Why do you play or don't play turn based strategy games?

Hello

We're developing a TBS (check it out in IndieDB. Not much information yet, but that'll change to better) game for computers (Win/Mac/Linux) and would like to know at this development cycle why people play TBS games and why do they not? We're aiming to create a fresh TBS game to the markets and would love to hear from you other developers and gamers about your opinions regarding TBS games from where we can further improve our system.

So, why do you play or don't play turn based strategies? What would you like to see in TBS games?

 

You need to provide people with a link or name if you want them to check it out!

I love Civ series because of the scale. It has a good balance of building and action. However I play it one way, expand as fast as I can, build up my armies and attttttaccck.

 

You have time to think. I like Starcraft and all, but sometimes I need a different game, where I can stop and think instead of being under constant pressure. I like games that give you limited, but meaningful choices (Magic the Gathering, Agricola, etc), but my favorite TBS is still Master of Magic, as broken and old it might be, the spells and their combinations are extreme

 

the only tbs game ive ever cared for is the ufo/xcom series.

 

Well I love strategy games in general because they're fun, no exception with TBS. I like Civilization a lot, probably because of the whole Empire building aspect, also really like XCOM.

 

I still play Civ 4 every chance I get, but hadn't had much time to get into any of the newer games.

 

I have loved turn based strategy games for a long time - Laser Squad and Chaos/Lords of Chaos are classics in my opinion. As others have mentioned Civilization is an excellent example of successful turn based strategy. That all said, I think turn based games are really going to find a home on mobile - you can dip into and out off a turn based game easily and that is great for mobile.

What do I like about turn based strategy - I like the focus on strategy. RTS can end up becoming a clicks per minute micro-management affair, with TBS you have time to really consider your move. Best of luck with your game.

 

I second that. TBS actually feels more real to me than RTS (I like both though), because while RTS may be more realistic in how battles/movement/building things *look*, I feel like TBS forces you into a much more deliberate form of planning and calculation that feels more akin to what goes on in the real world. For instance, the famous British "war room" (I'm forgetting it's name right now) you see in all those WW2 movies and TV shows always have that huge board with all the pieces on it where they would keep track of what was going on. TBS games like civilization feel very much like this real-life equivalent to me.

 

I have never been able to get into a turn based strategy game. Civilization fails to peak my interest because there's too much going on and I feel like I'm just randomly clicking options without understanding what they mean.

That said, I'm still looking for a good one that breaks my stereotypes. I normally hate roguelikes, for example, but I'm having a blast with FTL and Rogue Legacy.

 

Thinking back, vast majority of my favorite games which I've played for years have been turn based, although not necessarily strategy games per se. All RPG games used to be turn based as well. RTS games to me feel more like cheap arcade games with some strategy elements. The experience is very different.

 

Typically I don't like turn based strategy games because they're boring to me. Poor tbs games tend to drop the strategy portion and it becomes a cycle of hit, get hit, hit, miss, hit, get hit, etc. Sometimes it's really simple things like small screens with half a sentence of text and being unable to go to the rest of the sentence until the game is done displaying the message. I've never been impressed by graphics, or drawn in, by a tbs game (They don't have to be AAA, I like meatboy's graphics, too). In a West vs. East disparity, I have to say I dislike the japanese approach to characters--I like to make mine and many tbs games like to give you premade characters and stories.

I've never really played a TBS I've ever liked and I think the older I get the less likely I am to try.

 

@TheRaider

My fault. I though my signature would show up where the link would've been. Here's the link to IndieDB : http://www.indiedb.com/games/galactic-conquerors

Pretty much the reason I love civ series alos. What's your opinion about the scale and if it's smaller scaled than CIV games? Would that hurt TBS game?
@SpaceMammoth

May I ask why you loved these games? What made them thriling. And indeed. With new License terms (we're on low budget team) we're seriously considering the mobile market. Would you agree that the mobile devices could bring back hot seat features to games?
@FreeTimeDeb

What in your opinion TBS game should work like in order to make it more appealed to you?

In general it's good to see there's players still there that like TBS games as our team does too. Most of us have played Heroes III and some of us other tbs games like battle for wesnoth, x com and so forth. As we're planning ( and at the moment done) system that makes the games more action paced and thus making the games take less time, we'd also like to know your opinion would that be a good thing? If the TBS is more action paced (without forgetting the strategy) would you still play it?

