A lot of times I still gravitate towards turn-based strategy games because I like to not feel rushed all the time. I absolutely love playing the Heroes of Might & Magic series personally and it is a perfect example for a TBS. In a RTS (real-time strategy) you for the most part don't know how fast your opponent is growing in power until its too late to adjust. I have seen RTS games last like 5-6mins because I took the wrong approach thinking I had a little time to build. With TBS I have a good ideal on how fast my opponent is building and then can make preparations for the coming battle.

Making the games more challenging and real-like in the way that people are put on the same playing field. I think total randomization should be a key factor here where the terrain, units and resources are randomized every time. So you can take the memorization of routes units to build out of the equation.

Never been a fan of 4X games in-fact the only one I can recall playing is Civilization the first one and I can probably count the number of RTS games I have played on one hand, although if I can get into a RTS I usually enjoy them

Do enjoy TB games but it been a while since I played one.

Games I really do like are Commandos and Desperados type which is a sort of half way mix between a RTS and a TB game.

Can you tell in a couple of words how they are half way mixed? In the end find a good mix can be one of the answers of this thread 😀

Well I will try and explain it by using Commandos 2, the game feels very much like a turn base game but it takes place in real time. But unlike an RTS game I can chose when to engage the enemy It allows me to try different strategies as each of the commandos have different skills. And has no micro management or resource gathering.

Pausable RTS games are not new and the system has been used profusely in strategic and tactics games. While it is a nice way to go the clockstopping power bestowed to the player is a little strange and never explained in-game.

It is just a game mechanism.

I have this desiderata: game machanism should be shrouded into the setting and never be in front of the player. Everything that happen and that the player can do in a game should be explainable in game terms.

That means a maximum real time slowness in the game (one second for one second) and no less (at the least for human-like races).

This should not be a real problem for 4X games: the player is managing an interstellar empire!

I don't know about that though bertipa, I don't know how fun a real 4x/rts game based on real time would do? I doubt it would be successful at all because everything would take real time to happen and would really increase the amount of time it would take to play a game in my opinion. I think we need games with a slightly compressed time ratio to keep us aging gamers interested. People lack patience these days so trying to play a match with someone over 30-50mins is almost impossible most times. I guess if you are doing only single player you could possible get away with it but I would also shy away from a skirmish that took me 45+ mins to play it out.

I profoundly apologize for the lack of clarity of my previous post 😳

What I was meaning if that I was not happy with the time stop function in some RTS games and I was proposing the real time (one second for one second) as a minimum slowness of the game that then can accelerate in steps a la Distant Worlds.

In my head the change of speed in a 4X space game should be easily done by the player but also performed by the program itself following a group of conditions them also player-controllable.

When nothing happen the game speed up by himself, when some minor disturbance arise the game slow down one speed step by himself, if His Majesty Big Fat Lizard of the Carnivorous Reptile Empire declare war on you the game fall by himself in one to one time to let you react at the momentous event.

I am also imagining that different race can have different minimum time, the Ancient A.I. Agglomerate can have a 'Real time' that is half of the human one, the Three-toed sloth-like race will have a 'Real time' double than the human one.

Short version 😀

Let's find out what are the strong points of using the turn based strategy system in a 4X Grand strategy game.

Long version 😯

There are historical reason for the use of a turn based system in strategical games and the came from the "before the computer" age.

Chess, Risk, Diplomacy all the boardgames had some form of turn based system, it is natural, efficient and easy to manage. The conversion in computer game has been a no-brainer, especially because it happened in the age of mono-task operating systems.

I see also a player disposition reason for it: a lot of strategy players love to take their time to think about their moves, to create their nice empires, to execute their perfect Guderian blitzkrieg against their hapless enemies.

Each move a perfect study in strategy and efficient development.

Also the time frame for a Grand Strategy game points to turns: If any turn is more than one year (or ten years or more) it stand to reason that there should be all the time to plan it.

On a more personal level, with three young children at home that want my attention, the fact that I can safely move my attention away from the game at any time without any surprise risks is also a non-negligible bonus.

Are there any other reasons to point turn based systems toward grand strategy games? Please, help me find them.

Short version 😀

Let's find out what are the strong points of using the real time strategy system in a 4X Grand strategy game. We are clearly using the term 'real time' in a very relative way here and the primary referent is Distant Worlds (Star Ruler being another candidate but even as I bought it I never been able to really play it).

