'>>1734191
>succed in being a competitive one?
You mean like e-sports? If so, probably because watching turn-based as a 3rd person is boring as fuck, and you mind as well be playing it. As well as longer playtime; more mechanics/combos to remember as an audience; and generally a smaller number of "competitive" players to pool from as it was already a niche market.
Depending on the game it's also really hard to balance and be enjoyable. Civ and HoMM's "fun" comes from a randomness or just OP combos.';

'>>1734191
What a nice game, it's a good successor to what Advance Wars was.
I remember the red faction has nice music.';

'>>1734191
people play competitive HoMM3, but still know that it's stupid.
Watching most turn-based games is REALLY fucking boring, regardless of their genre.';

'>>1734191
Because you can't grind it to become amazing at it. Sure, you can improve, but it's not like Starcraft where mechanics and pure repetitive tasks ('macro') directly influence your game. Just imagine if you had to clap every 28 seconds in chess or you could field only half the rooks.

Oh yeah and turn based strategy games already have established leagues and championships in chess and co.';

'>>1734191
Spectator sports are entertainment, not actual competition.';

'>>1734191
Blood Bowl's competitive scene was doing alright for the game's size, BB3 kinda fucked everything up though and splintered the small player base even more than it already was.';

'chess and briefly hearthstone are examples of turn based esports';

'>>1734191
First off, by competitive you actually mean pvp competition.
And the problem you are trying to phrase is that strategy games per se aren't fit for competitive pvp play. The reason for that is that there is too many criteria that is impossible to meet simulantiously. For example the balancing issue: this will lead to that all maps have to be symmetric because one player will feel like being in an disadvantage from the start.
Next is, that there will be an "optimal strategy" most of the time which leads a) to very repetitive scenarios that are considered boring in long term and b) pretty much makes 80-90% of content redundant that can be considered viable against an AI opponent but not against humans.
The way to counter this would be to force a longer phase to build up which actually would add more variety and thus a large spectrum of possible strategies to the game. This could be achieved by adding peace times or early rush counter mechanics. But this would make a single match last hours which isn't what players want.

Specifically on turn based strategy, there's also the eternal debate whether you should give players time for their turns or make them play a game in one session. Both of which doesn't seem to satisfy any of the parties.';

'>>1734191
Yeah, turn-based strategy isn't played much against randoms, unless we're talking about simpler, fast-paced ones like card games, board games, or auto-chess - the kinda stuff that tend to be MMO. Otherwise, you mostly play them with friends via local multiplayer or hotseat, assuming the game in question even has a multiplayer mode.
RTS is what works for most players because it's easier to pick up, easier to git gud, easier on the eyes, and there's no annoying downtime as you wait for others to finish their turn, especially when playing large battles.';

'MTGA has tens of thousands of players online.';

'>>1734471
>strategy games per se aren't fit for competitive pvp play.
Bullshit, this and fighting games are the only two genres capable of truly displaying individual skill.';

'>>1734576
what makes you think that?';

'>>1734471
>maps have to by symmetric
>optimal strategies exist meaning scenarios get repetitive and content is redundant
buddy, the board games board called, and Memoir 44 wants a word with you.
it's solution to those problems is random orders. Both players draw a hand of order cards from the same deck, and have to make the best with what they're given. Then at the end of the scenario, they swap places and play again, with a newly shuffled deck, meaning that even if you're in the opponents' seat, you can't do what he did, because you didn't draw the cards he did. This is fun, and ensures that the best player wins most of the time, while the worst player feels like they have a chance to steal the victory (and they very well might) with a lucky draw of an artillery strike or a flank move. It's also a good tiebreak since after swapping sides, the players won't be able to mirror the previous match so even if the other player wins as the same faction that won last time, maybe the margin of their victory is slimmer than for the first player was in the first game, so overall first player is the winner. And if Bo2 is too silly of a format to you, you can chain three or five of them together for a Bo3 or Bo5 that is more fair, and even introduce a map picking draft element thing with choosing what scenarios get played.';

'>>1734602
>willingly involving RNG in a place where it doesn't have to exist
kill yourself';

'>>1734618
>too weak to handle RNG
lol, lmao.
how does it feel to have your favorite vidya get modded by a board game, of all things?';

'>>1734641
>modded
meant to say "mogged" my bad
i shoulsn't post so late in the night after a full day of gaming';

'>Problem
It's entertaining to watch players perform actions, but tedious to watch players plan out their actions.

>Solution
Players should perform tricks like juggling while planning out their moves.';

'>>1734602
for those autists it's not about fun, it's about winning. and they sperg out at every little aspect of randomness that adds variation to the game.

