One little detail about NCP2.

[nadia911]

Regardless of what some may think, it is possible to make a serious historical game in real time. Here's a screenshot of one called Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge.


Thanks 8thTNCav

[Kluska]

Regardless of what some may think, it is possible to make a serious historical game in real time.

.....yes, it is.

[ashbery76]

Totalwar is very successful because they are great games..The snobbery here is laughable.

No games you play are anywhere close to being a realistic historical simulation.You are just playing a game,nothing more.

[SAS]

Another great game is War in the East, but at its heart its only a war simulator. Paradox games cover a great deal more.

[Caranorn]

Regardless of what some may think, it is possible to make a serious historical game in real time. Here's a screenshot of one called Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge.


Thanks 8thTNCav

You've mentionned that one before. It indeed looks interesting. I assume that's Bastogne, scale looks like companies so relatively close to the skirmish games I mentionned, it also looks a lot like actual military simulations. It could work, I will have to take a look at it some time...

[Caranorn]

Another great game is War in the East, but at its heart its only a war simulator. Paradox games cover a great deal more.

War in the East is a wargame (unfortunate departure from WEGO by the way, though it still plays nicely with it's more classic turn system), Gary Grigsby would never claim to produce simulations...

[SAS]

War in the East is a wargame (unfortunate departure from WEGO by the way, though it still plays nicely with it's more classic turn system), Gary Grigsby would never claim to produce simulations...

lol. Well said sir.

[Johan]

In the turn/real time debate.

Turnbased gives greater abstractions, and you can't make a realistic depiction of warfare.

Without real time, you lose granularity unless you have very very low turn sizes.

[nadia911]

No I totally agree with you, the best and most realistic wargames (WitpAE, WITE, TOAW, PanzerCamp. and many more) are turn based, achieving excellent results...

Instead those who are in real time haven't ​great quality standards

Regards

[wosung]

In the turn/real time debate.

Turnbased gives greater abstractions, and you can't make a realistic depiction of warfare.

Without real time, you lose granularity unless you have very very low turn sizes.

The emotional argument:
Then why, for me, does warfare in most TB strategy games feels more realistic than in most RT games? Is abstraction something bad?

The rational argument:
In RT strategy you can't manage various simultanuous operations beyond the scope of your screen, even with the Pause key. Because, to an extend, you have to (micro)manage each of those operations. This shapes, or even enforces a certain playing style. Only one front at a time. Hitler-style. No room for Roosevelt-style. Thus, with RT you gain "granularity" of time but sacrifce "granularity" of space. This is also an abstraction.

Why making (grand) strategy games when RT makes playing them just an operational experience?

Regards

[ashandresash]

In the turn/real time debate.

Turnbased gives greater abstractions, and you can't make a realistic depiction of warfare.

Without real time, you lose granularity unless you have very very low turn sizes.

Is AI performance better in turn-based games? I don't have real knowledge about this, but it seems intuitively to me that it could make things more manageable for the AI (more time for process the 'answers', and, a priori, easier to cope all relevant variables with correspondant algorithms).

I feel walking on thin ice in this...

[King]

Is AI performance better in turn-based games? I don't have real knowledge about this, but it seems intuitively to me that it could make things more manageable for the AI (more time for process the 'answers', and, a priori, easier to cope all relevant variables with correspondant algorithms).

I feel walking on thin ice in this...

Surprisinly enough the answer is no. The biggest problem with the evaluation logic of a turnbased AI is not just what I am going to do but to be really good you also need to evaluate possible options that other players will do in their turns and how you are going to counter it. A Chess AI can be very good at what it does but it really does take a while when you crank up the level. In a real time AI you can react there and then to what the opponent does. The challenge with a real time AI is when to be stubborn and when to react.

[Johan]

Then why, for me, does warfare in most TB strategy games feels more realistic than in most RT games? Is abstraction something bad?

Its because of what you think a wargame should be about.

Combat Mission is a good example of a real time strategy game with "forced breaks". If it had been a turned-based game, it would have been far more abstracted.

[wosung]

Its because of what you think a wargame should be about.

Combat Mission is a good example of a real time strategy game with "forced breaks". If it had been a turned-based game, it would have been far more abstracted.

Thanks for answering at all. I really appriciate this.

Yes. Combat Mission is a very good example where, IMO, RT works. It's a game with a tactical scale. Within the limited space all the RT action nicely fits to the scope of the screen. Thus, you can watch it all - all the time and influence it quite easily.

