Why is TW turn-based anyway?

[daniu]

I've been thinking about why the TW games are (still) turn-based; I cannot think of any reason of why the campaign itself should not be real time.
Several inconsistencies that are inherent to turn-based strategy games ("how come I wasn't able to intercept his army with the one I had near?") would just vanish.

Income could come in constantly; buildings and recruitment could be displayed with a timer; the current notification system could be used.
I think having battles still happen instantaneously doesn't really hurt.
You would obviously need a good control over how fast time elapses (down to pausing the game which would essentially result in turn-based again); "Pause on notification" makes sense here.

I'm not saying it should happen, just thinking about why it couldn't.
Does anyone have any reasons why this wouldn't work at all?

[squatlover]

Thats a good idea making the campaign map real time. Pausing wouldn't make it turn based, because your orders would only be carried through when the game was unpaused. It would make intercepting armies, and fleets chasing each other much more interesting. It would make large empires very difficult to manage to keep track of units, but for NTW map it shouldn;t be too much of an issue.

[daniu]

It would make large empires very difficult to manage to keep track of units

True.
You'd probably need a new "Army arrived at its destination" notification for that; and you would get a lot of those with large empires.

Come to think of it though, it wouldn't go amiss in the current games; not like I never forgot about an army for some turns

[Strattios]

It is kept turn based for the reason you want time control. While managing a nation in Empire would have been possible in real time do to the relative lack of density of regions, the close proximity of regions as well as general congestion in other TW games including where Shogun 2 appears to be going would be a pain. The ability to slow down or even pause shows that you'd want to be able to have time to think and maneuver while the AI just sits there thus compromising any need for their to be real time.

As for unit interception, it would be much more difficult as both armies, fleets or agents would travel at the same speed. It would be a pain as you would have to wait for them to stop.

The currency system also would have issues if the re-implement rice or food as an interactive resource since only occasionally would it be harvested.

Then what do you do if there is a battle? Have them pause the rest of the game? Say hey AI, I need to concentrate on this so please stop doing anything? You'd have to yet again compromise the Real Time aspect.

I personally hope they stick with the current formula as it works much better for total war games.

[Strategos Alexandros]

I think it wouldn't work, because the computer has to calculate all moves of all factions at once. I think this will result in massive lag.

[^Gr8^Xander]

Not to mention lousy gameplay; like with Empire at War it'd just be all about who can get from town to town the fastest and attack undefended areas, while the turn based system allows you to reinforce certain areas before the enemy army can reach it. It would become more of an RTS game with big battles instead of smaller unit-based engagements, which would ruin the gameplay of TW games imo.

[daniu]

I think it wouldn't work, because the computer has to calculate all moves of all factions at once. I think this will result in massive lag.

I thought that too first, but then realized that one of my turns takes about 2-5 minutes, and one of an AI like 5 seconds... I'm sure that could be done while I'm thinking.
It's not like the AI has to calculate every faction's moves constantly either, it only has to react on notifications (as in, "militia unit finished"; then it has to decide what to do with it and go to sleep again).

Not to mention lousy gameplay; like with Empire at War it'd just be all about who can get from town to town the fastest and attack undefended areas, while the turn based system allows you to reinforce certain areas before the enemy army can reach it.

I'm not sure what you have in mind; I'm imagining the campaign map as it is now, so gameplay-wise there wouldn't be much of a difference.

[^Gr8^Xander]

I'm not sure what you have in mind; I'm imagining the campaign map as it is now, so gameplay-wise there wouldn't be much of a difference.

Well Empire at War has the same setup as TW: a big campaign map with seperate engagements. But the campaign was in real time which meant the AI always had the advantage of being able to manage and attack at the same time. The fighting was also kinda weird, armies would just go and conquer planets because they were hard to intercept while you did the same. Imagine not fighting decisive open battles for a province before you'd attack the city like we have in TW now, but two armies would just avoid eachother and capture surrounding towns back and forth.

[The Noble Lord]

Well if you have two maps system (campaign and battle map) then your game has to be turn-based. There is no there other viable alternative.

[Kinjo]

I like turn based campaign maps better.

[Propaganda]

I think it wouldn't work, because the computer has to calculate all moves of all factions at once. I think this will result in massive lag.

It will work,because computer dont have any lag at all. Example look Hearts Of Iron game, its works perfectly.
Also turn based ruins your multiplayer campaign, but in real time dont.

