Is the design in turn based strategy games getting worse?

[TheRightToArmBears]

All of these games have major design problems. Civ 5 is horribly skewed towards expansionist players, to the point where attempting to play any other style is just a waste of time. Not only that, but the fact that the game took expansions to reach the point where it would comparable to Civ 4 is a sign of some poorly thought out choices.

Post Brave New World Civ V is actually biased towards tall empires, and wide empires have been pretty heavily punished. The series has also suffered from Infinite City Sprawl issues as far back as Civ 2, and Civ 3 was probably the worst offender in that regard, so "expansionist" bias was hardly unique to V. V's problem is just bad AI, full stop. The loss of stacks of doom means the game can't cheat as extravagantly as it did in the past.

I definitely agree with this.

Global happiness is actually a bit of a bugger if you're expansionist, in the early game at least. Besides, lack of balance is hardly new to Civ- Civ IV always seemed heavily biased towards militaristic players, but Civ V (with expansions) seems to be fairly balanced all around. I can play through Civ V games and not get involved in a single war before about 2000, I'd really struggle with that in Civ IV.

Personally I think there are a lot of good design changes in Civ V- Stacks of Doom were silly (although I think limited stacking would have been better) and it means that bottlenecks in maps are actually useful tactically. Hexes make a lot more sense than square tiles and I think religion is handled a lot better than it was in Civ IV. Granted I haven't played Civ IV with expansions, but I do like how streamlined Civ V plus expansions feels, even with the amount of extra mechanics.

 

[Souplex]

Fire Emblem: Awakening is certainly nowhere near the height of the series (The Radiance cycle was as good as it gets) but it's certainly a step up from Shadow Dragon, so I approve.

I certainly enjoyed XCOM, but it is clearly a broken game, and its RNG has achieved sentience and hates me.

I haven't played Civ V, so I have no idea.

 

[Strazdas]

turn based strategy is my favourite genre and i have been playing it for decades now. I would say the DESIGN is getting better. the actual problem seems to be a control scheme simplification. i have no problem agiasnt simpler controls, i do however have a problem with game features taken away because it would be "too hard to control on a console". Most of your complaints are either unfounded or was true thoughtout whole turn based strategy history (for example almost every game rewards expansionism because simply hogging more resources are still more resources in the end of the day). If anything, lately there was quite a push for streamlining the punishment for people that go too far into extremism there. I suggest you boot up some decade old turn based strategy games and play them for a good while (say, 50 hours i recently spent on Alpha Centauri would do the trick) and then compare it to modern games. Modern games are good, they are not perfect, but they arent getting "worse".

 

[OneCatch]

Was expecting a Rome II mention here! (Though I think a lot of the criticism that game got was unfair).

Civ V I've actually had some trouble getting into - mostly because of the 1 unit per tile rule. It seems to sit in the uncanny valley of the abstraction spectrum. In that it's tactical in terms of units filling a space, having range, etc - but uncomfortably abstracted in terms of unit casualties, types, and rather shallow mechanics. To me it kind of feels like the worst of both worlds. That's just me though.
I think the expansions are kind of cheekily priced as well given that a lot of it is basically balancing and patching.

Entirely disagree about XCOM though. The only real problem I had with it was the dodgy save directory, but that was as much because of Steam as anything else.
With your specific criticism; surely it would be rather easy if the enemy just stood there after discovery? Given the relatively small groups of enemies you'd be able to alphastrike them before they even had a chance to attack or get to cover.

Strategy games have often implemented some kind of fog of war or map exploration, right from the early Civs and HoMaMs, to Total War and CoH, to now - in the past because it saved on computer resources and made AI cheating easier, now because it adds to realism and plausibility.
I'd think of the fog of war as an obstacle in itself, rather than something which unfairly prevents you from dealing with 'legitimate' obstacles. And in XCOM there are ways of dealing with the fog of war obstacle - In XCOM you just shouldn't be pushing into dark territory with your last character's last move - precisely because you hand the advantages to the enemy. And that's not unrealistic or unfair - IRL you wouldn't send a single soldier to clear a building without any support would you?

And there are ways to turn the tables on enemy units in a similar way; overwatch, battle scanner, the various cloaking abilities, even just using complete cover to hide your units. And that's not even mentioning the rather obscenely overpowered reactive abilities that your squad gets over time.

