b464e5 No.16364916
Let's settle it for this debate.
I'm not debating fun factoid or anything, just one simple thing: Realism and if the game teaches you something useful.
Traditional war games such as chess is turn-based, and used by actual military. But nowadays military employs FPS as wargame i.e. Arma.
In my humble opinion, real time is superior because IRL, nobody is gonna to take turn waiting for each other to act, real life strategy must be smooth and continuous, not just simply reacting to the opponent's moves.
Pic related are two examples, Battle Brothers, TBS game about managing a merc band, and Mount & Blade, a real time strategy/action game about managing a merc band/army.
11bb4f No.16364921
>>16364916
>apples are better than oranges!
b464e5 No.16364923
>>16364921
Not saying, just saying which is more REALISTIC?
58ec83 No.16364924
>>16364921
That expression means appraising an apple against an orange as if they were the same. It doesn't mean that two types of things can't be compared.
9ebaa4 No.16364928
>>16364923
Anon, do you find yourself often breathing through your mouth?
58ec83 No.16364930
>>16364916
Your english is a trainwreck but I get your point. What is the inherent value of realism? What does it do for the game?
b464e5 No.16364936
>>16364916
I forgot to add my impression:
1. Battle Brothers: a harder game but the scope is smaller, and you have to micro-manage control everyone, which is unrealistic for a strategy game.
2. Mount and Blade: the scale is bigger, and the troops are perfectly capable of fighting by themselves, you can group them and point them to where they fight, you can put them into formation and since you have cavalry, you can employ plenty of tactics.
So from the simulation and tactics side, I think Mount and Blade is superior.
a1624e No.16364937
>nowadays military with videogames
You're probably thinking of US. They use fucking discord too, you shouldn't take them as a standard.
>In my humble opinion, real time is superior because IRL, nobody is gonna to take turn waiting for each other to act, real life strategy must be smooth and continuous, not just simply reacting to the opponent's moves.
Just a one-sided view of things. One must be able to take the best decisions available to him whether he's given good time to react or not. Turn-based improves one's quality of decisions made, RTS improves on "thinking on your feet". I prefer turn-based because it often gives more food for thought.
b464e5 No.16364943
>>16364930
Inherent value of realism is: you simply learn more if the object is closer to reality.
So for example, if you want to learn real life basic tactics, it is better to play Mount and Blade than Battle Brothers.
021fad No.16364946
>>16364916
In terms of management, I feel like turn based can teach you more applicable skills for the real world. I will agree that RTS games can train you to make a smart, quick, tactical decision, but that's not really going to roll unless you're a manager or officer in a dangerous position. However, financial management, risk/reward with jobs, and time management are all things that can be built up with turn based games. That understanding and forethought can be applied to any field.
How is battle brothers? I've entertained the idea of buying, but the moths in my wallet disagree. Should I just pirate?
b464e5 No.16364948
>>16364937
IMO, there's no difference between the two.
A good decision declared too late is no different than a bad decision.
Turn-based strategy lacks the time equivalence, and depends on the thought of "let's wait and arrive at a good decision" rather than "act now and seize the momentum".
b464e5 No.16364954
>>16364946
Battle Brothers is actually kinda like Mount and Blade, just turn-based.
Except your soldier requires a daily wage, you are limited to 12 troops in open field (the enemy can field way more) and you have to arm them with specific equipment/weapon and micro-manage each of them.
9ebaa4 No.16364957
>>16364936
>which is unrealistic for a strategy game
How the fuck is it unrealistic? Next you'll tell me Command and Conquer or Starcraft are bad strategy games because tanks aren't assembled on a production line and then shipped to the battlefield and because they take place in the future.
>So from the simulation and tactics side, I think Mount and Blade is superior
Bravo, anon, you were able to form an opinion of your own. You'll be sure to get a sticker star on while riding the short bus.
>>16364954
The only similarities shared between BB and M&B is that they're about leading a mercenary company and that you are free to navigate the open world.
They're drastically different in terms of scope, gameplay and design philosophy.
58ec83 No.16364958
>>16364948
Can you see how learning only on-the-fly decision-making can make someone habitually make rash or arbitrary decisions when the right move might be to sit back and analyze information?
b464e5 No.16364961
>>16364957
It is unrealistic, because the thought of micro-managing and arm EVERY troop in the battlefield is unrealistic.
In the field, you have a captain/NCO for that.
Nobody actually commands by saying hey, you go there, shoot that guy two times, put up your shield, wait then go back here. This is too much micro-managing.
58ec83 No.16364963
>>16364958
My point is that if one of them has value, then they both do. Sage for self-reply.
b464e5 No.16364965
>>16364958
This can create a bad habit, but then again, the reverse can be true.
You cannot wait forever to reach a decision, like turn-based games, there's no pause in the real world.
021fad No.16364968
>>16364961
This. Generally battles are won before they're fought.
9ebaa4 No.16364969
>>16364961
>It is unrealistic, because the thought of micro-managing and arm EVERY troop in the battlefield is unrealistic.
