Real time or Turn based

[Waiting for Rome 2 -_-]

What would you like to see in the future TW games.

[McCarronXLD]

I like how it is right now.

[Lord Baal]

Turn based. Imagine, they are talking about streamlining the options and it's a turn based strategy game, the turn thing would ideally let us to micromanage a lot of aspects, instead they are trying to remove as much micro as they can, going into real time would simply encourage them to affectively remove all our strategic options to simply recruit guys and move them around. Thanks but no thanks.

Now, If you want to have a better strategy campaign, simultaneous movement for everyone at the end of the turn makes far more sense and makes the game a lot more challenging. Read my wall of doom if you fell like it, I threat that there.

[Dea Paladin]

Turn based. Imagine, they are talking about streamlining the options and it's a turn based strategy game, the turn thing would ideally let us to micromanage a lot of aspects, instead they are trying to remove as much micro as they can, going into real time would simply encourage them to affectively remove all our strategic options to simply recruit guys and move them around. Thanks but no thanks.

Now, If you want to have a better strategy campaign, simultaneous movement for everyone at the end of the turn makes far more sense and makes the game a lot more challenging. Read my wall of doom if you fell like it, I threat that there.

I'm assuming you havn't played any other strategy games like Crusader Kings II. A real time game with so much more depth, thinking and strategy, it makes Total War feel like a childrens game..

[Lord Baal]

I'm assuming you havn't played any other strategy games like Crusader Kings II. A real time game with so much more depth, thinking and strategy, it makes Total War feel like a childrens game..

I'm not talking about if is possible to have deep in real time or not, but that CA is constantly seeking to dumb down the strategy part of the game in favor of those that don't fell like thinking much... so going real time would only provide them yet another excuse to "streamline" the experience. See?

[SturmChurro]

I'm assuming you havn't played any other strategy games like Crusader Kings II. A real time game with so much more depth, thinking and strategy, it makes Total War feel like a childrens game..

Crusader Kings II? You have got to be joking.. While I do own the game, and it is quite enjoyable at times, in no way would I describe it as in depth as you. Maybe a nice in depth character system, but the rest of the game in no way makes Total War feel like a children game. If anything Total War makes Crusader Kings II look like a childrens game. You should pick a different title from Paradox if you want to compare how in depth one is to another.

[Yomamashouse]

I struggle to think of how to make RTW II real-time without a near complete overhaul of the game's simulator. When your empire is small, turns will be painfully long. When your empire is large, you may find yourself struggling just to keep the building queues going.

[DarthRuanek]

Crusader Kings II? You have got to be joking.. While I do own the game, and it is quite enjoyable at times, in no way would I describe it as in depth as you. Maybe a nice in depth character system, but the rest of the game in no way makes Total War feel like a children game. If anything Total War makes Crusader Kings II look like a childrens game. You should pick a different title from Paradox if you want to compare how in depth one is to another.

The thing is, Paradox games and TW games focus on different things. TW focuses on the battles. Paradox games focus on depth in other areas (CK2 focusing on characters, or EU3 focusing on larger strategy, for example). While they're all strategy games, and they're all based on history, they're very different in what they are and what they try to be.

[SturmChurro]

The thing is, Paradox games and TW games focus on different things. TW focuses on the battles. Paradox games focus on depth in other areas (CK2 focusing on characters, or EU3 focusing on larger strategy, for example). While they're all strategy games, and they're all based on history, they're very different in what they are and what they try to be.

I know, and I have argued this point for the entirety of this thread.

[akkakk]

I'm assuming you havn't played any other strategy games like Crusader Kings II. A real time game with so much more depth, thinking and strategy, it makes Total War feel like a childrens game..

Games like Hearts of Iron, Victoria, Sengoku (which, incidentally, suffers from several problems similar to that of Shogun 2 and Crusader Kings), Rome, Crusader Kings etc all have province based maps, which total war doesnt. This is one main reason why Paradox games can be so complex.

It also lacks any battle map, and fighting armies are essentially left ot their own devices (which works in all games except Crusader Kings, as its pretty much he who has the larger army wins, with no tactics or army composition advantages involved at all, unlike most other Paradox titles).

Total was is not a Paradox game, and shouldn't try to be. there are many reasons Paradox games can be as complex as they are, but to make a total war game as complex would be too much.

and what about pop-up spam? because we would have to change to using pop-ups instead of the system we have now. Pop-up spam is tolerated by the Paradox community, but it would put many Total War players off the game if they had it in future TW titles.

there are also many other problems, which have already been mentioned.

[Akrotatos]

Seriously though how on earth could they make it real time when you have to manage armies, agents, settlements and fleets? It's not Age of Empires when you send peasants to gather wood and click on buildings to research technology or raise soldiers.
One of the most fun parts of the campaign map is when you see with which settlements you trade, when you take time to read the building descriptions and decide what to build, when you see why there is unrest, when you read your general's vices and virtues when you check what the AI is doing etc Some people need 10 minutes per turn in middle-late game.

Real time simply can't be implemented unless you pause it all the time or run in incredibly low speeds. It is for different games and there are plenty of those to choose from

[Meraun]

defently turnbased! Endgame woud be a mess. Too many things happen at the same time

[Waiting for Rome 2 -_-]

People,i am 100% against real time,but since there quite a few who where talking about real time campaign,I just wanted to see how many people would like to see it in TW.

[Akrotatos]

People,i am 100% against real time,but since there quite a few who where talking about real time campaign,I just wanted to see how many people would like to see it in TW.

Sorry then but there have been many threads like this, most with multiple pages. A little search beforehand never hurts.