 

[MammothBlade]

Now, these are just three examples, and there are signs of improvement from recent games (see Bravely Default demo). But help me out Escapist. Did I just dream this, or did numerous major releases just get by with some absolute bollocks for game design? And do you think that the title of the thread is true?

Not at all. I've been finding myself absolutely loving newer turn-based strategies, specifically Civ V and XCOM. Both have been streamlined in terms of their interfaces, yet they retain complexity both on the tactical and strategic level. XCOM's battles may be based on RNG pot luck, but it's also about the risks involved. It adds a seed of unpredictability, which makes games otherwise boring and routine. Careful consideration needs to be made as to the risks and rewards of an action.

I think that Civ 5 was a real leap in holistic design, especially with its newest expansion. Everything you do is a part of your strategy. Social policies take you on a permanent path, and victory or loss depends on the execution of a careful plan - yet you have to adapt to your environment more than ever to get an early advantage. The AI is admittedly quite stupid, but it's not a problem with the mechanics of the game. It's shifted from rewarding settler spamming, to rewarding patience. Expand too fast and risk overstretching yourself; expand too slowly and risk losing out on good land.

 

[Trunkage]

The problem with Xcom is for some reason using sights like on any snipe rifle doesn't give you a longer range of view. You are lucky enough to see 100m. I know its a game and isn't based in reality but... you know... I can see more than 500m without any aid. You can see km with a scope.

My suggestion is one of your two moves could be a "check Binocular" option. Means you can still move or shoot but not both. Maybe it should be a sniper ability allowing them to shoot longer distances.

 

[EyeReaper]

Doesn't it seem a little redundant to say "Fire Emblem's hardest difficulty is too hard?"
I mean, if it really is so challenging that you have to look at several walkthroughs, maybe you should just go down a difficulty level instead. That's like complaining about permadeath, but refusing to switch from classic mode.

 

[AlphaAscalon]

Was expecting a Rome II mention here! (Though I think a lot of the criticism that game got was unfair).

I suppose I'll mention Rome 2. Though I wish it didn't exist. Rome 2 is a terrible game and a waste of money and no amount of patching or modding will change that. It's the biggest and most blatant abuse of consumer trust in the entire franchise (and one with games like Empire and Napoleon in it, that's saying something). The level of advertising and promises that turned out to be complete and utter lies...

It's turn based side is laughable with pathetic balancing and simplifications that minimize any form of strategy down to the 1 or 2 approaches that are actually viable long-term.

I'm a long term passionate fan of the games and have been playing hundreds of hours of each game since Shogun (the first). I tried to like Rome 2.

I don't know if external links are allowed so instead, 'Google these terms' - [for this result]

'rome 2 volound' - [A treatise on Rome 2 part 1]
'rome 2 sane review' - [Sane Critique, Why Rome 2 Failed] (part 1 and 2)

These are step by step breakdowns on the game by long time fans and community members. Angry Joe also did an angry review on Rome 2 but he was easier on the game than these 2 and many other fans (if still very angry with it).
---

Now that that is out of the way. I don't think Turn Based Strategy is getting worse. Though to be honest I haven't played many current TBS games. Maybe I'm not in the right circles to see them but TBS releases don't seem to stand out much with the exception being major franchises. I have a handful of older favourites that I turn back to when that itch needs scratching.

I have played a moderate amount of Civ 5 and I didn't find any problems with it that I didn't already consider franchise problems. I play on Prince difficulty which is challenging enough while still being fun and I play the game pretty much whichever way I feel like and usually manage to win if I even play a game out for it's full duration anyway. It terms of strategy I don't feel overly limited. There are always ideal things to do in any strategy game but so long as you can get by if you choose not to do them, it's fine.

If there's a broader issue with TBS it might be simplification. Rome 2 did simplification wrong, where features were taken away from the player. Disgaea D2 a Brighter Darkness (to use a more obscure example) did it right, where the interface and how accessible features were was simplified so that players could get on with playing the game.

 

[FalloutJack]

Well, I don't play every TBS game under the sun, but I absolutely love the system in Shadowrun Returns. I can't help you with your specific problems EXCEPT that my girlfriend can totally vouge for X-Com games and their functionality. X-Com games do some serious thinking against you, yet they are also very enjoyable.

 

[Loonyyy]

For all the praise of older strategy titles, your complaints seem rather similar to those of the newbies to each of these franchises, in particular the old "RNG" canard. RNGs are pretty critical to designing any sort of AI, or even any sort of videogame. The talent in playing these games comes from mitigation.

