Real time (a la Sins of a Solar Empire) or turn based (example: GalCiv 2) which do you prefer?

um...

we haven't gotten the chance to try out a RT4X yet...
come back later, like... in a year.

Hmmm, I prefer turn-based strategy myself. I just don't like feeling that if I don't click fast enough then I'm doomed. That said, Sins doesn't really force me to freak out in a click-fest, which is one of the key reasons why I like it.

I suck at anything that involves click-fests. Warcraft, starcraft, and TA both come to mind. For some reason though, I was okay for Homeworld. So whatever is more like Homeworld.

according to yarlens recent post, this should ease the pain for the click festers.
me myself love to have a click fest contest but then it would take away the concept of being able to enjoy the beuty of the game during in game plays.

by the time you know it the game is already over and you spent more time clicking and thinking rather than thinking while watching and potentially grasping what the game has to offer. in this case i'll be enjoying a whole lot of battle without the stress of a click fests.

I have to go with TBS too.  I'm a slow player when it comes to strategy games, I sit and think things over for a while before taking an action.  RTS games like C&C, Starcraft or Supreme Commander don't allow me the time I need to make decisions. 

And like Yarlen said, that's not so much of a problem with Sins 

RTS games like C&C, Starcraft or Supreme Commander don't allow me the time I need to make decisions

I prefer real time, because you dont have the time to think through those basic tactics on the battlefield.

So far no real time game was successfull at creating enough time for it to be a strategy. Perhaps MoO3 was the closest but it had so many other problems that it just never came through...

So Sins will more or less be the first one or so it is promised. We have yet to see.

So until now - I'd say turn based. From Sins on... we'll see.

EDIT; speaking from a personal viewpoint: I think the prospect of an epic real time empire building is something we are all looking for. It could mean a huge turn in strategic gaming.

If this was buy one game before being dropped off on a desert island I would choose a Turn-Based just because it would probably last longer. Otherwise its RTS all the way

So far no real time game was successfull at creating enough time for it to be a strategy

I disagree

although I do believe the biggest inhibitor of strategy in games currently is lack of scope and differentiation

horray for supreme commander!!!

RTS. It requires you to think fast and make tough decisions quickly. It just adds that extra element of who can think quicker into the mix. That is why chess matches are timed. If they had all the time they wanted to sit and think then it would be much harder to sneak things past your opponet and hide your strategies. Games would grind on and on.

I disagree although I do believe the biggest inhibitor of strategy in games currently is lack of scope and differentiation

Ok, you're fully entitled to disagree. Care to share the example of an RT game that actually had strategy instead of tactics? As I said it could only be MoO3, but even MoO3 was quickly forgotten because of other problems.

I agree that the biggest difference between strategy and tactics is the scope. So perhaps Supreme Commander will change that but so far I can't think of a single game.

  you didnt say tactics, you said strategy

and as for an example? HW2.

you're fully entitled to disagree

yup, exactly why I didnt say "no, your completely fucking wrong"

I really do believe this is as close as it gets for being another hw type of game. just different name and different functions with similar taste.

we should be all glad for this game. look at the bright side, those other industries could throw us another sots that lacks the feel of a real RTS introduced by the best RTS game to date "refering to hw".

so can we all please get a long and drink some wine?

some of you need to play coh and find out what a real rts can be like again.

i did played rts and it is a good game based on wwII. i just wished the birds eye view of your map could've expanded a tad bit more. i mean i have to use my arrow to see whats the other side of the bridge instead of zooming out further.

I like real time strategy more because you have more flexibility with what you're doing. I can commonly beat a enemy two to five times my size in real time but in turn based it always seems to be a numbers game... ie whoever has more units tends to win.


The thing with real time games also is that it's ALWAYS your move... you don't have to wait for them to do something. Also speed isn't always important... what is important is always doing something. Often players in real time games will stop to think about something which means they're effectively skipping turns. You can't stop... you don't need to be super fast usually... but stopping = death. That said, some games are all about speed... and I enjoy the hell out of that too. Ground Control 2 was all about speed. The game was famous for two huge armies clashing and not a single unit dying for like 20 seconds while all the weapons fire was absorbed by shield units or repaired faster then any unit could die... Both players had to react VERY quickly to maintain their army in that mess... units loosing too much health had to be brought off the front line for 5-10 seconds... repair units had to be constantly retasked... attacking units had to be retargeted constantly so htey weren't attacking something htat was either reversing or impossible to kill...


And then BANG! One side would make two or three mistakes in a row and ALL their units would die in under 3 seconds... All of them going from practically full health to NO health... POP. Damn that was fun. But you had to be more then fast to win that game, you had to be smart. No little kids did well in that game... all the better players were older... which is unusual of most RTS games where they're dominated by 10 year olds. 10 year olds are almost always the fastest... but are never as cunning.



I've never seen an RTS game that lets me do a strategy that few people can copy. TBS games are usually so slow that anyone can copy the move.


