Brigade E5 - a promising tactical game.

[Vault Dweller]

Balor, we know what RT with pause is, so no need to try to sell it as "teh bestest systam evar!"(tm). You like it? We are very happy for you. You think it's better than any other system? We are happy for you again, but please don't try to pretend that this system is something it's not.

As for "for some reasons" comment, does that mean that you've failed to understand my clearly explained position? Should I try again using small words and capital letters?

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Okay, while RTwP has it's uses, it's still, in no way shape or form, better than true TB. Why? Because the AI tends to be gronky and unless you're going to sit there and constantly hit the space bar, your units will end up screwing you somehow in the end with some stupid maneuver you didn't want them to do but you were too busy watching unit x to notice unit b pulling something out it's ass.

 

[LlamaGod]

To make a long discussion sort, if you think real-time has tactical advantages over turn-based, you're an idiot.

 

[Balor]

does that mean that you've failed to understand my clearly explained position?

He-he-he, no, that was just to spite you. :twisted:
I understand your position... I just don't understand why you think that some 'features' of TB as beneficial. Don't understand in a way like one who hates oranges will never understand one who adores it.

Because the AI tends to be gronky and unless you're going to sit there and constantly hit the space bar...

That's for usual RTwP. In SPM it's pressed automatically for you, if it something of note happens, or you run out of orders. And automatically depressed if you assign a new order...
Anyway.... you saw the link to the tech demo of the game?
Well, PLAY it before you say how much it sucks!
And while you do, come up with better arguments then:
RTwP sucks in any shape or form, because it's RTwP, and it MUST suck!
Play a bit, come up with situations you think as bad, and THEN say that it sucks.
And, to make a it short, SPM does not FEEL like RT. It feels much like TB in all respects... but with no flaws of it. I'd hate to play a tactical game in RT or simple RTwP myself. But it's not RT, and even RTwP.
P.S.
Btw, the demo is rather old, so it's bug-ridden and slow. (Well, like any tech demo, I guess). But gives you idea how SPM works. And it DOES work.

 

[Fez]

Wow, big fonts. Owned.

 

[Balor]

Heh, I'm just tired of people judging the game simply 'because it must suck, period'.
I thought it's a purely Volournical trait. Perhaps they just failed to see it? Well, hence the big fonts.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Volournical!

 

[Fez]

Another one for the urban dictionary.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

I'm not judging the game. I'm judging the system. I could care less about the game at the moment. I've never enjoyed RTwP and I can't see any game, no matter how good, changing my mind. Even the KOTOR series, which I loved alot, could not change my mind on this. The system has NOTHING on true turn-based and is even worse than true RT when it comes to quality of AI.

 

[Balor]

An other 'This sucks, because it must suck' argument. Aren’t you tired of it yet?
Why don’t you d/l it, and post you actual impressions, not thoughts? You all laugh at people who judge games/systems without actually playing it, but now you do exactly the same thing.
And about AI - in the last build I saw, the AI was rather smart - it did run away from grenades (is it possible in TB? NO WAY!), did 'circling-around' maneuvers... behaved rather realistically in the night battles... (Like, if you shoot some weak bastard with silenced rifle, he’d actually run AWAY, scared shitless, calling for help... unless instantly killed, of course).

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

For the fiftieth goddamn fucking time, open up your eyes and READ WHAT I WROTE!!!! FUCKING CHRIST!!

I AM NOT SLAMMING THE GAME YOU FUCKING TWIT!! STOP BEING A CRYBABY! I AM SLAMMING RTwP!! I DON'T CARE HOW GOOD THE FUCKING GAME IS, RTwP IS CRAP!!! CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP!!!! GOT IT!!!???

 

[Fez]

I'd say you just made Otaku burst a blood vessel. Poor sod.

 

[Balor]

I AM NOT SLAMMING THE GAME YOU FUCKING TWIT!! STOP BEING A CRYBABY! I AM SLAMMING RTwP!! I DON'T CARE HOW GOOD THE FUCKING GAME IS, RTwP IS CRAP!!! CRAP CRAP CRAP CRAP!!!! GOT IT!!!???