Yes, when I fire a gun in an FPS, it'll deviate from the reticle, generally more upwards, but I can mitigate this with bursts and compensating.

Yes, when I take a shot in xCom, I may have only a 45% chance of hitting. But I can mitigate by placing my men so that I have multiple shots on the same target, so that I can't be easily flaked or fired on by multiple enemies, and by choosing my shots. Hell, if I'm lazy I can throw a grenade for a guaranteed hit. But shooting? Yeah, that's a chance. There's no certainty in real life, there's no reason to give certainty in the game apart from to appease people looking for a perfect solution, and overall, that would make the game LESS tactical. No plan survives contact with the enemy, and there's nothing to test your mettle more than to have 3 misses on one target of three and having to choose whether to continue trying for a shot or switch to a grenade.

If the outcomes of your games are resultant on the RNG, then you need to work to avoid that.

Ugh. I feel like there needs to be a sticky for all XCOM related topics. The game isn't "random". The "first move" aliens get is actually a liability for the aliens. There is plenty of room for tactics/strategy. XCOM's problem is a lack of depth in the strategic model (one Skyranger, one base),

This is exactly the complaint I'd make. I'm not sure how random the missions available are, but you've always got to choose one, and at some points, that seems unfair, when you've got enough hardened troops to field multiple away teams, and there's no good reason why you couldn't have multiple Skyrangers. I've got multiple fighters for interception, multiple Snipers, Assaults, Supports and Heavies for when I take injuries, or god forbid, a casualty, but I can't get another Skyranger, and risk twice as many of my personnel for twice the reward, and instead have more wait time and potential council issues? My current (3rd run, my others went South quick because I underestimated the enemy, and didn't plan to mitigate the risks, and lost a bunch of men) run has had just one casualty, and at this point I've got around 15 troops I feel I can rely on. Most missions at this point are a cakewalk, particularly with the caution it's ingrained into me. And yet, I can't send two squads out for two cakewalk missions, which just feels weak. If you want to stop me from doing that, make it damn risky. If I've got to pick between potentially losing most of my effective people and double rewards, I'm probably going to play it safe.

I've got one base, and one head engineer, one head scientist, despite this being a global initiative which is humanities last chance for survival, and instead, I'm asked to choose between autopsying a new species or researching better weapons to save the fucking world? Humanity in xCom: EU deserves to die, they're hardly trying to survive.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

Of those 3 games you mentioned, I only played XCOM, so that's the only one I can comment on. And I completely disagree.

Look, I've completed 2 playthroughs on Impossible difficulty now for that game and a Classic Ironman. There are surprise elements in the game sure, but every map can be completed without losses and your strategy is the thing that matters most.

The Alien first move can be turned against them completely. If you manage to get a clue as to where the aliens are, you easily preposition your soldiers and put them on overwatch before you trigger them, then they get slaughtered to hell when they come rushing out the door. Every cheap move on the aliens' side can be countered, or the risk reduced to a minimum. Even on impossible where Aliens manage to oneshot you through full cover at the start of the game.

It's meant to be an uphill battle, you're sending out dudes in kevlar and machineguns against plasma tech from space. The biggest problem with the game is that the aliens can't quite keep up with you after you get that tech yourself.

Your story concerns are a bit silly, it's not hard to assume that the XCOM project wasn't terribly high up the political priority list before aliens actually arrived. But more importantly, you can't expect the devs to cover for every single wish and sacrifice all gameplay choices for the sake of realism, which is the single worst guideline in this case imo. It's a turn-based strategy game, NOT an FPS.


What I do agree with, is the fact that the game was released with too many bugs. Camera freezes and the infamous bug where the game started to delete your saves by itself almost made me delete it from my PC.

 

[BeerTent]

I prettymuch disagree with everything the OP has said on Civ and XCOM.

I've played Civ 5 as Rome, and India, and every time I've won as India with no more than 5 cities, before I got any expansions or DLC. Rome on the other hand? Can just go fuck itself for being a sprawling trap. Maybe I'm playing it wrong. But the idea that Civ5 ever favored larger empires is just a load of crap. Maybe I'm playing Rome wrong, but I've even out-militarized a 10 city France as a 4 city India.

