prolonged hospital care - you have to recruit doctors too of course. The weapons are jammed, slowly break down, and then you have to get them taken care of by a gun mechanic. Who, like the doctors, usually aren't your crack shot commandos but some extremely weird old boys.
To sum it up and wrap my tirade up, maybe the greatness of Jagged Alliance is that it is such of a perfect little world, where a lot of different, well thought out neat little things work together like charm. It's definitely not an example of a monolithic turn based war game, it's actually something else.
That's what I would, apparently along with Bushbee, die to see in a WWII setting!
|
| 10 JUN 2003 at 12:40pm |
Les the Sarge 9-1eCenturion
Posts : 672
Joined: 7 DEC 2002
Status : Online | JV you are probably closer to what would get me interested, than all the so called "realistic" RTS games out there eh.
Yeah I like turn based games. And yeah I know there are no "turns" in real life, never said there were oh ye detractors from turn based games hehe.
Turns and turn sequences are merely a device, a method to resolve, nothing more.
Frankly, I will pick the systematic nature of turns over the random chaos of RTS any day. Not out of realism concerns, they just work easier. And this is a hobby after all, I don't play wargames just so I can get exhausted from the effort
All that said, what radical thing would I like to see in a computer game, that I don't think has been seen yet?
Well a genuine start to finish military rolegame perhaps. A game designed the same way they make quality fantasy rolegames, but without the idiocy of fantasy.
As I see it, right now the choice is either a shooter like Counterstrike, or an online multi user game like WWII Online.
I don't wish it to be like either.
I want the game to be a "serious" roleplaying game, set in real military settings. No fancy scifi, no run around like a mad fool shootng sprees either.
I would like the game to feel like me and my squad were "really" there. All the way there. Joe grunt right out of boot camp, green, a rifleman, an FNG even.
Landing someplace like the Torch Landings, or hitting Guadalcanal. Would not have to absolutely be americanocentric of course. Could be with a german rifle squad entering Poland in 39, or a Tommy rifleman with the BEF in France. Maybe a Russian or Japanese.
But I would want the settings to be drawn from humble beginnings, and set in a logical thought out well designed roleplaying setting.
They do it for Fantasy gamers, why not for us grognards.
The 90's were knee deep in releases of rolegames for the computer. I am sure there is next to no work needed to grab up the basic framework for a software environment. It just has to be made ala the world of the military.
I am not thinking online gaming, I am thinking me my computer, the guys in my squad, the mission, staying alive, and rolegaming through some of history's epic moments.
When not playing turn based wargames, I am actually an avid rolegamer of the paper and pencil sort with those weird shaped dice.
There are not many rolegames out there that are start to finish games designed for the grognard type dude.
Is that because there are not enough of us suitably interested in one, or is it just no one has thought to make us a game like that yet?
I have lived the world's dogma, that's why I know it's worthless.
|
| 10 JUN 2003 at 2:22pm |
MountainManCenturion
Posts : 684
Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Online | Les - in both of my prior posts I stated very clearly that I was a player of Steel Panthers. I believe you regard that as TB, yes? Like you, I also have experience on the "other side of the fence." I didn't find it very realistic in terms of action/reaction. I did like the varied equipment and the ability to match anybody against anybody - the endless "what if" possiblities. I thought that was one of the strongest things I liked about the entire SP series, but there were serious flaws in the AI, and some serious drawbacks to the landscape, etc.; however, that is not germane to the TB/RTS debate.
I am currently playing Blitzkrieg, which appears to be one of the better ones, although a little monotonous at times. If you try the "armored fist" tactics in this game you may succeed against minor targets, but the AI has AT weapons, bombers, ground attack aircraft, fighters to top your aircraft, spotter aircraft to adject fire, AA batteries, and all the appurtencances of modern warfare. I guarantee you that "mad rushes" don't work on well defended targets, and are costly even against lightly defended ones. About what you would expect from real life. There is also a major supply and morale factor built in, as well. As I recall, the famous SP series never had a problem with fuel, and had no provison for replenishing ammo or effecting repairs, nor could you utilize captured equipment.