That's the whole point! The question is, it's NOT classic RTwP!
I guess you compare the system to one of BG, for instance? They are absolutely different in feel, I can tell you that.
That's why I'm begging you to try the system first - and THEN say how retarded SPM system is (not just the game overall).
And I wholeheartely agree that classic RTwP - sucks, big time (if better then simple RT... depends on situation, tho).
And I also like TB games, for same reasons.
But, let me repeat it again :twisted: :
SPM has all the pluses of TB and RT while (well, almost) not having any minuses of those. I'm not talking about vanilla RTwP!
You see? I agree with you. But if you want to judge SPM (not just RTwP) - go play the demo!
(I wonder if it's patched, tho. W/o patches, it's nigh unplayable).

 

[Vi]

Okay. I've said it a bazillion times and I'll say it again. There is no way realtime can be more realistic than turn-based unless you, the person behind the computer, have all the training that the unit you are controlling in realtime has. It's just not going to happen. Why? Because you cannot think like that unit is supposed to in a realtime environment. You don't have all the training that unit has in whatever field they are endeavouring in. With turn-based, you have the option of going over every detail of your units abilities and choosing the right one for the situation. Something they WOULD be able to do in realtime because they are trained for it. That is more realistic to me.

That's right for classical RT, partially right for classical RTwP, absolutely wrong for SPM. As Balor said bazillion times, with SPM you have just the same control options as with classical TB.

The idea of SPM is that you are not to think in a realtime environment. You always have the option of going over every detail of your units abilities and choosing the right one for the situation.

Please give me an example of what you think is possible with TB and impossible with SPM and I'll describe why you are wrong

 

[Crnobog]

I don't mind the realtime-or-what's-it-called combat and I'll definately be checking this game out. Any info on the release date or a demo? And is there some magical way to see english version of the official site?

[edit] besides equiping the ring, that is

 

[obediah]

Well everyone has their "curmudgeon card", and it looks like quite a few codexers are playing theirs regarding non turn-based combat. For a group that craves innovation over all else, I'm kind of surprised that more people aren't excited about new combat models that attempt to maintain the flow and planning of turn based combat, without the crazy-stupid reality problems. Most RT and RTwP games out there were made to dumb down combat and make it twitchy. A look at Combat Mission or Hearts of Iron should show even the most bitter of codexers that there is a lot of potential in RT variants.

Maybe people are just pissed that in Fallout 3 they won't be able to take one point to go around corner, fire twice, and then go back around the corner to hide during the oppponents turn over and over until everything is dead without taking a shot.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Statement to prevent the usual mud slinging and ASSumptions that may follow: I can equally enjoy turnbased, realtime and realtime with pause games, although admitedly my preference lies in turnbased. However, I try to look at all of them as objectively as I can.

Turn based is required to allow you to be able to sift through the options available to you and choose the right course.

Realtime with pause's capable of this as well. Note, one of the justifications of turnbased is the ability it gives you to browse through an intricate and option-filled interface in your own time, allowing you to choose from a plethora of options in your own pace. This abstraction of turnbased is just as possible in realtime with pause, because if you can pause the game, then you have all the time you want to consider your next move from a wide range of options. This isn't as possible in realtime because the interface, and to an extent the options, are simplified in nature and size because of the hectic nature of it.

While not an element that would prove realtime with pause to be better than turnbased, it's nonetheless something that is on equal terms for both systems. In this case, pure realtime seems to be the only loser.

RTwP systems providing much more realism than TB, but offering the same ability to plan at your own pace.

Not quite. Realtime with pause presents as much realism as turnbased, at best, but not more. What do you find more realistic in realtime than in turnbased? Is it that particular representation of movement, or more specifically, the simultaneous execution of all actions, that it all happens simultaneously (ie, in realtime)? I find this is often brought up, or considered to be, the prime example of how and why realtime with pause (and realtime itself) is more realistic than turnbased. The main problem with this is that it's just lulling people into a false sense of realism. Yes, in reality, everything happens simultaneously, as opposed to individual turns as they occur in turnbased. But sequenced, individual actions carried out in their own turns is as unrealistic as the ability to pause the entire gameworld to suit our own needs. Interruptions in the flow of the combat, wheter natural to the system or executed by the player, are unrealistic. Just as in reality no one moves in turns while everyone else waits for their movement, there is also no means of freezing everyone around and give orders.

You could always tell me that these interruptions are needed for each system and as such are beyond criticism in regards to a lack of realism, and instead that you believe things like actual movement and combat aren't realistic.