And? Are games only allowed to exist if they're realistic? If you want to LARP as a soldier go join the army.
>In the field, you have a captain/NCO for that.
Well, fuckwit, call me when they manage to implement AI that can rival the decision-making skills of an experienced NCO.
>This is too much micro-managing.
In other words, you're a mental cripple.
a1624e No.16364970
>>16364948
Mastery of turn-based games often results in fast decision making without any loss in accuracy - it's for that reason that Blitz Chess still exists today. If one took a decision too slow, then that means that he wasn't a master in the first place - after all, if one takes an entire day to research an optimal move for a single turn of a game, then it's not mastery of the game at all, is it?
Process of improving one's decision making in TBS is similar to RTS, only you get more time at the beginning to consider everything and formulate a pattern for the system. It gives more room to think over at the start and such a thing can be considered beneficial if one thinks of acquiring in-game skill as training. In RTS, you don't get that time, when you're still a scrub your decisions are sloppy and it takes time to adjust to a new system.
b464e5 No.16364974
>>16364969
>And? Are games only allowed to exist if they're realistic? If you want to LARP as a soldier go join the army.
I repeat myself:
>I'm not debating fun factoid or anything, just one simple thing: Realism and if the game teaches you something useful.
>Well, fuckwit, call me when they manage to implement AI that can rival the decision-making skills of an experienced NCO.
Well in Mount and Blade and most RTS games, you can just group units into groups and send them to do specific tasks since they have their own AI.
>In other words, you're a mental cripple.
Just saying that sometimes too much micro-managing doesn't actually teach you.
3f2bd8 No.16364976
>>16364921
This is wrong on so many levels. Couldn't even put oranges above apples.
33392c No.16364977
>>16364916
ideally i like real time the most, as long as micro managing isn't heavily needed outside of combat, turn based is when you have the yips or something but still have high iq
58ec83 No.16364981
>>16364965
Exactly my point. It's no coincidence that they have the opposite flaws. Both are incomplete and unrealistic depictions, each for its own reasons. So if one of them can actually teach you anything, then they both can and neither of them gets a point for that.
b464e5 No.16364982
>>16364970
I think Blitz Chess has some mechanics that are outside of normal TBS i.e. turn-limit or time-limit.
b464e5 No.16364988
>>16364981
Tactical-wise, I think real time still has the advantage since it teaches you to be quick.
Only in long-term strategy, which is yearly move that TBS can kick in.
9ebaa4 No.16364991
>>16364974
>Realism and if the game teaches you something useful.
That's a completely retarded stance to take. Do you think Starcraft can teach you more about principles of war than some grognard tier autism simulator that is turn based?
>you can just group units into groups and send them to do specific tasks since they have their own AI.
I know I'm repeating myself, but you're an idiot. Go read up on "marco vs micro" and how it applies to various flavors of RTS. Hell, most RTT games that put emphasis on realism require a ton of micro because AI is retarded. It's why they usually over you the option of pausing the game. Developers aren't cretins like you, they know the artificial intelligence can't do most tasks independently so in lieu of competent junior officers you get a pause button.
>Just saying that sometimes too much micro-managing doesn't actually teach you.
Why are you trying to learn how to wage war from videogames? Are you an actual, honest-to-God retard?
Hell, just go read on the history of proper wargames and how they were implemented and conducted. Read The Art of Wargaming: A Guide for Professionals and Hobbyists by Peter P. Perla you stupid fuck.
58ec83 No.16364993
>>16364988
Subjectively you can think whatever, but you're trying to make a qualitative statement and you don't have anything to back it up.
b464e5 No.16364999
>>16364991
>That's a completely retarded stance to take. Do you think Starcraft can teach you more about principles of war than some grognard tier autism simulator that is turn based?
Honestly can't tell. What does the grognard tier autism simulator actually teaches you about war?
>I know I'm repeating myself, but you're an idiot. Go read up on "marco vs micro" and how it applies to various flavors of RTS.
Well, there is macro and micro in RTS because in TBS, most things are micro. You micro manage every option.
>Hell, most RTT games that put emphasis on realism require a ton of micro because AI is retarded. It's why they usually over you the option of pausing the game.
Well, agreed, but the pausing option is there to aid micro. Most of the games are still happening in real time.
>
Hell, just go read on the history of proper wargames and how they were implemented and conducted. Read The Art of Wargaming: A Guide for Professionals and Hobbyists by Peter P. Perla you stupid fuck.
I would argue that "proper wargames" are inherently more realistic than actual computer strategy games.
b464e5 No.16365001
>>16364993
Military standard I guess.
The big top generals play chess.
But the grunts play FPS.
9ebaa4 No.16365010
>>16364999
>What does the grognard tier autism simulator actually teaches you about war?
What does Starcraft? You're the one arguing that realism is king.
>Well, there is macro and micro in RTS because in TBS, most things are micro. You micro manage every option.