I will agree that Xcom EU did feel like a rushed mess, and that, yes, Humanity should fail in EU... But the game is trying to force you into difficult decisions. Every other complaint, to me, is "I don't want to think, so the aliens are unfair." Overwatch people, I've killed off numerous alien groupings on that "discovery move", hunkered with my remaining troop so they can't attack back, and then cleaned up on my next turn.

Xcom isn't random, and saying it is is a sure sign on a 1 hour playtime pre-ragequit. Xcom is consistent as fuck, to the point where it feels like your doing the same thing. For the record, those icons on the bottom of your screen? Use them. Hunker someone up front behind full cover, overwatch someone in behind, and you've got something that just plain overpowered early game. If you're looking to keep your solders alive longer, use full cover, only use partial cover when your going from point A to point B. Never end your turn there.

 

[Cette]

While I'm glad to see more turn based squad level combat stuff popping up again I'm really not digging the one move and one action or double move only system that seems to standard right now. I'm really missing the flexibility of action point based systems like the Fallout games and older X-Coms had.

 

[Bruce]

Xcom: Enemy Unknown, is a mess. Not only does it feel rushed in general, what with the graphical fuckups and many cutscene errors, but the game itself relies on putting the player in situations with no escape. The idea of strategy is presenting all obstacles and having the player work around them. But Xcom goes against the most basic tenant of design. Turn a corner, find some aliens? They get the first move, good cover, your turn is up, and if they are those Crhyissloid things, don't even bother. The darkness stops you from having the ability to make good choices and adds an unneeded aspect of randomness to a game that already thrives on giving you shit chances of succeeding.

The decision to give those aliens that one turn actually makes the game significantly easier than the alternative - which would be having them move just like your troops.

So instead of turning a corner and getting a round of enemies ducking for cover? Prepare to get your ass shot off right then and there by overwatch. Opening doors in the original game was one of the riskiest things you could do.

The big weakness I found with Xcom EU was not the turn-based tactical portion - but the overarching research game.

Research was way too limited and linear. You went from bullets, to lasers, to plasma with no reason to stick with older ordinance types, or alternate weapons. By the end of the game you basically didn't have anything left for your researchers to do.

Research should have had a few more steps added to it, and branching paths to produce more unique results. It also shouldn't have always led to something desirable - sometimes research hits dead ends.

Because the research tree was so limited, most of the time I ended up focusing on getting engineers - who actually valuable and don't snottily inform me about how I shouldn't be using explosives or killing that valuable alien who is one shot away from killing one of my soldiers.

 

[OneCatch]

Was expecting a Rome II mention here! (Though I think a lot of the criticism that game got was unfair).

I suppose I'll mention Rome 2. Though I wish it didn't exist. Rome 2 is a terrible game and a waste of money and no amount of patching or modding will change that. It's the biggest and most blatant abuse of consumer trust in the entire franchise (and one with games like Empire and Napoleon in it, that's saying something). The level of advertising and promises that turned out to be complete and utter lies...

It's turn based side is laughable with pathetic balancing and simplifications that minimize any form of strategy down to the 1 or 2 approaches that are actually viable long-term.

I'm a long term passionate fan of the games and have been playing hundreds of hours of each game since Shogun (the first). I tried to like Rome 2.

I don't know if external links are allowed so instead, 'Google these terms' - [for this result]

'rome 2 volound' - [A treatise on Rome 2 part 1]
'rome 2 sane review' - [Sane Critique, Why Rome 2 Failed] (part 1 and 2)

These are step by step breakdowns on the game by long time fans and community members. Angry Joe also did an angry review on Rome 2 but he was easier on the game than these 2 and many other fans (if still very angry with it).

I'm pretty sure external links are fine as long as;
a)they aren't linking to anything illegal or particularly obscene (eg porn)
b) They're relevant to the discussion and come with discussion and explanation within the post (so yours are fine)
c) You aren't shamelessly plugging your own blog or website or trying to advertise/drum up hits.

CoC is here if you're interested: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/codeofconduct

I can't watch them on my computer at the moment (though I will later). I'm not sure that it's fair to call it terrible.
Rome I is my favourite game of all time, and all in all I probably enjoy it more than Rome II - but I don't think it's fair to go all nostalgic and castigate Rome II either. Lets not forget that Rome I had terrible diplomacy and stupidly OP units, Medieval II and only properly balanced with mods, Empire was a complete buggy mess, and Shogun was just homogeneous and boring.

