The problem with turn-based games is the only "tactics" are the builds.

[Damned Registrations]

I feel like Incursion might have done that? I don't think I ever made use of it but that game let you do damn near anything.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

"The only defense of tb games is that they're easier for casuals to get into" is quite the hot take

Edit: Wait, jvegi might've already beaten it successfully by claiming card games are better on the computer. Damn, guy's just too good.

 

[BrainMuncher]

You can construct turn based combat within RTWP using strange enough rules, but the reverse is not possible. This means RTWP is objectively superior, it's capable of everything TB does and more.

The biggest problem with TB is the lack of granularity of actions, and resulting inability to react. I remember playing one of the shadowrun games, my wizard was in the middle of a large room in cover behind desks. In one turn, a door on the far side of the room opened, an enemy walked through all the way to the wizard an punched him in the face. Absolutely stupid, if the point of combat is to simulate some approximation of what would actually happen, TB failed badly here. This sort of thing happens a lot in TB games.

I'm sure TB fans have many suggestions for how one might compensate for the glaring weaknesses of TB, just keep in mind that is what you are doing when you suggest things like overwatch and "ready vs x": coping with the inherent flaws of the TB system. These tacked on systems are predictive not reactive, and there's also nothing stopping them from existing in RT games, it's just generally not needed. But there are examples like the machine gun squads in company of heroes.

The only real way to deal with the wizard punched in face scenario is to lower the AP/move distance per turn and make the turns more frequent. So that the guy comes through the door, but only makes with part way into the room giving time to react. The problem for TB fans is that the more granular you make the turns, the more it starts to resemble RTWP. The logical conclusion is 60 or more turns (frames) per second, and only pause when needed to avoid end turn spam.

 

[BrainMuncher]

"The only defense of tb games is that they're easier for casuals to get into" is quite the hot take

It always amuses me when TB fans get butthurt about this. What are you trying to say by calling this a hot take, that turn based is actually harder to get into? More difficult to control and manage?

Isn't being easier to manage is a good thing? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Damned Registrations]

The only real way to deal with the wizard punched in face scenario is to lower the AP/move distance per turn and make the turns more frequent.

I mean, at that point you're just arguing that melee shouldn't be relevant. Was the Wizard punched in the face by a fat mall cop or a cyborg ninja on crack? Because I find the idea that a wizard in the middle of doing something else would instantly react and defend himself from something like that to be equally ridiculous, but that's exactly what you get in RTwP, where characters can react to things they can't see because their omniscient commander beamed the commands into their brains the millisecond it was an option. How do you 'deal' with that, exactly?

Again, this argument is just as dumb as whining about why anyone gets hit ever. "Dice rolls are lame, I wanted my wizard to lean 4 inches to the left to dodge that punch!"

This means RTWP is objectively superior, it's capable of everything TB does and more.

It's not objective if you're ignoring development costs. A million dollars buys you a much more sophisticated TB system than it does a RTwP system by saving costs on abstracting mid turn interactions.

 

[BrainMuncher]

The only real way to deal with the wizard punched in face scenario is to lower the AP/move distance per turn and make the turns more frequent.

I mean, at that point you're just arguing that melee shouldn't be relevant.

No, that's a straw man you just made up to avoid having to deal with what I actually said.

Because I find the idea that a wizard in the middle of doing something else

Characters in shadowrun are never doing something else, they're just standing there waiting to be punched in the face until it's their turn to be unparalyzed.

but that's exactly what you get in RTwP, where characters can react to things they can't see because their omniscient commander beamed the commands into their brains the millisecond it was an option. How do you 'deal' with that, exactly?

This is not a criticism of RTWP, omniscient commanders exist in TB too

Again, this argument is just as dumb as whining about why anyone gets hit ever. "Dice rolls are lame, I wanted my wizard to lean 4 inches to the left to dodge that punch!"

Another ridiculous straw man.

This means RTWP is objectively superior, it's capable of everything TB does and more.

It's not objective if you're ignoring development costs. A million dollars buys you a much more sophisticated TB system than it does a RTwP system by saving costs on abstracting mid turn interactions.

With this you seem to have conceded that RTWP is in fact superior, although you claim it is more expensive to produce (citation needed).

Seems like coping to me, by this logic the only reason for TB to exist is if you're too poor to afford RT. I don't concede that RT is more expensive, but even if it is, I still I wouldn't say that, you're going further than I would ever go.

Turn based can be fun, and you're allowed to like something even when objectively superior alternatives exist. I don't understand why you TB freaks can't accept this, you have some sort of weird insecurity about it.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Characters in shadowrun are never doing something else, they're just standing there waiting to be punched in the face until it's their turn to be unparalyzed.

See, this just shows you don't understand the concept of a fucking abstraction. The turns don't represent people standing around waiting for eachother to act. Everyone is acting at the same time. The guy who ganked your wizard did it at the same time as wahtever your wizard was doing that same turn and all your other characters were busy doing their own shit.