>I will paint broad strokes of a genre I have no knowledge about because I'm an idiot
>I would argue that "proper wargames" are inherently more realistic than actual computer strategy games.
No shit Sherlock. They're learning tools for officers, not entertainment for leisure time. That being said, they do borrow a lot from commercial wargames and sometimes the military even contracts game designers to work on them.
How about Full Spectrum Warrior? That's a game that derives directly from a military training tool used to teach squad tactics. It's very heavy on the micro.
86141e No.16365011
>>16364937
>US Military
>using discord
What the fuck?
7540ae No.16365018
>>16364916
First thing, Chess ain't a wargame, it's an abstract strategy game.
Second thing, Real Time sucks dick.
Third thing, Mount and Blade is not a strategy game.
Kill yourself OP.
b62800 No.16365027
Somebody call the cops i just witnessed a 261 in progress >>16365018
fbc3be No.16365028
>>16365018
<dat entire post
b464e5 No.16365030
>>16365010
>What does Starcraft? You're the one arguing that realism is king.
Starcraft does have various strategy and tactics pointed to it, with the most successful being zergrush/blitzkrieg.
>No shit Sherlock. They're learning tools for officers, not entertainment for leisure time. That being said, they do borrow a lot from commercial wargames and sometimes the military even contracts game designers to work on them.
Oh shit, I made a mistake, these "proper wargames" are NOT inherently more realistic than actual computer strategy games.
>How about Full Spectrum Warrior? That's a game that derives directly from a military training tool used to teach squad tactics. It's very heavy on the micro.
Very good squad-based tactics game, and while micro-heavy, it's not micro-heavy to the point of pointing where each soldier should shoot.
85a202 No.16365057
Honestly, this is like comparing apples to oranges. RTS teaches you multitasking and how to make the right decisions under limited time. Turn-based strategy is more about long-term strategy, which in itself runs on limited time (hope that ability charges up before that of the enemy does).
You might as well debate whether puzzle games or RPGs are the "superior" option.
e9066e No.16365060
>>16365057
My argument is that RTS also has the long term strategy down.
Just that some RTS march long-term strategy is basically nipping the enemy in the bud, which ends the march in less than 5 minutes.
Imagine a war where, bam, enemy soldiers just pour in and kill every males, children and women and destroy every buildings before you can effectively arm the males.
e9066e No.16365064
>>16365060
>RTS matches*
Typos.
84d4a1 No.16365065
e9066e No.16365066
>>16365065
Not my point.
My point is that RTS also has long term strat.
da609d No.16365084
Realtime like FPS puts scale constraints on the game. You can't simulate the entire 10 years of Vietnam that way. Best you can do is accelerated realtime like in the old Microprose "Command Series" games (Conflict in Vietnam, Crusade in Europe, Decision in The Desert).
Personally I much prefer turn-based games, because I play them to relax. Oh, and it's easier to emulate them too. You don't have to care about setting the exact cycles in dosbox or whatever emulator.
85a202 No.16365103
>>16365060
Of course RTS has long-term strat, but on a smaller scale. There's a reason why 4X games usually take multiple hours to finish while an RTS game that runs its course over three our four usually is considered lengthy.
It's a scale issue. Can't finish the design of a new tank without a couple of months or years, but that rifleman squad at the front needs now orders come the next day. Except a real general wouldn't relegate individual units to sub-commanders, and so forth.
cd5ea8 No.16365233
>>16365103
4X games take longer to finish because they are bigger tbh.
Sins of Solar Empire a RTS/4X also takes very long.
Supreme Commander can also take hours and hours.
870bfc No.16365354
>>16364923
if thats the question you aught to put it in the op. from what you wrote i had no idea thats what you wanted to discuss.
there are maybe two avenues to go about this realism.
towards the player and towards the mission presented in the game.
one would be a more realistic "simulation" because time is absolutely a factor and a clumsy slow chain of command would be at a huge disadvantage.
when turn based, the individual units behave more realistically because every action is deliberate, and ideally people at war would be deliberate.
although now that i think about it war isnt really about ideals and the chaos of war probably prevents all the participants from acting 100% completely organized at times.
so maybe its just as unrealistic, at least until we get to the point where wars are conducted solely through autonomous units and the nanoseconds between strategic calculations and orders are referred to as turns.
e3ea28 No.16365520
>>16364937
>us
>discord
any fcat backing this? it will be laughable when they will sell all the data to the chinks and at the first real war the strategy are already gone
cd5ea8 No.16365525
>>16365354
There is no such thing as one commander micro-managing every action of soldier like in turn-based game.
There is none, just forget that.
Even IRL nowadays with actual drone map and soldiers represented by GPS dots, it plays out more like Real time tactics, not turn-based strategy.
000000 No.16365547
>>16364916
Games are to be fun. Realism is irrelevant to that.
>>16364921
This.
000000 No.16373866
HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES
000000 No.16373956
HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES
000000 No.16374021
HAPAS ARE SUPERIOR TO WHITES