[Maяcel]

It will work,because computer dont have any lag at all. Example look Hearts Of Iron game, its works perfectly.
Also turn based ruins your multiplayer campaign, but in real time dont.

HoI is like risk correct? you cant possibly compare that to TW, where each province has like a 100 places an army can go.

Atm in late campaign people often spend 15 to 30 minutes per turn, no way will that be fun in real time. not for me at least.

[daniu]

Atm in late campaign people often spend 15 to 30 minutes per turn, no way will that be fun in real time.

He wasn't referring to the time it takes you for one turn, but whether the AI will be able to calculate their stuff in time.
And I just can't get it into my head why people can't get it into their heads that you would be able to pause the game for as long as you want and have all the time in the world for making your decisions.

[Xerrop]

Haha ... You are right, Mithiras.

And I just can't get it into my head why people can't get it into their heads that you would be able to pause the game for as long as you want and have all the time in the world for making your decisions.

Because the turn based system is the much better solution than pausing the game every minute.

[Fireright]

The good ole TW format suits me just fine, I can take my time on the campaign map plotting my cunning strategies, slurping my beverage of choice, and moving stuff around, then do the real time stuff on the battlefield.
Apart from stuff like rtw Alex, I'd want additional turn times, say 300 instead of 200 or whatever, so I can imbibe at a leisurely pace

RTS games like AOE etc are ok, but tend to give me the hump at times because theres too much stuff going on at the same time...dopey skirmishers attacking the villagers miles away and all that.

[Greve Af Göteborg]

When making important decisions for a large and prosperous empire I like to have some time to think.

I know that you're going to say "but you can pause the game"
Well, pausing the game all the time is not really fun.

[daniu]

As for unit interception, it would be much more difficult as both armies, fleets or agents would travel at the same speed. It would be a pain as you would have to wait for them to stop.

Well the discussion about unit interception is actually what got me thinking in the first place.
Realistically, a cavalry unit should be able to get away from 10 militia easily... it can't now (which is fine in the current system of course).
Armies would of course not march with the same speed but with the one of the respective slowest unit in an army.
Maybe armies should generally be moving slower in enemy regions.

The currency system also would have issues if the re-implement rice or food as an interactive resource since only occasionally would it be harvested.

Well, wasn't STW1's currency "sacks of rice" anyway?
But good point actually. I guess food could just stay abstract as it is now though, just to keep things simple.

Then what do you do if there is a battle? Have them pause the rest of the game? Say hey AI, I need to concentrate on this so please stop doing anything? You'd have to yet again compromise the Real Time aspect.

I really don't think that would be compromising it. Time on the campaign map would be running so much faster that the single day a battle takes doesn't really matter at all.

Imagine not fighting decisive open battles for a province before you'd attack the city like we have in TW now, but two armies would just avoid eachother and capture surrounding towns back and forth.

Hmmm... but you would still have to conquer the capital to gain control of a region... and with ETW, small armies raiding towns nearby are quite common.

Well if you have two maps system (campaign and battle map) then your game has to be turn-based. There is no there other viable alternative.

Because... ?

I know that you're going to say "but you can pause the game"
Well, pausing the game all the time is not really fun.

Yet it's what you're doing now...

[Greve Af Göteborg]

Yet it's what you're doing now...

Yeah I know , but it's just not the same thing.
It's hard to explain, I just like turn based (total war) than real time (Europa Universalis etc...).

[Rotaugen2009]

Yeah I know , but it's just not the same thing.
It's hard to explain, I just like turn based (total war) than real time (Europa Universalis etc...).

I play EU3 and HOI3 when I want the real time campaign, although the ability to pause or set how fast time passes is a nice feature. People complain that the AI would have a huge advantage, but then again, anything to make the AI a little tougher might be a good thing.
I would play the game either way, and it would be a bit more realistic instead of being able to constantly end around the AI on the map. Hmmm, tough call for me. The micromanagement would go up as you try to calculate when you will have the funds available, but you kinda have to do that in turn based too. It would make the cheat of reloading the turn a bit harder, which is fine by me.

[leopold 1]

i play eu 3 to and it is just nice
my perfect game would be a mix between tw and eu 3
tw for its map and batlles and eu 3 for the realtime, countries and the way rebellions go

realtime is for me way better then turn based
and ideed as the post above states
is it bad that the ai becomes better ?