For all you strategy gamers...
ballistikWhat are the qualities and/or features you look for in a turn-based strategy game? How much micromanagment is too much? too little? any games come to mind?
Eric ColemanI can't say that I've played many, but of the ones that I have played, I really like Civilization and Master of Orion. Civilization gets a bit tedious at the end of the game when you have lots of troups in every city. I hate having to manage 100 different cities each turn, especially when there is civil disobedience or if troups need to be disbanded or fortified. The Master of Orion map is smaller, and even in the late stages of the game it is still fairly quick to go through a turn, compared to Civ. for example. Another interesting game is Matt's Castle Danger game. It is an extremly small playing field, and the units are extremly simple, which I think is why it succeeds so well and is such a fun game to play. There isn't much of a learning curve, so people can grasp the concept very easily. I have a feeling this might turn into a really large thread [:D]
ballistikThat is my hope. I'm currently developing a TBS and before I get much further I want to have a good idea of what others think about the genre itself. I think that will give me a better understanding of everyone thinks is fun. I mean, I have my thoughts, but I want to make a game that isn't just fun to me, but to a lot of people. I also really like the games you mentioned. I'm also a huge fan of the Total War series. I grew up playing games like Romance of the Three Kingdoms and all the other old KOEI games. I loved those! [:D]
sdwI can't say I'm a fan of turn-based games, because I'm not. In fact, they get on my nerves. I like fast-paced realtime strategy games, like the Command & Conquer universe.
quote:
I think that will give me a better understanding of everyone thinks is fun. I mean, I have my thoughts, but I want to make a game that isn't just fun to me, but to a lot of people.
Don't try to make a game based on what you think other people would want to play. Make the game based on what YOU would want to play.
VBBR
quote:
Originally posted by sdw
quote:
I think that will give me a better understanding of everyone thinks is fun. I mean, I have my thoughts, but I want to make a game that isn't just fun to me, but to a lot of people.
Don't try to make a game based on what you think other people would want to play. Make the game based on what YOU would want to play.
May I ask, why?
sdw
  • Because there's a better chance the game will be completed.
  • Because you shouldn't worry about what others want, maybe they're wrong.
  • Because you're the one making the game.
  • Because everyone has different ideas from one another.
  • Because if you're making a game, you should already be a big fan of games. Since you have experience yourself in what makes a good game, you really don't need the input of others.
  • because, Because, BECAUSE! :)
ballistikWell, if you go by only the instincts and details that you like, then you are limiting yourself. It's never a bad idea to hear the thoughts of others. However, it is up to you to take what they say and/or leave it. I have years of experience programming and I have yet to create anything in which I thought of EVERYTHING that should go into the project. Was the overall design mine? Of course, but having a fresh thought from an outside source never hurt anyone. So, back to the topic at hand... what other aspects of the turn-based strategy genre do all of you like or dislike?
sdwOh no, you're not getting the last word in >:) Sure it's not a bad idea to hear the thoughts of others, but you wouldn't add their ideas into a game if you didn't like it yourself. Which is what you said yourself:
quote:
However, it is up to you to take what they say and/or leave it.
(btw, the "and/or" in that sentence doesn't make sense, should have just been "or" :P) I never said not to accept outside opinions for what the game should feature at all (because I agree with that). I said not to make a game based on someone else's liking, but to base it on your own liking. Now to do some more nitpicking:
quote:
I also really like the games you mentioned. I'm also a huge fan of the Total War series. I grew up playing games like Romance of the Three Kingdoms and all the other old KOEI games. I loved those!
To further my point, you both agree that those are great games because you share a common thinking about what makes a great game. Therefore, if you make a game based on what YOU would enjoy playing then the chances are good that many other people will as well.
ballistikIf having the last word means that much to you, have it. I couldn't care less. [8D] I'd still like to hear what everyone likes/dislikes about the various assortment of turn-based strategy games out there.
Eric ColemanI can't think of any "modern" turn based strategy games. If they exist, then I haven't played them. Would you consider Chess to be a turn based strategy game? On a tangent, I also like graphical adventure games like The Dig, Loom, Monkey Island, Return to Zork, etc. On the other hand, I don't really like FPS games. In my opinion, there are basically two types of games, the kind where you need quick reflexes and the kind where you are able to think about your actions before you do them. I guess I'm just an old person, but I think I prefer 2D games over 3D versions. I never really liked Super Mario or Zelda on the N64. Now, those are my general likes and dislikes. To be more specific with strategy games is difficult. I like different games for different reasons. MOO was fun because the different races had different advantages. Civilization wouldn't have been as much fun if the different nations were not equal. What might be fun in one game may not be fun in a different game. Perhaps you can give some more details about your game, such as the type of setting (future, fantasy, historic), a background story, or anything else you think would help someone imagine what your game could be like.