If that is the case, then I see no problem either way. Simple movement in most turnbased games is realistic in the sense that its simultaneous with whatever is working at the moment in the gameworld (unless we're talking of games where everything takes turns even outside of combat, which is just bad). As for combat movement, again, intrinsic to each system... Is turnbased in combat as realistic as realtime in regards to movement? No. Is turnbased in combat as realistic as realtime in regards to actions, moves and attacks? Yes. While everyone is masturbating at the sight of how everything moves simultaneously in realtime, they're not paying attention to what happens in turnbased, which is basically the same as realtime except for turn execution. You attack 'realistically' in turnbased just as in realtime - this is visible in AI routines across several games: attacks, parrying, dodges, special hits, cleaves, etc. All possible in realtime and turnbased, and these are simulations of realistic behaviour on behalf of combatants.

Aside from all this, I'm still wondering in what, other than the simultaneous execution of all actions, is realtime (with pause) more realistic than turnbased.

 

[obediah]

RTwP systems providing much more realism than TB, but offering the same ability to plan at your own pace.

Not quite. Realtime with pause presents as much realism as turnbased, at best, but not more. What do you find more realistic in realtime than in turnbased? Is it that particular representation of movement, or more specifically, the simultaneous execution of all actions, that it all happens simultaneously (ie, in realtime)? I find this is often brought up, or considered to be, the prime example of how and why realtime with pause (and realtime itself) is more realistic than turnbased. The main problem with this is that it's just lulling people into a false sense of realism. Yes, in reality, everything happens simultaneously, as opposed to individual turns as they occur in turnbased. But sequenced, individual actions carried out in their own turns is as unrealistic as the ability to pause the entire gameworld to suit our own needs. Interruptions in the flow of the combat, wheter natural to the system or executed by the player, are unrealistic. Just as in reality no one moves in turns while everyone else waits for their movement, there is also no means of freezing everyone around and give orders.

Your being pedantic with your view of realism - but also wrong. While it's safe to assume we don't move in 30 second turns - i.e. you don't see a guy 50 feet away, then the next instant he's stuck a sword in your belly, I challenge you to prove that periodically time doesn't stop.

RTwP is more realistic because, because it allows you to address problems with the same tactics as they would be addressed in the real world. This depends a lot on decent AI, but we're talking core mechanics, not particular implementations.

It's really just silly that in TB, a guy can have a machine gun, but on your turn you can charge him from the front and kill him with a knife - so silly that you get things like overwatch and reaction fire and other things trying to fix it. In RT, you're "oh fuck a machine gun", and in two seconds your team is dead. In RTwP you see the gun, pause and study the terrain think about a plan and then let it progress at a pace you are comfortable with, adjusting your plan as necessary.

You could always tell me that these interruptions are needed for each system and as such are beyond criticism in regards to a lack of realism, and instead that you believe things like actual movement and combat aren't realistic.

If that is the case, then I see no problem either way. Simple movement in most turnbased games is realistic in the sense that its simultaneous with whatever is working at the moment in the gameworld (unless we're talking of games where everything takes turns even outside of combat, which is just bad). As for combat movement, again, intrinsic to each system... Is turnbased in combat as realistic as realtime in regards to movement? No. Is turnbased in combat as realistic as realtime in regards to actions, moves and attacks? Yes. While everyone is masturbating at the sight of how everything moves simultaneously in realtime, they're not paying attention to what happens in turnbased, which is basically the same as realtime except for turn execution. You attack 'realistically' in turnbased just as in realtime - this is visible in AI routines across several games: attacks, parrying, dodges, special hits, cleaves, etc. All possible in realtime and turnbased, and these are simulations of realistic behaviour on behalf of combatants.

Aside from all this, I'm still wondering in what, other than the simultaneous execution of all actions, is realtime (with pause) more realistic than turnbased.

I guess it's primarily that characters can react to things pseudo-immediately, rather than 1-30 seconds later. This is a lot more important in modern or sci-fi games, but even in fantasy it would make sense for someone with a bow to fire it at someone charging them from a tree line 30 yards away. In a modern system it just gets silly, TB may still be fun, but it presents serious reality problems. RTwP allows for things like suppression fire, and makes tactics like flanking much more interesting. So many RTwP games are twitch crap, but this doesn't reflect the potential of the system.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Your being pedantic with your view of realism - but also wrong.