 

The game I have played for the longest time in my life is Civilization, and I started with Civ 1 in its day. Currently I can't stop myself from returning to Civilization Revolution in PS3 from time to time, which is a dumbed down version, but it is simpler to play and provides a great amount of painless entertainment. I think single-player TBS games should be relaxing, since you are free to pay as much attention to the game as you want. Also, you can spend a lot of time thinking your options. When combined with crafting this turns into a very interesting exercise for your brain. But the game should meet a balance between management and relaxation. The problem with micromanagement is that at some point you have to work and wait too much for a strategy to develop. With automated tasks you can alleviate the player's anxiety and keep him into a relaxed state. This doesn't mean the player won't be doing anything, or that the brain is resting, but that the player is focused on a higher goal. The player should be able to stop this automation and return to the low level tasks whenever is required.

 

Casual and mobile games are for immediate satisfaction, I think?

 

You can have smaller scale tbs games, the experience is just different. Even Civ reduced that for the mobile version with smaller worlds and a faster game.

 

The thing I like about turn based games is it usually(or at least it used to) indicate some real work went into the game mechanics aside from graphics and animation. I like to play games that have interesting or complex rules that present a challenge and can keep me entertained for a longer period of time than slinging the latest angry bird at some hippos can provide. Turn based should make you think a bit rather than just spamming a attack button.

After making my first app(a children's game for my son) I went through a discouraging phase where I worked on several games in rapid succession only to find halfway through they had no "meat" and if I don't love the game I am working on I can't finish it.

I finally settled on a roguelike because it really made me sit down and plan out a deep and (hopefully) fun and easy to use system before writing the first line of code. This was a much needed reality check for me to remember why I got interested in game development, not to make the next angry birds but to make the next game that is fun and challenging on a more strategic level, and most importantly something I would want to play.

 

How I see mobile platform can be more than casual games (a'la Angry Birds). Te mobile devices have improved their performance and in my opinion mobile devices are our new GBA and other portable gaming devices.

Indeed, what we're trying to do with our team is do a game that wouldn't be just "spam the button and hope you won't miss". Do you find the mechanics of the game should be the thing that creates the thinking process or do you find the map design more or less equal to actual game mechanics?

At this point I'd like to thank you all for your asnwers, they've been valuable to our team and we've discussed several things based on your replies.

 

If you haven't tried Hero Academy, I'd recommend it, simply for the research value. While the maps shake things up, the possible interactions between the teams make for the majority of gameplay. It's human vs. human only, so game balance is extremely important. I really like how you can try many different things on your turn before you commit. Also, I like how the only randomness is in unit draws; there's no randomness in combat.

Chess, of course, is the quintessential example of a TBS game where the mechanics are what count.

I really enjoyed Panzer General II, III, and Pacific General, as well. Maps were a big part of why those were fun, but so were the RPG elements (gaining experience, buying new units, getting prototypes and leaders, etc.). That worked because the turn-based battles were linked in campaigns, in which you carried units from one battle to the next. Fantasy War is another example of that sort of TBS game.

Disciples II comes to mind a different kind of TBS game. It had a world strategy map, where you explored, found treasure, defended cities, built units, and started battles. That actual turn-based battles had no movement, but that very simplicity lent itself to an amazing depth of possibilities.

Heroes of Might and Magic had a strategy map layer very similar to Disciples. It's turn-based combat system was completely different, though: you basically needed stacks of as many of the same kind of unit as possible. There were a lot of different units and abilities, which made the combat engaging.

Both Disciples and HoMM, by the way, feel like the strategy map is one big game of "whack-a-mole" (gain one city, lose another; you can't defend everything).

King's Bounty solves that by taking the combat of HoMM and making it based on a single party, so that you don't need to capture and garrison cities; you just go around exploring, fighting, and getting stronger.

TBS games have lots of permutations and combinations. Be interesting to see what you all come up with.

 

I would say the mechanics of the game are most important over all, but unless you are creating the next backgammon/chess(as was mentioned) your map will probably need to add something to the experience as well. It could be as simple as cool background art or an interesting way to do exploration, capture points, etc.

The key to me is finding that balance between complexity/depth in the mechanics and ease of use. Easy to use, difficult to master, seems to be a well proven and tested recipe for success in many strategy games I have played. The challenge as a developer of a turn based game is precisely that players do have time to think, so if you don't have rock solid and interesting gameplay it will fall apart much quicker than when they are playing a game just spamming bullets and looking at the pretty animations and artwork. Heroes Academy is a great game to study for turn based as pnelson mentioned.