Long version 😯

The term 'real time' can be difficult to apply to a Grand Strategy games that will span centuries, let's call it more 'Continuous Time Strategy'.

CTS games like our only example in the Grand Strategy field (more than one hundred stars), Distant Worlds, present himself like a living universe where the player directives are executed alongside those of the other players (humans and A.I.) and a continuously evolving playing field.

It is not drastically different from the 'Simultaneous Turn Based' approach of MoO3 and much less stressful than tactical real 'Real Time' games.

If you slow the time speed or at the extreme you stop it altogether the difference is minimal.

So, what you get more than a TBS system? I think that the main difference is a feeling one: 'Real Time' or 'Continuous Time' feels more alive, less boardgamish.

In Distant Worlds that is compounded by the presence of a strong 'private system' to which the player is delegating a good part of the boring empire-management tasks.

Even if you are doing nothing your empire is still evolving and expanding, maybe not in a strategically sound way.

The player is not the empire, it is an influential ruler. In an Interstellar empire the micromanaging of every system is not just impossible, it is also plainly wrong, so far from any possible kind of reality that makes the game feel artificial and unreal.

Also to have all the Universe waiting for you has the same problem... and RTS or better CTS avoid it in an elegant way.

I have always felt like I was at a dis-advantage playing in some RTS or CTS games because I may not be as proficient as I should be with the strategy or the game mechanics and usually the end result is game over for me. So a lot of the time I lean towards a TBS or where the CPU and yourself take your one turn at the same time. Or maybe I am just getting older and cannot keep up with the demands of a real RTS game as well.... more leaning towards that conclusion.

Before to explain my proposal I have to point out that it is meant for GRAND STRATEGIC space games. I mean games where the player is managing dozens of worlds and other habitats in a hundred of light years volume.

That means that it is impossible to use the 'Real Time' terminology so I will use the 'Continuous Time' one instead.

At a certain point of such a game becomes impossible to micromanage all the possible decisions needed. Some kind of automation becomes a unavoidable need.

My proposal is: a variable speed Continuous Time system with a mix of user-controlled/automatic accelerations/decelerations with a periodical drop in real-time (one second for one second) to check out an extensive Situation Report.

While the player can always drop the speed in the game the program itself can do the same in specific situations. What are these situations and how the speed drop will be managed should also be finely managed by the user.

A little, peaceful, culture intensive empire will need to check out any violent confrontations in and around its borders.

A big warmonger empire will not care of any less than a deep enemy task force penetration.

Also the moment of the game will need different focus: at the start the discovery of a terraformable planet is big news, at the end is just a counter that is incrementing, maybe not even in the main game window.

Also the steepness of the drop can be tweaked: a war declaration by the biggest star empire around will prompt a drop in real-time, some disturbing economic news from the other side of the Known Space will decelerate the going speed just a little.

Even if an aspect has been delegated to automation by the player or the game architecture any difficult decision or drastic change should be reported and the game time should slow to let the player decide what to do or if it is still a good idea to let the program manage the crisis.

On the other hand if everything is going well the program should be able to speed up the passage of time to move along the boring parts.

Developers should take some tips from the Ariginal Harpoon pc games, they had a user controled real time and a play at my speed setting. I personaly like turn based games, one if the player is interupted during play and has no time to hit pause the game will waite for his next move, unlike realtime that continues with out you. two it gives you time to weigh your options and refine your strategy. Real time is here and now and you don't have time to realy do much other than react to the situation.

Granted every one has their own play style and preference, but trying to make games as real as posable and as emersive as real life might be overloading the average player.

 Think about this, drop the average gamer into a real game like situation and see how well they do.

What about MMO Style 4x games, turn based. Turn based game but with thousands of other players. There are games like OGame and Astro Empires that are tick based MMO games in the 4x category.

I played them both but it also feels not so "rushed" as it is a feeling of perpetual "ambush". You can't really see anything coming your way until its there and the combat is over instantly. The game I'm working on is similar to those but turn based, probably 10 minute turns. You would be able to see things coming (if notified) and react accordingly. Also, combat happens on the turn flip but most battles will take several turns to wipe one side out. This gives other players time to react or retreat.