So, I'm not a fan of TBS games... unless they're board games or something...

well spoken,
granted TBS have their own merit, but RTS surpasses it on multiple levels.

and as for an example? HW2.

HW&HW2 are no strategy games. The only strategic element they have are the ships you build because they were transported into another battle.

One fight does NOT equal strategy. In fact even games that require tactics are rare. In HW you actually have to (well, it pays off) create formations and such, so it has tactics. In games like CnC and Warcraft that is of almost no importance. What matters is (MP) who has found a better building/training order and clicks faster. Than it's all over in one fight. Oh well, I guess one can count the use of special units and abilities (like healing, bonuses etc.) as tactics... But there is deifinitely NO strategy.

As I said, the only real strategy that happened in RT that I know of is MoO3. It has planetary management, empire building and one lost fight did by no means mean defeat.

One fight does NOT equal strategy

then you need to play homeworld based on multiple fights, otherwise you'll lose anyhow.

Not sure what you mean by a game having strategy; clarify?

As far as I knew, neither Homeworld 1 or 2 fights were over after one engagement.

As far as I knew, neither Homeworld 1 or 2 fights were over after one engagement.

I guess I'm answering to both Inert and Schematic...

No, HWs don't have a single fight, but neither do they have a strategy behind the battles. There is no empire building, all they have is a story. A LINEAR story. I like their story a lot, but that's all there is. It's almost the same as in Warcraft where each battle begins from 0. What I'm saying is that the result of this battle bears little consequences on the game in general. The next battle is predetermined, no strategic planning of the attack or movement.

In HWs it has a little something that lasts from one battle to another, but Nexus for instance had far greater consequences (experience of the ships, the weapons that were placed on them) and nobody - not even developers - never tried to present it as a strategy game. It's a tactical spaceship battle simulator. And a much better one than HW. But as HW it has a linear storyline that more or less automatically excludes STRATEGY.

Stategy (IMO) begins when you have to PLAN for more than one battle. In HWs it's obvious that the more ships survive, the better, but the preservation of ships is not planning. When you can choose what to attack and that bears consequences on the war - that's planning and that's strategy.

Well I think they were more thinking along the lines of the multiplayer aspect of the game, not the single player.

It is true that in HW a single engagement can be decisive but this is definitely not always the case.

HW is heavier on the tactics than on strategy but I think that is part of the appeal: it is exciting. But the strategy is also a vital component. No amount of good tactics can overcome the advantage granted by an opponent's far superior strategy that gives him a numerical and technological advantage. And by the same token, your tactical choices are limited by your strategy in terms of what kinds and how many ships you have available.

No, HWs don't have a single fight, but neither do they have a strategy behind the battles. There is no empire building, all they have is a story. A LINEAR story

whoa, hold on... are you only talking about the singleplayer
well, maybe tahts your problem w/ it...

HW is heavier on the tactics than on strategy but I think that is part of the appeal: it is exciting.

well put, however I will be the first to point out that the tactics of battle are far less important than the strategy of placement
I was able to defeat a man with (at least, no joke) 15x the ships I had by merely staging a multi-sided assault, drew away his massive forces to a decoy, then took his MS and DY for my prises

after that I just hunted down carriers. and thats strategy, believe it or not

granted, I prefer to see way more strategy in a game. no game has had more than strategy on a very very basic level so far
SoaSE should change that   

Sorry Space, but I just automatically disagree when you tell me that if a game has a linear storyline, than it's not strategy. God forbid, that when developers create a whole universe, in which they feel has the potential to become a series of games, they make the story linear to keep consistency! I feel that the storyline of a game is a component of, but does not define, a strategy game, but rather: the gameplay.

Likewise, Wedge pretty much sums it up for me. Your tactics are what defines the outcome of a single battle [in multiplayer], but what defines the battle in the first place is strategy. You actually never have to engage your enemies' fleets at all. You can wait to ambush their mothership when it is unprotected, capture their fleets (with proper tactics, of course), etc. I agree that rules of engagement are strictly based on tactics, but strategy dictates the type of engagement, in which Homeworld supports multiple instances of.

God forbid, that when developers create a whole universe, in which they feel has the potential to become a series of games, they make the story linear to keep consistency!

Do you imagine TW series to only allow you to take one path - for instance the path of the history as it really happened? Oh, it would be consistent, but it would be a crappy game. When you can't make decisions that will ALTER the game "universe", it's not a strategy. In Homeworlds you can not alter the course of game in any way and there is no need for any kind of grand plan behind the progression from one battle to another. Whatever you do, it's always going to be the same one.

Choosing the type of ships you have is an element that actually hints of a strategy but it can be interpreted as tactics just as much.

I admit I never played MP, but usually MP is even more dedicated to tactics only than SP. That's why I don't play it.

Naturally, the definition of tactics/strategy isn't well defined so I guess we can each have our own definitions. There is no clear line and my opinion is just that - my opinion. It is in no respect more valuable or more right than yours (except to me).