*If* I'm being pedantic then its to balance out the people who are painfully vague in their attempt to define the concept of realism being discussed and promoted. A concept which, unless I've been reading the wrong thread, does settle on most of what I've written about. Or is there some other realism being talked about that does not involve movement, combat and AI in nearly opposing combat models?

While it's safe to assume we don't move in 30 second turns - i.e. you don't see a guy 50 feet away, then the next instant he's stuck a sword in your belly, I challenge you to prove that periodically time doesn't stop.

Said challenge is pointless. Pausing the entire gameworld by either mean is unrealistic to the flow of combat. Or are you suggesting otherwise?

RTwP is more realistic because, because it allows you to address problems with the same tactics as they would be addressed in the real world. This depends a lot on decent AI, but we're talking core mechanics, not particular implementations.

There's just one problem with that - there's no pause feature in the real world. The realism you defend would be much more validated in a defense of pure realtime than in realtime with pause because of that very thing, pause. Defending one system as more realistic than another while it sports nearly the same unrealistic problems as the other, and promoting the features of one of them while attacking the feature of the other when it allows basically the same type of unatural control over the flow of combat, is contradictory.

It's really just silly that in TB, a guy can have a machine gun, but on your turn you can charge him from the front and kill him with a knife - so silly that you get things like overwatch and reaction fire and other things trying to fix it. In RT, you're "oh fuck a machine gun", and in two seconds your team is dead.

That's a poor example, because it's not related to the combat model itself, but rather with implementations of it. Your example isn't likely verifiable under all scenarios, and given appropriate implementations, has smaller chances of happening. It might happen, however, if we're talking of situations where one character is bullet spraying an area with other characters rushing towards him. There's always the chance one character out of the rushing ones will arrive there and attack in melee - but then again, this has the same chances of happening in realtime. Even then, you're bound to have a character reload the machine gun, which in itself is a window of opportunity for melee characters to move in for the kill - and this clearly isn't exclusive to turnbased.

In RTwP you see the gun, pause and study the terrain think about a plan and then let it progress at a pace you are comfortable with, adjusting your plan as necessary.

Threat assessment, terrain studying, executing plans and playing at a pace I'm comfortable with is no different from turnbased at all, aside, as I said before, simultaneous execution of turns and how pauses are distributed. And "A pace you're comfortable with" is not only vague, it will always depend on the player. A turnbased combat model with adjustable speed sliders for movement and combat, something that's been used for years, is quite comfortable for me, thanks. One thing is to point out a player-controlled pause, or series of pauses, is a better way of customizing the pace of combat than computer-controlled pauses, or series of pauses, which I don't disagree with; but the rest of what you mentioned is basically the same.

I guess it's primarily that characters can react to things pseudo-immediately, rather than 1-30 seconds later. This is a lot more important in modern or sci-fi games, but even in fantasy it would make sense for someone with a bow to fire it at someone charging them from a tree line 30 yards away. In a modern system it just gets silly, TB may still be fun, but it presents serious reality problems. RTwP allows for things like suppression fire, and makes tactics like flanking much more interesting. So many RTwP games are twitch crap, but this doesn't reflect the potential of the system.

The reaction time for all those in combat in turnbased is subject to change, wheter for standard actions (like movement and attack) or special actions (blocking, counter-attacking). It's got to do with implementation as well. How quickly did characters dodged, counter-attacked and used attacks of opportunity in, say, Temple of Elemental Evil? 'Pseudo-immediatelly' as well.

 

[Balor]