OTH, HOI/EU/Vicky are games with a global strategic scale. You just can't watch and even less manipulate, say, a sea battle in the Central Pacific, a landing in France, the bombing of Munich, etc. taking place at the very same time. Here, RT enforces what basically is an operational style of play, focussing on one area at a time. RT virtually makes me neglect the rest of the globe, all the time. It may do so less in earlier eras and for only regional acting countries. But still. There are so many RT games out there but only a very few global strategy games. Give me the time to fully appriciate your global/grand maps & settings.

Regards

[steveh11]

Waaaaaayyyyyyy back in time when I first encountered the original Europa Universalis, I was dead-set against Real-Time games as well. Then I tried EU. I've been hooked ever since.

Try it. Give it an honest try, not just 5 minutes of 'my-mind-is-already-made-up'. If you don't like it, fine, you know not to buy any of the other Paradox RT games, and I believe Phillippe (or someone) said that another game in the AGEOD turn-based engine is likely in any case.

But try it. I honestly think you'll like it. I've been enjoying Paradox's RT games for 10 years.

[wosung]

Well I have been played or do play all EUs, Vickys and HOIs. They are fun. They are popular. But b/c of RT for me they just don't play out their full global strategic potential. Because of RT I'm more occupied with operations than with global strategy.

Regards

[Caranorn]

In the turn/real time debate.

Turnbased gives greater abstractions, and you can't make a realistic depiction of warfare.

Without real time, you lose granularity unless you have very very low turn sizes.

I think we'll have to largely disagree on that :-) ...

[Caranorn]

Waaaaaayyyyyyy back in time when I first encountered the original Europa Universalis, I was dead-set against Real-Time games as well. Then I tried EU. I've been hooked ever since.

Try it. Give it an honest try, not just 5 minutes of 'my-mind-is-already-made-up'. If you don't like it, fine, you know not to buy any of the other Paradox RT games, and I believe Phillippe (or someone) said that another game in the AGEOD turn-based engine is likely in any case.

But try it. I honestly think you'll like it. I've been enjoying Paradox's RT games for 10 years.

Notice what date my Paradox account dates back to ;-) . I loved EU-I, I enjoyed EU-II, I loved HOI-I, I liked Vicky-I, I still occasionaly play CK-I. But I was very disapointed with HOI-II (I was shocked by what I saw as less moddability compared to HOI-I at the time and a few other (in my opinion) backwards moves from HOI-I tyo HOI-II (but also some really nice inovations)). It was around that time that I stopped playing most Paradox games and I believe soon after that I stumbled over Ageod's BoA. I only returned to these forums after Ageod was aquired by Paradox (I've been an Ageod volunteer/beta since NCP (post publication) by the way). I've been somewhat sceptical concerning this merger, but understand the underlying reasons. Unlike some of Ageod's fan- and volunteer- base I'm not really anti Paradox either, I once enjoyed these games greatly and respect what this once small Swedish company has done. When it comes to realtime, Paradox for me is the best of a bad design idea I guess, If by far prefer Paradox's approach to that of other realtime designs...

I know this comment was not really adressed at me. Just thought I'd explain my point of view, which I know is by far not unique among Ageod's player base (quite a few have strong Paradox roots)...

P.S.: Though of course long before Paradox and Ageod (or Azure Wish ;-) ) I played games by Avalon Hill, Victory Games, SPI, GDW, SDI, the Gamers, GMT, 3R and many many other wargame companies. At heart I'll always be a wargamer...

P.P.S.: I still remember when I first read about Europa Universalis. It was in a french gaming magazine (Casus Belli) reporting about a local game design project, essentially a beta test. The article had photos of hand drawn maps, counters etc. All very artisanal, very much like I'd been doing for a few years then (but much smaller projects like a North African module for Squad Leader). A few month later Azure Wish published this game, which I quickly ordered it by mail order (not email, snail mail). In the following years I would order a few more games by that company (f.i. their WWI and Russian Civil War games). Today it seems like ages between the publication of the board game and the later publication of a computer game by Paradox...

[Caranorn]

Well I have been played or do play all EUs, Vickys and HOIs. They are fun. They are popular. But b/c of RT for me they just don't play out their full global strategic potential. Because of RT I'm more occupied with operations than with global strategy.

Regards

Somehow for me I have more of an issue with rt today than I did back when EU-I was published. Maybe I'm just getting old? Though I believe my mind hasn't quite rotten yet. Maybe it's just a gradual shift in Paradox's game design? Or just a growing awareness that so much more could be done in game design, so much more using turn based mechanics rather than realtime?

[FranciscusX]

In the turn/real time debate.

Turnbased gives greater abstractions, and you can't make a realistic depiction of warfare.

Without real time, you lose granularity unless you have very very low turn sizes.

...and so we now know that Johan has either never played Ageod games or thinks they are not realistic wargames...

...I do not know which is worse...