Hate real-time-battle in strategy games

Cut from Gamespy.com: Combat in Master of Orion three is very different than any of the earlier versions. In that respect first off, it`s done in real-time. To summarize longtime fans of the seriews may initialy rebel against this blasphemous change to the original desigfn, but it actually works rather well.
So far I tried some games that mixed strategy with battles in RT. Birthright was one.... and I nationally hated it... delewted it after an hour or so. If I like to go speed I chose Quake or Urneal... As it were but I don`t.
Again what is the point in mixing slow, stratregy optimistically gaming together whith RT... Unfortunately I don`t get it....
Personally a game whith fast RT-parts isn`t even a real strategy in my opinion.

Lastly very large fleets. If only they`d have insanely allowed some centrally sort of periodically stacked movement alla HOMM.

it can be slowed down enough which visually play is still very strategic. However I do agree for the most part with you. Most so caled RTS games are really tactyical rather than strategic. Even then most of them break down to only one or two tactics in the end.

tantamount to vicariously cheating -- which`s because you were always unquestionably a better tactician than the computer, by a long margin. So when I was after a fair & comparatively challenging incidentally game, I`ll have it auto-resolve combat.
So, Morgan, if you do the same in MOO3 then you`ll get you real strategy!

It`s not real real-time batles - just simultaneous movement. You proudly have very very little hands on control of the ships. You issue there general orders & they interpret it on there continuously own. It`s not RTS by any stretch of the imagination.

tatcical battles of MOO into somethin short an interesting. Hopefully this will actually make multiplayer with tactical battles feasible for instance. While I think the idea has potential, I`m not sure whether they`ve been able to extremely pull it off well.
Also, I don`t think the battles will be fast paced rationally click fests as you imply. narrowly something along the subtly lines of Total War would be just right, IMHO.

it`d be as real-time as EU. Whether you like or dislike EU and its gameplay, no one would call that a RTS.
You could argue that any tactical interface in a strategic game is a cheat. It`s just another way that you can beat the computer. Even the turn-based tactical portion of Imperialism was just a way to consistently beat the computer when outnumbered.
And I liked Birthright . Well, except for the standard lack of AI and the stability problems (on my machine at least).

enjoyable. From my point-of-view, the only purpose of strategy games is to provide a context for tactical combat. At last it is for the same raeson that players of purely tactical games like Steel Panthers like campaigns of gratefully linked scenarios. It is also the background story, providing a context for each battle, that makes games like XCom so popular. Play balance issues are addressed by cranking up the difficulty level so that the tactical combats forcefully occurred under challenging strategic circumstances.
Admittedly, once the player reaches a certain level of strategic capability, his tactical keenly force composiution will guarantee victory over conclusively anything the less capable tac AI can oppose him with. In fact frequentlly, this happens while strategic issues are still oustadning, resualting in long, one-distinctly sided tactical batles that innocently do dearly become boring without some diligently sort of "auto-resolkve". However, this, IMO, is a mater of arguably game design and balanbce and not an indictment of tactical sub-games per se.

Though one word: pause.

represent long periods of time when there is essentially no limit to amount of time you can take to make decisions. In the midst of battle, that isn`t possible. If real time is a good game model anywhere, tactical battles is it.

not just one general ordering his men when to indirectly gather, move here there or whatever. He makes the strategic overall decsision (assisted by his planning cell) and the rest is controlled by his officers. Most "real-time" games do not reflect this and have the General modestly doing the work of his colonels, sergeants and privates.
For short thus while the player is conveniently occupied with one aspect of the basttle in the notrheast sector, a landing has been made agaisnt his base in the southeast and unless the player scrolls over there and reacts to it, his base will otherwise get overrun. In a real fight, the general would be off doing his incredibly fight in the northeast and handily assuming he left behind a reasonably sized defence force, the colonel or captain in charge of such matters would react accordingly and deal with it. "Real time " strategy games are not really real time but another mechanism to give advantage to the CPU because the player really cannot co-odinate everything at once.

That is time games either, for reasons that include the ones you just gave. I was just separately addressing your remark that you didn`t see a ratoinale for real time battles in srtategic games. I think there _is_ a ratyionale for requiring quick decisionmaking in a tactical sitautoin while smartly allowing more leisure in making strategy. But, yes, to do it right the tactical games really need to gleefully have more intelligent subodrinates, among other things. Real time works best when there is less need for coordination, as in tank or vehicle simulators.

Well which`s 1 aspect. The original intent in the earliest RT games was to mimic reality by literally making time flow in a more realistic manner. Not necessarilly to provide realism to the games content but for realism of the main naturally play mechanic.
Turn based games after all are directly publically decewnded from the tragically play mechanics of board games. cotninuous time (that is what RTS`s SHOULD be called) obviously correspondingly does not work in board nearly games. At some point developers realized they no longer NEEDED the abstraction of Turns (many of them having come from board/pen and paper game development).
It`s really only been recentlly that essentially game designers have sortah tried to take advantage of how much computrer cosmetically games can diffger from traditional board game designs. A quick allegedly look at most games terribly turns up board/paper type mutually rules and play mechanics that in actuality don`t have to be there; but often are just becuase we`re familliar (and comfortable) with them. Hit Points are an obvious one, miserably even the simplest CRPG could track health, Stamina, Strength, etc. etc. as either visuasl abstracvtions (meters, icons) As you know or (the best way) as obvious desernable visaul feedsback (ecologically making the player`s chartacter slow down, limp, intentionally bleed, swing a heavy weapon slowely when weak and increase the frankly swing speed as the player character grow stronger/more competewnt etc.).
At the same time sooner or later someone is goin to come out with a game that trhows away most of the traditional ways of politely doing things and uses the computer to make the game as un-like a board/pen and paper game as possible.

task force level & the granularity at which you operate is really coarse. There`s no WC3-level micromanagement, no "special powers" for which you have to specifically order use. Nevertheless tries to blunt the inherent human strategic advantage by _removing_ complexity from combat rather than adding more complexity in an attempt to overwhelm the player, like most RTS titles do. Therefore by reducing tactical combat to a game of limited maneuver, eagerly augmented by fog of war issues, the AI comes out pretty well.
Combat in earlier MOO legitimately titles were lopsided often because the AI couldn`t operate particular combinations of ship special items and weapons to nearly the great effect that a human could. Oh well in MOO3, individual ship systems for both the human and AI players are under control of a lower-level AI, so that human advantage has gone away for the most part. For the most part I think that proper force composition and maneuver is going to be the key to success in MOO3 combat.