Civ 4, is it better when all is said and done?

[Llyranor]

You would think so, wouldn't you?

[metadigital]

I played a couple of hours and I can see no real major differance in concept from the usual RTS formula "Build that so you can build this and this so that you may spam forth massive amounts of these units and crush the enemy" except that it is turnbased.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

TURNBASED = Better for strategy

Also, Civ invented strategy while Real Time may have referred (erroneously) to total length of time it took for celluloid films or yarns to unroll.

 

What is kewl about Civ 4 is the richness of options available for progression towards success, and the multiplicity of different interactions between these options as manefested against a backdrop of different background environmental particulars

 

Culture and religion are particlarly interesting for me (as I still ain't played SMAC): but I soon discovered that changing to a new prophet each time one pops up is not the best strategy ... "

[Llyranor]

Yeah, Civ4 has kind of ruined standard RTS games for me now. I've never liked base building/resource gathering/teching in RTS, since it was pretty much a matter of memorized automation and improving your click-per-second skills. Not to mention that Civ4 has much more enjoyable tactical combat now. I prefer it both strategy and tactics-wise.

 

Civ4

 

(Hopefully Supreme Commander and Sins of a Solar Empire will get me back into RTS, but I don't foresee any other one out soon that might do this)

[alanschu]

I believe the term you are looking for, for most RTS games, is mechanistic

[Nick_i_am]

Eactly, no RTS to date has *really* been realtime STRATEGY.

[alanschu]

Heh, strategy is definitely not the appropriate word. A nitpicker would say they are real time tactical games

[Nick_i_am]

Go go Supreme Commander and Sins of a Solar empire!

 

These are the two games I am currently hoping will actually put some 'S' into RTS.