«

[The Fifth Horseman]

Also I don't know about the lack of common sense of other forums but necroposting is indeed a complete lack of respect as far as netiquette goes.

Necroposting is bad if it does not offer any meaningful contribution to the discussion. Since 9/10 times it doesn't, the default approach is to kill it with fire on sight.
If this thread continues without devolving into spam, I see no reason to not let it continue.

[DarthHelmet86]

On that note Fifth, since I posted my ideas about time/turn limits and I know you are more a fan of this type of game do tell us what you think about them.

[Japo]

I have always played turn-based strategy games more than real-time ones, if only because of all the time I spent playing Microprose's Civilization I and II, Colonization, Master of Magic...

Originally Posted by RRS

I dread the turn limit in turn-based wargames. This has put me off from Panzer General the first time I played it. I usually play defensively in such campaign modes, while the limit forces hasty attacks. Don't you hate when you lose because you were 1 turn short from capturing that last mission objective? It usually also means the scenarios will put you in offensive role - and I like variety in my missions.

I know that in some hardcore simulations when the historical battle was resolved within a week, it would be unrealistic to allow the fight to continue for a month.

In a historical game like Panzer General it makes sense, taking too long to win a battle can make your country lose the war. Besides you can play any battle separate from the campaign, so you can play all of them from the start. And you can try again and again until you have a good plan to make it in time.

I don't remember any turn-based game with a time (not only turns) limit, but it would be lame. I mean if they think the game should have a time limit they should have made it real-time to begin with; but any real-time game lets you pause the game and slow it down, so...

[DarthHelmet86]

That does make sense Japo to a point, but if you are stomping the hell out of the enemies but are just doing it a bit slow you really shouldn't be losing just cause the turns ran out.

[RRS]

Originally Posted by Japo

I don't remember any turn-based game with a time (not only turns) limit

M.A.X.: Mechanized Assault & Exploration. Luckily for us this mode is optional. I think it should only be reserved for multiplayer (hot seat or online* ), because as you said, it defeats the purpose of "thinking man's wargame" the turn-based genre aims for.
* Age of Wonders could also play in simultaneous turns mode with time limit per turn.

Despite the current trends ("faster & more intense", "it's crap but it's in HD!") there will always be a need for turn-based play. No way there will be Chessmaster:Realtime version.

What I completely fail to comprehend is the move limit (per turn). Turn-based gameplay isn't fast and this only slows it down to a crawl - in RTS your units can at least auto-defend when left alone, here nothing moves until ordered so, and you're being allotted only few orders! So far I've seen this only as an option (fortunately!), e.g. Historyline 1914-1918.

[MrFlibble]

Originally Posted by RRS

I dread the turn limit in turn-based wargames. This has put me off from Panzer General the first time I played it. I usually play defensively in such campaign modes, while the limit forces hasty attacks. Don't you hate when you lose because you were 1 turn short from capturing that last mission objective? It usually also means the scenarios will put you in offensive role - and I like variety in my missions.

Recently I've introduced myself to The Battle for Wesnoth, and while I like many aspects of the game (great oldschool graphics, excellent music and quite nice storyline campaigns), the complete randomness of combat is what really put me off. Actually, this would have been fine (or, at least, tolerable) if it were not coupled with the turn limit per mission, and the crucial need to level up your units. By contrast, Disciples, while having rather similar combat mechanics (except battles involve lesser numbers of units), allow the player at least to revive their fallen units in order not to disrupt the level-up process.

[Japo]

I don't think anyone will disagree that Battle for Wesnoth is spoiled by its randomness, otherwise it would be great. Since it's open-source I wonder if it would be very difficult to spot the random number generating function, modify it and re-compile...

[RRS]

Speaking about necroposting:

Originally Posted by moncrey

Its STELCON 2469. Really addicting game and from the description, you can see its probably similar to Master of Orion.

...I've just added this game to MobyGames
http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/stelcon-2469

[DarthHelmet86]

I think I had that game as a kid. On some shareware CD, I remember the game screen. That was a rush of nostalgia...but I can't remember if I liked it as a kid or not.

[Smiling Spectre]

Originally Posted by Japo

I have always played turn-based strategy games more than real-time ones, if only because of all the time I spent playing Microprose's Civilization I and II, Colonization, Master of Magic...
...
I don't remember any turn-based game with a time (not only turns) limit, but it would be lame. I mean if they think the game should have a time limit they should have made it real-time to begin with; but any real-time game lets you pause the game and slow it down, so...

1. Well, "time limit" in TBS actually is turn limit. And it is exist in all Civilizations, for example.

2. There is no need to have time limit in turn-based games, of course... while you are in single player. Most such games have time limit for turns (that can be tuned, but still) when you are playing with distant opponent. And yes, there is not possible to pause RTS here also.

I am personally hate turn limit, and can tolerate it in Civilizations only because it's quite generous. Usually.