JV - the only other games that come to mind in which you identify so closely with your characters are the Rainbow Six series. I worked hard not to lose them, either.
I think the conclusion of this debate is that you like what you like, and you don't like whatever the other guy likes. Kind of like real life.
[I]"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"[/I]
[I]"Who will guard the guardians themselves?"[/I]
JUVENAL, [I]Satires[/I] , c.AD 100
|
| 10 JUN 2003 at 4:41pm |
JVrilCenturion
Posts : 13
Joined: 16 APR 2002
Status : Online | Gee, what do you know, this must be what Dr. Jung calls synchronicity!
"Jagged Alliance fans rejoice, your ship is about to come in and it looks magnificent" sez the good folks of wargamer.com!
[URL=http://www.jowood.com/gamers/index.php?site=2&lang=en&ScreenID=7674&GameID=silentstorm]Jowood info[/URL]
I'll keep my thumbs up...
|
| 10 JUN 2003 at 6:17pm |
Les the Sarge 9-1eCenturion
Posts : 672
Joined: 7 DEC 2002
Status : Online | Mountain, oh I will agree, until I gained the Mega Campaigns, I was getting very unhappy with the Steel Panthers AI.
I had found the main game's Long Campaigns, to be long jokes.
The Scenarios are ok, but the game only shines against a human outside of the MCs.
Regarding supply, not sure about original version currently, but you can simulate varying fuel/ammo considerations through the preferences menu, it does impact your game.
I have not had a chance to look at Blitzkrieg yet, so I would take your comment as a positive vote for it and leave it there for now.
Most realistic wargame I have ever played, actually only one, Up Front the card using game. Incredible how the fog of war is simulated. Incredible how the human element is depicted.
Just wish this game's concepts were exploited more.
I have lived the world's dogma, that's why I know it's worthless.
|
| 11 JUN 2003 at 2:06pm |
MountainManCenturion
Posts : 684
Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Online | Maybe it would hel[p the discussion if each side listed what they cionsider the positive virtues of their particular addiction, i.e., TB's list what they consider their strengths, and RTS's list theirs. Then each side can pick at the others list, give examples, whatever.
Just a thought. I try to have at least one per day. :cool:
[I]"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"[/I]
[I]"Who will guard the guardians themselves?"[/I]
JUVENAL, [I]Satires[/I] , c.AD 100
|
| 11 JUN 2003 at 2:22pm |
Wodin
Banned for 1621 days
Posts : 2325
Joined: 18 JAN 2006
Location: UK, Liverpool
Status : Offline | I have come across the game in development silent storm aswell.
Looks interesting the website is below has some short game clips also.
However I have noticed some robot type body armour thingies which has put me of it a little.
Still check out the site below.
[URL=http://www.nival.com/eng/s2_info.html]Silent storm WW2 similar to JA2 maybe?[/URL]
Wodin
Les you might want to check out the Ghost Recon mod set int the eastern front as mentioned in another link.
|
| 11 JUN 2003 at 2:44pm |
Les the Sarge 9-1eCenturion
Posts : 672
Joined: 7 DEC 2002
Status : Online | That notion has merit Mountain.
I might try to get something written up for turns. I will leave the others for others naturally hehe.
I have lived the world's dogma, that's why I know it's worthless.
|
| 12 JUN 2003 at 2:38pm |
MountainManCenturion
Posts : 684
Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Online | The RTS Point of View:
The action is a constantly moving, real-time battlefield.
Ability to respond to adverse actions in real-time, i.e., ability to react to attacks, counter-attack, perform flanking actions, etc.
Fluid, real-time response to maneuver changes, minefield encounters, artillery, air attack, etc.
Continuous, simultaneous action on several fronts. "Fluid dynamics".
Real-time need to evaluate enemy intent and formulate response. No "time to think". Emulates real combat.
