eon wrote:... My logic is saying that if you remove end turn constraint, you'll end up A.I. script to run indefinetely, till stopped by some list of breaks. But I'm not programmer. I wish I could learn this.
I am not a programmer either [hobbyist one at most]. But I can give you an opinion based on example from Fallout 2. In that game, the player character could often be attacked by three or more armored enemies that could each potentially kill the PC in one shot. Done turn based style, the player could try to flee, or at least engage the enemy group with some kind of tactic... But done realtime style, the PC would very likely die each time all three (or more) of them shot at [him]. Done crudely, a switch between realtime & turn based combat style could likely mean that PC rarely wins using realtime, unless the encounters are changed; but those changes might enable the turn based player to trivially win the fight —every time.
So that might basically mean having two different games grafted into one... which usually isn't a great idea IMO. "
Myth The Fallen Lords" is one of the best RTS games that I know of, but I think it would be ruined, or badly convoluted if made to accommodate an optional turn based combat sub-system.
I believe that Arcanum's problems likely stemmed from their best efforts to merge the two systems —not being good enough; and they were very experienced game designers.
In general [it seems to me] that games should focus on doing one thing well, rather than doing multiple things passably. It seems a curse of the recent industry that developers commonly make games to please multiple preference... and never (or rarely ever) truly impress any particular segment of players.
If they changed Druidstone today, I think could enjoy either style [RT or TB], but probably not with the option for both.