Role-Player, you are wrong, and I've already wrote about it. The pausing of the game is feature that does not belong to the game world - just like interface buttons or save-load. You might as well bitch that this game is not realistic “Cause I see something else in the screen besides my gun!” It may be detrimental for immersion, but it's not unrealistic... more then that, until mind-machine interface with pain feedback is invented, not being able to see how hurt your character is, for instance, would be unrealistic for sure. And besides, there are already combat helmets with HUDs (at least, prototypes). Don't tell me that it's unrealistic .
If you could pause the game to do some actions besides thinking and issuing orders - that's unrealistic. And that's what TB is about.
In RTwP, when time is stopped, it's stopped for everyone. From 'inside', the time is continuous, therefore, it's not unrealistic.
And Hanzo already replied that not being able to do some actions instantly (like drawing a gun in RL, that would be chock from encounter, and time for getting it from the holster... but for you as a player, you'll have to, at best, to press a button. At worst - open inventory, drag it from a holster to you 'hands' slot and then close inventory.) - is, in fact, unrealistic. SPM will pause the game each time your reaction is required - therefore, ingame time for interface manipulation is reduced to zero... making it, in fact, more realistic.
And btw, Russian demo is out:
http://www1.tepkom.ru/users/vi/e5demo_600_nomusic.exe
They promised a patch with few nifty features too, due tomorrow.
You may not understand much, but at least you’ll see how it plays.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Role-Player, you are wrong, and I've already wrote about it.

You failed at convincing me otherwise.

The pausing of the game is feature that does not belong to the game world - just
like interface buttons or save-load.

You're making a mess at trying to differentiate gameworld, interface and assorted options. Pausing of the gameworld is very different from Save or Load features. Save/Load options are examples of system options, whereas pausing a game is an option directly related to the game itself as it plays an important role in the operation of the gameworld. Or, before this gets tricky: Load/Save options deal with the game, Pausing options deal with the gameworld. Can you tell the difference? Here's a way to understand it better. Which of these allow direct interaction with the gameworld and are directly responsible for how it works?

a) Save/Load options, graphic options, sound options;

or

b) Pausing, inventory, character screens.


Hint: it's not the first.

You might as well bitch that this game is not realistic “Cause I see something else in the screen besides my gun!” It may be detrimental for immersion, but it's not unrealistic...

The issue here is not criticizing means and levels of feedback, but rather, pointing out problems with some of the criticism being layed against turnbased.

Some of the criticism posted here against turnbased is that it's unrealistic as it apparently creates 'unrealistic' situations because of how turns operate. Realtime with pause is being touted as an improvement over this situation, but the problem is that realtime with pause when it can create scenarios as unrealistic as these, because realtime with pause enables (and sometimes demands) the player to use artificial pauses in the gameworld to plan and execute actions. You're basically getting people that are against the unrealistic turns of turnbased but are in favor of the unrealistic pause of realtime with pause.

more then that, until mind-machine interface with pain feedback is invented, not
being able to see how hurt your character is, for instance, would be unrealistic for
sure. And besides, there are already combat helmets with HUDs (at least, prototypes). Don't tell me that it's unrealistic .

You might want to realize what I'm talking about before saying something. As I've said, the complaints, and part of the conversation, is in regards to game mechanics, not the game's visual feedback.

If you could pause the game to do some actions besides thinking and issuing orders - that's unrealistic. And that's what TB is about.

By that definition, so is realtime with pause.

In RTwP, when time is stopped, it's stopped for everyone.

Curiously, the same happens in turnbased.

From 'inside', the time is continuous, therefore, it's not unrealistic.

And by that definition, turnbased isn't unrealistic either.

And Hanzo already replied that not being able to do some actions instantly (like drawing a gun in RL, that would be chock from encounter, and time for getting it from
the holster... but for you as a player, you'll have to, at best, to press a button. At
worst
- open inventory, drag it from a holster to you 'hands' slot and then close inventory.)
- is, in fact, unrealistic. SPM will pause the game each time your reaction is required
- therefore, ingame time for interface manipulation is reduced to zero... making it, in
fact, more realistic.

Wait, am I reading this correctly? You're telling me that going trough the motions of unholstering a weapon, pointing it and shooting (and having it take the necessary time) is less realistic than having it take no time? If this is what you're telling me, since when is it "more realistic" to have an action that takes time take no time instead?

 

[obediah]

In RTwP, when time is stopped, it's stopped for everyone.

Curiously, the same happens in turnbased.

No it doesn't. In turnbased, time stops for everyone but one person.

From 'inside', the time is continuous, therefore, it's not unrealistic.

And by that definition, turnbased isn't unrealistic either.

The "continuous time" of TB would consist of you being the only person moving in the entire world, everyone else would just change every 30 seconds or so, but they would NEVER do anything.

The "continuous time" of RTwP would consist of you and everyone else in the world moving about it real time together . Any pausing would go unnoticed.