You want to bitch about armour making people harder to hit while you're at it?

Another ridiculous straw man.

Yes. That is the point. I made a ridiculous straw man to show how ridiculous your own straw man was. It's called an analogy. People use them to make arguments with idiots who can't understand the full, complicated subject being discussed.

This is not a criticism of RTWP, omniscient commanders exist in TB too

If I'm playing XCOM, I only have information my units have access to through their fields of view. By the time I give a unit an order, a full turn has passed so it's perfectly reasonable that those units have had time to communicate with each other to pass that information along. You can't say the same about moving your wizard the instant a goblin starts running at him from behind.

 

[Yosharian]

Turn based can be fun, and you're allowed to like something even when objectively superior alternatives exist. I don't understand why you TB freaks can't accept this, you have some sort of weird insecurity about it.

The lack of self-awareness is astonishing

 

[BrainMuncher]

Characters in shadowrun are never doing something else, they're just standing there waiting to be punched in the face until it's their turn to be unparalyzed.

See, this just shows you don't understand the concept of a fucking abstraction. The turns don't represent people standing around waiting for eachother to act.

By resorting to this cope, you're only exposing how poorly TB represents what it is supposed to be representing. Other, superior systems are capable of much better and more intuitive abstractions.

Everyone is acting at the same time.

The actions in game take place in sequence, not at the same time. The outcome is different depending on which order the turns are taken. This makes it impossible to even pretend it's an abstraction of simultaneous action.

If two characters shoot at each other, at the end of the day you have to decide which character shot first if it means only one of them survives. Some games do as you say and have simultaneous turns, so that both characters die. But most TB games are not like that.

The guy who ganked your wizard

The wizard was not ganked, only weakly punched

did it at the same time as wahtever your wizard was doing that same turn and all your other characters were busy doing their own shit.

No they weren't doing anything, just standing there in an empty room.

You want to bitch about armour making people harder to hit while you're at it?

Another ridiculous straw man.

This is not a criticism of RTWP, omniscient commanders exist in TB too

If I'm playing XCOM, I only have information my units have access to through their fields of view. By the time I give a unit an order, a full turn has passed so it's perfectly reasonable that those units have had time to communicate with each other to pass that information along. You can't say the same about moving your wizard the instant a goblin starts running at him from behind.

Still not a criticism of RTWP, limited information has nothing to do with whether the game is turn based or not.

 

[BrainMuncher]

Turn based can be fun, and you're allowed to like something even when objectively superior alternatives exist. I don't understand why you TB freaks can't accept this, you have some sort of weird insecurity about it.

The lack of self-awareness is astonishing

Your lack of an argument is not

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

It always amuses me when TB fans get butthurt about this. What are you trying to say by calling this a hot take, that turn based is actually harder to get into? More difficult to control and manage?

Isn't being easier to manage is a good thing? You can't have it both ways.

You mean you don't know what a "hot take" is or are you genuinely retarded enough to not understand why his opinion is one in light of general perception of tb games over the last decades of gaming?

In this particular case it can be both, unluckily for you.

 

[luj1]

this is a very retarded thread

 

[MjKorz]

if the point of combat is to simulate some approximation of what would actually happen

That's what RTwP does. Best examples are 7.62 High Caliber and Man of Prey. TB is for playing dollies under an abstract ruleset that has nothing to do with reality.

There's a place and time for both and both can be fun with plenty of tactical depth.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

TB is for playing dollies under an abstract ruleset that has nothing to do with reality.

Uh-huh. Let's take this opportunity to play a big brain game and try guessing which system is fair and which gives the player an unlimited access to god-like power that no-one else has.

 

[MjKorz]

Uh-huh. Let's take this opportunity to play a big brain game and try guessing which system is fair and which gives the player an unlimited access to god-like power that no-one else has.

"Fairness" is a concept that is inapplicable when talking about human vs AI matches. In such a case, pause in RTwP exists to allow the human player compete with AI on a purely tactical level - the ability to adapt to the changing battlefield situation, without giving the AI a massive advantage in terms of information processing and command input speed. In situations where human plays vs human, the ability to pause is eliminated and you get RTT. Both RTwP and RTT can exist within a single game with the best example being the combat layer of Total War games.

 

[Van-d-all]

TB granularity is a non issue given APs exist and it's usually their 2AP simplification that propagates shit situations; TB systems do have one inherent aspect with which they deal poorly and it's simultaneous action. Which is rather obvious when you realize turns as concept exist exactly to stop players bothering each other. But then you have interrupt actions (both as overwatch or spare AP action) where players can interchangeably resolve such situations as they come. Some, mostly large scale TB have separate phases that often include assumption combat takes place simultaneously (damage goes both ways). Not to mention you have WEGO systems or action-timed RTWP like Brigade E5 & 7.62mm. There's enough fine detail systems to virtually suit any kind of abstraction that a game will end up having, being a game.