Granted, Paradox functions on a province-based map instead of a 3d world and Paradox games do not have a battle system either.

That's the whole difference in the world. It can't be done.

a)First all the pausing every time you open a window to see something or decide will mean that armeis take forever to reach destination.
b)Second you will have to hunt armies in many places at once. Imagine trying to bring battle to an army that tries to avoid you in Anatolia while trying to avoid another army in Italy.
c)Many players of TW want a game where they can relax in their seats and play casually not click all the damn time. It's the reason it draws people from older ages as well.

And anyway all this is mute since it's simply impossible for computers to handle 100 armies that move across the map at the same time, plus agents, plus fleets, plus settlements that build stuff. AT ONCE. It can't be done. Not without abandoning the 3d map. For starters.

[SturmChurro]

Sorry then but there have been many threads like this, most with multiple pages. A little search beforehand never hurts.



That's the whole difference in the world. It can't be done.

a)First all the pausing every time you open a window to see something or decide will mean that armeis take forever to reach destination.
b)Second you will have to hunt armies in many places at once. Imagine trying to bring battle to an army that tries to avoid you in Anatolia while trying to avoid another army in Italy.
c)Many players of TW want a game where they can relax in their seats and play casually not click all the damn time. It's the reason it draws people from older ages as well.

And anyway all this is mute since it's simply impossible for computers to handle 100 armies that move across the map at the same time, plus agents, plus fleets, plus settlements that build stuff. AT ONCE. It can't be done. Not without abandoning the 3d map. For starters.

Common sense decrees victory this day!

[Spartan999]

If I want to play a real time strategy, I would be either playing Starcraft 2 or Warcraft 3 ETC.

[Rorarii]

yes, real time strategic would be better but CA are a turn based company, and never the twain shall meet.

R

[CanOmer]

yes, real time strategic would be better but CA are a turn based company, and never the twain shall meet.

R

Did you play Knights of Honor game?

That is a must if a game like Total War ever goes to real time campaign. Is that in the strategy map you count weeks and months, in the battle map you count merely hours.

Now, the word perhaps would not be not real time campaign, but fluid or continuous campaign, as in not being divide by turns.

Of course, I did misstatement. Now corrected:

Knights of Honor is an example of real time campaign map. But it is not completely real time game, because when you are in the battle (if you choose to do it manually), real time campaign map becomes paused. So, it is not problem for single player game but in the multiplayer campaign it needs a solution. One solution is making battles auto.


At the 8th minute, he enters the battle map.

In my opinion, yes, real time Total War game is absolutely possible. And if it becomes RTS, I would be very happy.

[atheniandp]

Sorry then but there have been many threads like this, most with multiple pages. A little search beforehand never hurts.



That's the whole difference in the world. It can't be done.

a)First all the pausing every time you open a window to see something or decide will mean that armeis take forever to reach destination.
b)Second you will have to hunt armies in many places at once. Imagine trying to bring battle to an army that tries to avoid you in Anatolia while trying to avoid another army in Italy.
c)Many players of TW want a game where they can relax in their seats and play casually not click all the damn time. It's the reason it draws people from older ages as well.

And anyway all this is mute since it's simply impossible for computers to handle 100 armies that move across the map at the same time, plus agents, plus fleets, plus settlements that build stuff. AT ONCE. It can't be done. Not without abandoning the 3d map. For starters.

It is a big difference and yes it can be done with a bit of innovation and a lot of ingenuity that we know CA have.

You're making the wrong assumption that:
a. Opening a window would automatically pause the game. Why would this be so?
b. Armies would take a long time to reach destination. Not with speed sliders they wouldn't. Speed adjustment would introduce a level of customization unseen in a Total War campaign. It could be faster then a turn based campaign, in which you have to wait out long turns (especially in overhaul mods, which a lot of us play).
c. That the game would be stressful. Once again. Redesign the game mechanics. CA is already making an effort to depart from the silly army micromanagement we have now. We will be training armies rather than individual units. To further make this system applicable to a real time campaign, CA would strive to minimize the small skirmish battles we encounter and instead introduce a military campaign system.

Also, if the player is attacking all these neighbouring factions then the player should feel overwhelmed. What, do you want to win each time you play the game? Do you want the AI to bend down for you? I'm tired of this go-out-and-conquer-everything-with-blitzkrieg system where the computer factions don't stand a chance not only due to lackluster AI but a biased system itself.

[SturmChurro]

It is a big difference and yes it can be done with a bit of innovation and a lot of ingenuity that we know CA have.

You're making the wrong assumption that:
a. Opening a window would automatically pause the game. Why would this be so?
b. Armies would take a long time to reach destination. Not with speed sliders they wouldn't. Speed adjustment would introduce a level of customization unseen in a Total War campaign. It could be faster then a turn based campaign, in which you have to wait out long turns (especially in overhaul mods, which a lot of us play).
b. That the game would be stressful. Once again. Redesign the game mechanics. CA is already making an effort to depart from the silly army micromanagement we have now. We will be training armies rather than individual units. To further make this system applicable to a real time campaign, CA would strive to minimize the small skirmish battles we encounter and instead introduce a military campaign system.

Also, if the player is attacking all these neighbouring factions then the player should feel overwhelmed. What, do you want to win each time you play the game? Do you want the AI to bend down for you? I'm tired of this go-out-and-conquer-everything-with-blitzkrieg system where the computer factions don't stand a chance not only to lackluster AI but biased system itself.

He assumed this game will be turned into a paradox game. You also seem to want to make Total War into a Paradox game. If you guys want a Rome II title that is a Paradox game with open battles you should contact them. This is Total War.