How can you justify the first being more realistic than the second?

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

No it doesn't. In turnbased, time stops for everyone but one person.

The entire gameworld hinges on that person's movement. And until that person makes the move, everything is for all accounts, inactive. It's a different type of 'freezing' but ends up creating a similar effect, a field of stasis of sorts.

The "continuous time" of TB would consist of you being the only person moving in the entire world, everyone else would just change every 30 seconds or so, but they would NEVER do anything.

With the exception of things like counter-attacks and other such actions, of course.

The "continuous time" of RTwP would consist of you and everyone else in the world moving about it real time together . Any pausing would go unnoticed.

But unnoticed on what level? A pause in realtime freezes everything, and suspends the gameworld on the player's whim. When you unpause, everything resumes its course. The gameworld doesn't "notice" it. Meanwhile, a pause or series of pauses in turnbased make it so everyone in the gameworld is still moving in their own particular round... The gameworld doesn't 'notice' it either, they just act accordingly, except instead of reacting in realtime they react in turnbased. My guess is that by unnoticed you mean that the pause is total and universal, which is correct for realtime with pause, but as for it going 'unnoticed'....

How can you justify the first being more realistic than the second?

And how can you justify assuming I consider one more realistic than the other, when I'm calling BOTH of them unrealistic in that matter? Again, what I'm saying is that I do not agree realtime with pause to be more realistic than turnbased in regards to interrupting the action, I find both unrealistic on the same level.

 

[obediah]

The "continuous time" of RTwP would consist of you and everyone else in the world moving about it real time together . Any pausing would go unnoticed.

But unnoticed on what level? A pause in realtime freezes everything, and suspends the gameworld on the player's whim. When you unpause, everything resumes its course. The gameworld doesn't "notice" it. Meanwhile, a pause or series of pauses in turnbased make it so everyone in the gameworld is still moving in their own particular round... The gameworld doesn't 'notice' it either, they just act accordingly, except instead of reacting in realtime they react in turnbased. My guess is that by unnoticed you mean that the pause is total and universal, which is correct for realtime with pause, but as for it going 'unnoticed'....

Unnoticed on the level of the agents in the game. Good tactics in a RTwP game are going to be much more similiar to good tactics in the real world, while good tactics in a TB game could be and usually are radically different.

How can you justify the first being more realistic than the second?

And how can you justify assuming I consider one more realistic than the other, when I'm calling BOTH of them unrealistic in that matter? Again, what I'm saying is that I do not agree realtime with pause to be more realistic than turnbased in regards to interrupting the action, I find both unrealistic on the same level.

My mistake, I guess you said that RTwP was as realistic as TB at best - which is different than less realistic. Still I can't see how the first could be considered as realistic as the second.

Here's another example for you to consider:

If I wrote an AI for a RTwP system, and you wrote an AI for a turnbased system, and each performed equally well in their own system - mine would be much more successful in the real world.

EDIT: bad quoting

 

[obediah]

Your being pedantic with your view of realism - but also wrong.

*If* I'm being pedantic then its to balance out the people who are painfully vague in their attempt to define the concept of realism being discussed and promoted. A concept which, unless I've been reading the wrong thread, does settle on most of what I've written about. Or is there some other realism being talked about that does not involve movement, combat and AI in nearly opposing combat models?

I'm definining realism as "presented with a situation, how similiar are the results of different actions to how they would be in the real world." Since we're just talking about RTwP vs TB, we need to assume a level playing field with AI, Physics, realistic weapons, etc...

While it's safe to assume we don't move in 30 second turns - i.e. you don't see a guy 50 feet away, then the next instant he's stuck a sword in your belly, I challenge you to prove that periodically time doesn't stop.

Said challenge is pointless. Pausing the entire gameworld by either mean is unrealistic to the flow of combat. Or are you suggesting otherwise?

Blargh!!! TB does not turn the entire game world, it pauses the game world except for one agent, which is demonstrably unrealistic. And I am suggesting that RTwP is better because from inside the world there is no difference between RT and RTwP. God or Space Aliens could be pausing the universe at will and we would never know. Of course it's not likely, but the point is pausing a world has no effect on how actions play out in the world.

RTwP is more realistic because, because it allows you to address problems with the same tactics as they would be addressed in the real world. This depends a lot on decent AI, but we're talking core mechanics, not particular implementations.