As for games in general, I think most (unless so generic) will have this initial meta phase, where it's essential to learn the ropes, and I don't mean mechanics. You need to see how viable builds are, how quests are structured, what rewards are possible - essentially get to know what's even possible to be done.

 

[Saldrone]

And yet despite various turn based RPGs being tame in difficulty and even relatively easy there are a lot of newbies who get filtered by rats in Fallout 1. lol

 

[Finster]

Why do turn-based games still exist? This concept originates from a time when gaming technology was limited, and people had to play games like chess turn by turn. If you play turn-based games in 2024 you are like an Amish dude spurning refrigerators because the technology wasn't available in the past, and he likes to suffer because he can prove what a fucking hardcore nostalgic he is. Yes, I'm completely serious.

 

[Maxie]

And yet despite various turn based RPGs being tame in difficulty and even relatively easy there are a lot of newbies who get filtered by rats in Fallout 1. lol

filtered how, my dear fellow
due to rats constituting a challenge, or due to fallout ui being plain unreadable to a newbie?

 

[Jvegi]

Why do turn-based games still exist?

Because they can be fun, and allow for complex gameplay with clear and satisfying feedback and visual clarity. They are cheaper and easier to make. They are good at making you appreciate the numbers go up.

Rtwp, despite being potentially tactically superior, is usually a messy, floaty crap. There are just a few games that pull it off, mainly bg2 with scs and icewind dale 2. It took decades to develop bg2 into the glorious state it is in, and you still need to be perfectly acquainted with the system to enjoy it's complexity. And it's still meh on low levels.

 

[Saldrone]

due to rats constituting a challenge, or due to fallout ui being plain unreadable to a newbie?

Both? People call this game "hard to play" since you got dice roll mechanics instead of stat-based FPS since they are accustomed to instant action and honestly, the PIP boy UI that nu-Fallout got isn't any different if not worse in clumsiness since you have to constantly switch to it

Compare this clear and wide information of your character:

To this separated and section-divided mess:

 

[MjKorz]

Why do turn-based games still exist?

Because abstract rulesets do not necessarily need to compete with simulation: both can coexist.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Why do turn-based games still exist? This concept originates from a time when gaming technology was limited, and people had to play games like chess turn by turn. If you play turn-based games in 2024 you are like an Amish dude spurning refrigerators because the technology wasn't available in the past, and he likes to suffer because he can prove what a fucking hardcore nostalgic he is. Yes, I'm completely serious.

Uh huh. Wake me up when a RTwP game has all the mechanics featured in Incursion. I'll be waiting in my cryo-stasis pod.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

"Fairness" is a concept that is inapplicable when talking about human vs AI matches.

And I assume that's because you say so? Don't move the goalposts, we're not talking about human being able to think out of the box and computer being able to put two and two together faster. We're talking about rulesets. One is clear, concise and fair. The other gives you unlimited access to "muh safe space" god power that no other agent possesses (which, btw, trivializes a shitload of games and is generally conductive to various other ways of mechanical decline). And it does so because the game wouldn't work otherwise (not that I even agree with this statement, but that's what you said). So, stop with the silly "realistic and prestigious rtwp vs arbitrary and dum tb" narrative.

 

[MjKorz]

One is clear, concise and fair.

Because you say so?

The other gives you unlimited access to "muh safe space"

Like planning your turns for whoever much time you want?

god power

Like AI's massive advantage in the area of information processing and command input speed?

trivializes a shitload of games

If you can trivialize a tactics game by allowing the player infinite time to make decisions, then the game has no tactical depth as the only challenge in such a game stems from limited time to make and input decisions, not from unpredictability of tactical scenarios. Play actual tactics games.

And it does so because the game wouldn't work otherwise

The game works perfectly fine otherwise: RTT is perfectly playable vs AI. Which brings me back to the discussion of fairness: it is inherently unfair to deprive the AI of its inherent advantages - information processing and command input speed. Fairness should never be discussed in the context of human vs AI RTwP games. RTwP does not seek to make the game "fair" by introducing the pause since stripping the AI's advantages is inherently unfair, it seeks to shift the competition strictly into the plane of tactical thinking, not the plane of reaction and command input speed.

but that's what you said

Provide the exact quote. In a post where I specifically provided an example of Total War - a game that can be played successfully as a pure RTT game (a game with no pause since you obviously have no idea what RTT means judging from your post) against the AI. Work on your reading comprehension.

realistic and prestigious rtwp vs arbitrary and dum tb

That's your strawman. Realistic simulation vs abstract ruleset is not a matter of prestige or inherent intellectual requirements needed to succeed in one genre or another. It is a matter of representation: one seeks to simulate reality, the other seeks to replace reality with an abstract ruleset. Like I said before:

There's a place and time for both and both can be fun with plenty of tactical depth.

Learn to read what is written instead of attacking imaginary strawmen.