There are some good criticisms of RTwP combat in the thread, but since I'd rather fight than get all faggy, I'm going to pick on the more ludicrous criticisms. I speak of RTwP in it's capacity to TB systems rather than it's ability to dumb down CRPGs. So don't waste my time with "but in NWN...blah" responses.
human shield said:
Real time is not conductive of resource management gameplay. TB and Phase-based is about effective using limited actions which is good for tactics. RT promotes reaction which is good for action
EU and the other Paradox games, a few space battle games that I can't recall the name of at the moment, and even UFO After*. The latter, I found myself struggling with the pause functionaly, but it wasn't about uber-micro.
cutterjohn said:
RTWP just is a complete and total failure. AI design in every RT game is so shitty that playing against(or with) computer A"I" controlled players is a joke.
The paradox games show that AI for a RTwP game is tricky, but certainly possible. They've made countless improvements on their model over the years. The UFO people have made improvements each game as well. Your NWN follower stuck in a corner is not reason to damn RTwP forever.
elander_ said:
You can't pause a real fight either. My opinion is either play it TB or play it RT. There's no middle man that can do better than both in their domain.
RTwP is a competitor of TB, not a compromise of RT and TB. The main benefits of RTwP over TB are:
* actions occur smoothly on a single timeline, and are affected by all earlier actions
* actions take as long as they should rather than always 1 turn.
* with good time management tools, you have more control over actions than in TB
The main challenge to RTwP is usability. There are plenty of improvements to be made in time management, macroing, ai.
TB trains your strategical thinking and planning and RT trains your reflexes and conditioning.
A good RTwP system is just as strategical as TB. RTwP is more "natural" than a TB game, in that there are fewer artifacts to manipulate. Read through strategy hints for your favorite TB games, how many of the tips are specific to their TB implementation? I hesitate to consider this a benefit, because I enjoy learning the quirks of each new ruleset. But tactics in say JA2 don't carry over to FA:T in the same way tactics from UFO game carry over to E5.
Jed said:
If RT combat is so great for party-based cRPGs, why does it need the crutch of pause?
See my previous response. RTwP isn't about giving you a breather from mayhem, it's about being able to exercise tactics/strategy without TB artifacts.
Limorkill said:
I either want to play tactically or not, but not a bit of both. If I am playing tactically then I want to control everything, which means I will be pausing a lot, which means the real-time element is kind of pointless.
Only because you don't get the point or RTwP. Playing a RTwP game using lots of pausing and slowed time is a gaming style closer to TB than RT. Tedius in different ways than TB, but both require strategy and planning.
doctor_kaz said:
Because turn-based is still much more eloquent and tactical. Much more. RTWP is not the equivalent of turn-based. It's not even close.
I strongly suspect that if you sampled real special forces training, you would see much more in common with E5 than JA2. E5 can't compete in eloquence, but we are comparing a very mature mechanic to one in it's infancy. Comparing JA2 to some of the 70's TB rulesets might offer some insight into just how much improvement can be made.
Anyone who thinks so clearly has never played Temple of Elemental Evil and compared it to Icewind Dale.
Anyone that believes TB to be as complex as RTwP clearly has never played EU III and compared it to Risk.
Later tonight, I'll post some thoughts on RTwP RPGs I've played.