Ability to view your units and adjust in real-time maneuver/choreography.
No need to "consult the cards" - game software tracks weather, morale, supply, etc.
Ability to experience real-time weather, sound effects, etc.
Can advance in synch with own artillery - i.e., "rolling barrage".
These are just a few. I'm sure others have important things to add as well.
Over to you, Les. :cool:
[I]"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"[/I]
[I]"Who will guard the guardians themselves?"[/I]
JUVENAL, [I]Satires[/I] , c.AD 100
|
| 12 JUN 2003 at 3:52pm |
Les the Sarge 9-1eCenturion
Posts : 672
Joined: 7 DEC 2002
Status : Online | Don't take it personal Mountain but....
Phooey, most of your points are the same point written several different ways.
In response, I would have to say, that your response time looses validity with each increase in units from the very first soldier.
While Bob is running smack dab into that machine gun nest, you are unaware, because you are currently controlling the machine gun crew two fields over.
So result, Bob, without any commands from you, is dead unthinking meat.
You had no time to think, but remember, you are just a human game controller, and Bob is just an unthinking computer program.
There is no real anywhere, and the realness of the time is a pointless depiction, because you are only able to control you.
What you are asking for is, a first person shooter, which makes me wonder, why not just play one
Your ideal RTS game appears to be where you are running ALL of the people on an online FPS site. Let me know when you manage to accomplish that eh, I want to watch.
Thus far, only games like Airborne Assault or the CC design appear to have gotten the right humanly possible mix of unit quantity and screen detail capacity correct.
Anything else, is an illusion.
I have lived the world's dogma, that's why I know it's worthless.
|
| 12 JUN 2003 at 4:10pm |
Les the Sarge 9-1eCenturion
Posts : 672
Joined: 7 DEC 2002
Status : Online | Guess this will be my offerring for turn based initially.
Turns, they allow control. And control is what it is about in some cases (remember I said in some cases, it wont work for every situation).
Control allows accuracy, because without accuracy, what is being attempted will rapidly depart from the original intention, that being to study.
Most historical simulations (to some at least) are attempts to see, given the same conditions, would my choices have made a difference, and how.
Now this works in some games better than others.
Advanced Third Reich captures an incredible amount of detail, and makes it possible to see what happened and why. It allows the person to see what might have been possible if other choices had been made.
But its a lot of work playing A3R.
Strategic Command is a lot less complex, and it's a computer game. So an opponent can be either the machine, or another via online fairly easily.
The game rewards a thinking methodical process. Unfortunately it also allows some players to test re test and test yet again.
This creates what some call game busting moves. When in fact all it has down, is illustrate what would likely have been real world weaknesses.
Still some cheesy moves can ruin the fun for others not aware of the move. One example is an early war attack option against rome. There are a lot that don't like that one.
The other side of the coin is a game like Hearts of Iron. Its in real time mode (or at least that is the term used). You can launch attacks, only to find they failed simply because you were to busy with some pathetically unimportant aspect of the game elsewhere to notice.
How this is fun to some is beyond me.
If I spend 30 minutes planning out a battle, I don't want it all ruined because my son distratced me from the computer for 5 actual minutes.
The above all could be applied to any level of game. So while you say it is "unrealistic" to have a unit move, and then be subjected to repeated attacks that eliminate it, I say, how was Bob just standing there getting shot while you were busy running the machine gun position any different?
Both units got wiped out eh.
But at least in the case of the turn using design, it had nothing to do with the fact, that one human's mind is unable to be simultaneously 10 50 100 or more units simultaneously.
I could give you a rifle and say there you are private jones, and we are attacking that hill. You won't be doing anything beyond being private jones. If I make you the company commander, you will be just him too. And you can bet, that while jones will know we are attacking the hill, jones will be running jones, not the company commander. And if you want to know if jones is alive or dead, you will have to go get jones. And he will likely be more than a mouse click away "in real time".
I have lived the world's dogma, that's why I know it's worthless.
|