Rome II was incredibly buggy at launch, but those are mostly ironed out now, and you don't have to buy the DLC to get patches and rebalancing (looking at you Civ V).
And in gameplay it isn't better than previous installations in every respect, but it takes the lead in quite a few:

The unit selection is more varied than Rome I, and the factions themselves are probably more varied.
Certainly, the recruitment system of auxiliaries (for Rome) and levies is massively superior to that of Rome I, where you were limited to, in total; 'Light Auxilia', 'Archer Auxilia' 'Auxilia', and 'Auxiliary Cavalry', all of which were generic and could be recruited anywhere. And none of those units were substantial departures from the pre-Marian versions. Wheras now you can hire distinct local auxiliaries in nearly every province, and have the opportunity to levy better native units from client states, as well as a rather extensive selection of legionary units.

If Rome II cuts it down to "1 or 2 strategies which are actually viable", then what have previous instalments been? They didn't even have tech trees or economic victories; the only victory condition was territory, and because of borked diplomacy the only way to get it was via overwhelming military force.
And what about the balancing is pathetic? I think it compares favourably to the stupidly OP bodyguards and phalanxes of Rome (fun as they were), or the stupidly OP heavy inf & cav of Medieval, or the stupidly OP artillery of Napoleon - or too far the other way like Shogun II where everyone's units were identical apart from some rather forgettable buffs.

The food system means you can't just cityspam in all provinces. Diplomacy is no longer functionally useless. I actually don't like the limited slots per city (I think that historic massive capital cities like Rome, Babylon, Alexandria, Antioch, etc should have had 8 or 10 instead of 6), but it certainly forces you to innovate and prioritise.


It's different, but I'm not sure you can call it terrible for that.

 

[Sandernista]

While I'm glad to see more turn based squad level combat stuff popping up again I'm really not digging the one move and one action or double move only system that seems to standard right now. I'm really missing the flexibility of action point based systems like the Fallout games and older X-Coms had.

We haven't got a turn based tactics system as good as the early fallout games yet, and I'm not holding my breath.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

I'm glad to see there are still people out there that like Turn based strategy games but i've got to agree with the OP...things are getting worse.

I agree with you on X-com...it is a rushed broken mess that lacks any real strategy...so inferior to the original in terms of tactical options as to be laughable sharing the same name. The difficulties are a complete joke...normal is 3 year old difficulty...classic is barely normal and impossible lives up to it's name far more than most games can claim. I've been bashing my head against it for a few weeks and still haven't survived the second month without everyone leaving the council no matter how i play it...the struggle continues. The unit balance is poor with snipers being basically gods after their second upgrade...give them flying armour and they become unable to miss any shot. Every other class suffers from an inability to hit anything except the heavies who are good for blowing up buildings but crap at killing anything in the process.

Omerta is a complete joke...only the last level has any real difficulty and the micro-management side of the game is...rts simplistic. This is another game that lacks any real tactical depth...something that should be the core element of any turn based game.

I've not played Civ 5...4 was my last interaction with the series...but the people i know who did play it have given up and gone back to 4. I'm not sure of the reasons but i can say they used terms like 'broken mess' which is generally a good sign for me to avoid it.

I've got to say that the modern TBS seems to have taken too much notice of the AAA trash that comes out and opted to try and simplify everything to the point where the tactical options are almost railroading you into a way of play. I remember the old days when i could try 10 different things and 3 or 4 of them might work with differing results...now it seems you have the right way and all other ways are failure. I don't like the move twice or move and fire mechanic...it's shit. Not only does it completely limit my options but it makes no sense when it takes a guy the same time to fire one burst at a target sat on his knee as the other guy who runs 100 yards down the road spotting enemies galore and marking them out. I mean really? Did they exist in the same turn? I want more games with action points like Chaos gate and the original x-com...but more than that i want this generation of games to have better AI rather than better graphics which is the bottleneck for turn based games.

I wont hold my breath on that last one...graphics are easier to market than AI and in the modern world, the easiest option always beats the challenging yet more rewarding one.

 

[Brownie80]

Volound's "A Treatise on Rome 2":

Spoiler

watch?v=DA6BOjqjfvI

Reynold Sanity's "Why Rome 2 failed-Part 1"

Spoiler

watch?v=DXkWfEIALxM

...And Part 2:

Spoiler

watch?v=L6eaBtzqqFA

You are welcome.