There's just one problem with that - there's no pause feature in the real world. The realism you defend would be much more validated in a defense of pure realtime than in realtime with pause because of that very thing, pause. Defending one system as more realistic than another while it sports nearly the same unrealistic problems as the other, and promoting the features of one of them while attacking the feature of the other when it allows basically the same type of unatural control over the flow of combat, is contradictory.

Again, you don't know that there isn't a pause in the real world. You don't have the button so you wouldn't be aware of it. If we take a RT system (wihch we agree is more realistic), and add a pause - the mechanics of action resolution don't change at all - everyone just gets better at making decisions. If we change to turn-based then everything has to be re-written in a less realistic manner. Your getting pedantic again at the end - it's okay to say combat in BGII was unrealistic because arrows did loopty-loops, it's pedantic to say combat in BGII was unrealist because dragons don't exist. Your continued argument that all ways of handling time that aren't exactly like the real world are equally unrealistic is grating at the least. Hell since, computers can only make a decision so many billions of times a second, there is no such thing as RT combat in games, so the whole argument is moot.

It's really just silly that in TB, a guy can have a machine gun, but on your turn you can charge him from the front and kill him with a knife - so silly that you get things like overwatch and reaction fire and other things trying to fix it. In RT, you're "oh fuck a machine gun", and in two seconds your team is dead.

That's a poor example, because it's not related to the combat model itself, but rather with implementations of it. Your example isn't likely verifiable under all scenarios, and given appropriate implementations, has smaller chances of happening. It might happen, however, if we're talking of situations where one character is bullet spraying an area with other characters rushing towards him. There's always the chance one character out of the rushing ones will arrive there and attack in melee - but then again, this has the same chances of happening in realtime. Even then, you're bound to have a character reload the machine gun, which in itself is a window of opportunity for melee characters to move in for the kill - and this clearly isn't exclusive to turnbased.

It's a fine example, the fact that many turn based systems have bolt-on mechanics fixes to deal with this only proves that turn based combat is an unrealistic abstraction. Why make up weak excuses for why the target isn't shooting at me when turn comes? It's convenient that these extenuating circumstances happen at regular intervals. Doesn't it seem to be better to let the gunner run through his ammo in real time, and let the player try to figure out when he's reloading? Doesn't it seem better to model the characters charge and each bullet fired during that charge to see if he's hit, rather than just making up a story about them all missing?

In RTwP you see the gun, pause and study the terrain think about a plan and then let it progress at a pace you are comfortable with, adjusting your plan as necessary.

Threat assessment, terrain studying, executing plans and playing at a pace I'm comfortable with is no different from turnbased at all, aside, as I said before, simultaneous execution of turns and how pauses are distributed. And "A pace you're comfortable with" is not only vague, it will always depend on the player. A turnbased combat model with adjustable speed sliders for movement and combat, something that's been used for years, is quite comfortable for me, thanks. One thing is to point out a player-controlled pause, or series of pauses, is a better way of customizing the pace of combat than computer-controlled pauses, or series of pauses, which I don't disagree with; but the rest of what you mentioned is basically the same.

You've just found the benefit of RTwP over RT - they player is able to do all the fun planning we've grown to love with TB combat. The benefit of RTwP over TB, is that the plan you come up with is going to be much more applicable to the real world than the one you would use in TB mode.

I guess it's primarily that characters can react to things pseudo-immediately, rather than 1-30 seconds later. This is a lot more important in modern or sci-fi games, but even in fantasy it would make sense for someone with a bow to fire it at someone charging them from a tree line 30 yards away. In a modern system it just gets silly, TB may still be fun, but it presents serious reality problems. RTwP allows for things like suppression fire, and makes tactics like flanking much more interesting. So many RTwP games are twitch crap, but this doesn't reflect the potential of the system.

The reaction time for all those in combat in turnbased is subject to change, wheter for standard actions (like movement and attack) or special actions (blocking, counter-attacking). It's got to do with implementation as well. How quickly did characters dodged, counter-attacked and used attacks of opportunity in, say, Temple of Elemental Evil? 'Pseudo-immediatelly' as well.

And those are all patches to TB combat to fix some of the glaring holes in realism. It's a lot more natural to add attacks of opportunity to RTwP than turn-based, for example.