PeterThe Age of Wonders series is a really good modern turn-based series. I highly recommend you check it out Eric.
BrykovianI've played the demo of "Spartan" recently -- nicely done turn-based war/building game there. They allow you to give units a final destination, and will show you the path the unit plans to take to get there, as long as you don't change the unit's orders, then it will move itself each turn. Same goes for how the units in a city are handled -- give them an order ("garrison here") and they'll just stay there until given a different order. As for micro/macro-management ... I prefer a game that will allow me to simply macro-manage units ("attack the city to the northwest"), and have the computer make the best choice as to how to accomplish the higher-level task. However, turn-based games are nice for allowing micro-management when the player wishes it ("move here, move here, move here, *then* attack the city to the northwest"). Based on that, I'd like to see a task-list/waypoint system for assigning tasks to units. Instead of just picking their *next* item to accomplish, I'd like to give them a list. For example, "1. Move to City X; 2. Wait for Ship A to arrive at City X; 3. Board Ship A; 4. Wait for Ship A to arrive at City Y; 4. Leave Ship A at City Y; 5. Move to City Z; 6. Fortify City Z." Then, of course, each turn during the orders phase, I could adjust or add to those lists. A really well planned-out game would simply allow me to choose "Fortify City Z" in the example, and would build the step-by-step task list, which I could edit. As for the higher-level topic of stategy games ... I like games that make me have to balance my attention and resources between a number of internally-competing items. Usually, in the war/builder genre, this is offensive capabilities, defensive capabilities, and building up the empire. Those tense, interesting decisions are what make games "good" in my book. -Bryk
cjb00871st: FPS does affect the overall quality of the game, people still will get annoyed if it runs flicky, and therefore wont think as well. however it isnt as important as with fast reflex games like RTSes and FPSes. 2nd: A.i. in turn based strategy games usually plan ahead [b]alot[b], while in others they decide on the go. On Main Topic: i would like to see a turn based strategy with a set amount of move time, i.e. 2mins before persons loses their go, this makes the game a little faster and gets people to think quicker, and eventually, make mistakes. on micromanagement, let the player have as little or as much as they want
masterboodaLet me put my two cents on this one, and this is that strategy games, mean one thing for me............ boring!!! With this being said, I would rather play a strategy game that was more on the fly, you make a decision and the computer makes a decision within the span of just a few minutes or better yet, real time for the computer is making decisions while you are too... Now turn base games are not going to be that exciting, so one should really throw the graphics, effects, sound, and music into overtime to make it more so.... and yes FPS is always important, especially when using animation of any kind or scrolling, you can use either time control, or maybe some sort of movement control... As far as knowing what qualities make a good game, I believe this comes from the experience of playing such games, just realize the best qualities of each and reflect those in your own game.. This is my 2c... peace... dabooda out...
PointOfLightModern turn based strategy games: Heroes Of Might And Magic Age Of Wonders Warlords Disciples Personally, I think micro-management in turn based games is basically fun. If you've got the time to think and plan, why not do it? However, I don't really think many PC based strategy games have gotten the resource management part right. For example, I loved playing Heroes, but it was really annoying having to build the same structures in the same cities over and over again. Some sort of "cummulative" system would be cool. In other words, make the scenarios just long enough that I build up a couple structures in the first one, a couple more in the second, and so on, while being able to carry over the structures I've built from previous scenarios. Also, don't make me build the same structures in EVERY city in every scenario. The other thing I really like that most modern TBS are doing is the "central hero" idea - a character that actually gets built up from scenario to scenario. I guess this comes from my love of another type of game, the RPG. I think it adds an interesting tactic to the strategy game, because it ensures that while you'd rather that no troops die, there will at least be some troops that you are especially cautious of.
MantasticBalance.
jviperGot a question, (just to sort of throw a nut into the engine): How important is the frames/second rate during the game play of a take-turn based stratagy game? Does this matter at all? Second: what are the realations between the a.i in a take-turn based stratagy game, and that of a 3d isometric action game?