I'm not even picking sides here. It's just like I wrote before: there are simple multiple conditions that are partially contradicting each other, yet all have to be fulfilled at the same time.';

'>>1734709
it's funny how they bitch about randomness but fail to see the BGA top players winning consistently despite the randomness, because the game's about strategy and tactics, not just rolling dice.

there is no contradiction, there's just lazy autists afraid of change, and us who can accept change.';

'>>1734759
no it's not lazy autist. I play competitve AW and all the top players who spend a week planning their turn are against admitting Nell for competitive play because they fear that the luck range could potentially fuck over their entire strategy.
So, yeah, they are autists for sure. But they certainly aren't lazy but it's mostly the ultra dedicated who bitch around because of randomness';

'>>1734771
again, those are the autists that are bitching, taking a whole week for just one turn is not normal
and they are lazy, they can't expand their horizons even if their wins depend on it. I won't say that Nell is fine but I will say again that Memoir 44 (a game designed with randomness in mind) allows for the more skilled player to always be winning, despite being random. And it's not the only one game to do so.
If boardgames can do it, and do it well, why don't videogames even try it?';

'>>1734759
>there's just lazy autists afraid of change
Give this anon at award for be one of the few who are telling what the real problem is.';

'>>1734776
Board games are all about casual gatherings of friends.
Online RTS is not.
Notice how online turn-based games like Dominions have a fuckton of RNG and everyone is fine with that. because it's not supposed to be taken seriously, everyone agrees that it's more than less bullshit. But that's the key - nobody is claiming that it's all skill, noobs can win often because they got the perfect event or one spell hit right in a crucial fight, and the other way around, a veteran's most important general can suddenly get diseased and he's playing a faction without natural easy access to the cure, or lose a very valuable province because of a bad event.
RTS, just like fighting games, will attract the largest amount of sweatlords and autists because these two ARE the best genres for skill expression.';

'>>1734915
Why can't RTS be about casual gathering of friends?
Why can't online boardgames be competitive?
If one type of game can be taken seriously, then the other can as well. Fuck, Chess and Go exist as a pure counter to your point. And even in games with RNG you can have player expression, only limit is your own skill. If you wanted to admit to being a scrub, you could've used less words.';

'>>1734967
>Why can't RTS be about casual gathering of friends?
They certainly can't be today because the chances of your entire group of friends being into RTS are just low.
>Chess and Go exist as a pure counter to your point.
Video games have infinitely younger culture developed around them compared to your "examples", invalid. Compare chess tournament spectator count to esport games.
>And even in games with RNG you can have player expression, only limit is your own skill
That is cope. If you can win by getting lucky and just by that then it sours the loser and discourages him heavily. When people of similar skill clash and the deciding factor is essentially coin flip, the game is simply not entertaining and nobody feels good about winning.
You simply don't get it.';

'>>1734191
excuse you chud you might have heard of a lil game called..... le chess?';

'>>1734967
This is what Warcraft 3 custom maps was about, just an endless sprawl of random fun bullshit, if a game wants this experience it has to have similar flexibility to WC3 in terms of custom play. When the primary mode of a game is 1v1 final destination it's gonna be competition focused, you need real, non-token support for other play modes to attract different types of players.';

'>>1734973
>If you can win by getting lucky
now THAT'S what I call cope';

'>>1734915
>chess has a fuckton of RNG therefore it's not to be taken seriously
holy cope. Turn based strategy is about skill but every aspect of non-symmetry sparks debates about it being unfair. even chess isn't safe from that. just look at the autism outbreak caused by the 1st turn advantage debate';

'>>1734915
>dominions wins are strongly influenced by RNG and that's why it's not played competitively
Good dominions players can and do reliably survive to be one of the last few standing in a game, and their odds would probably be much better if the average game was a 1v1 scenario where they couldn't get attacked by multiple people at once. Almost nobody is losing a game to a perfect spell hit or bad event unless it was extremely close to begin with.

It's not played competitively because the matches take months and most of the community prefers spending that time having fun with a new strategy each game over playing for wins.';

'>>1734967
>Why can't RTS be about casual gathering of friends?
They can and they are. Lots of shitters get together to turtle for hours or play co-op campaigns where they are available.
A historical limitation used to be hardware issues, not everyone could set up a LAN party on a whim. Turn-based stuff can be played in hot seat and the lag isn't a problem when playing online.
>Why can't online boardgames be competitive?
This shit takes too much time unless the game's actually designed for shorter sessions. Especially when there's more opponents than 1v1.';

'>>1734973
>That is cope. If you can win by getting lucky and just by that then it sours the loser and discourages him heavily.
Hasn't stopped Magic the Gathering from getting popular.';

'>>1735307
>unless the game's actually designed for shorter sessions.
Well, good thing a lot of board games are short.

Also, game length doesn't impact if people do or dont wanna play a game competitively. Short games like X's and O's arent competitive, while Twilight Imperium (a 8+h behemoth of a 6-player boardgame) have a whole number of tournament scenes for more than half of a decade now. Sure, the scenes are small, but they exist and that is what's important here.';

'>>1735387
you'll find competitive speedrunners for shovelware, not an argument.';

'>>1734191
>turn-based strategy game as a competition
I watch Japanese Mahjong, in fact it's pretty big over there. Pic very much related';

'>>1734191
They do, you're just not looking in the right place';

'>>1734191
Competitive? Yes. E-sports bullshit? No.

The reason? There's no such thing as a real time strategy game. Just real time tactics games. Well okay there are like one or two real time strats but the term is misused.
Strategy takes time and takes methodical preparation. It's not exciting enough for normalfags to watch or anyone but the spergiest autist to invest in.';

'>>1734618
>doesn't like rng
Absolute brainlet moment. Chess and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
Reminder that the first documented board games had rng. Reminder that chess doesn't even have a placement stage like superior board games like GO or Seega.';

'>>1734253
Hot seat HoMM3 is one of the best gaming experiences out there.';

'>>1735647
Are you retarded? The first version of chess did use dices to determine which piece to move. It was rng allergic autists who ditched this because they were convinced that this way of playing was better.

>Reminder that chess doesn't even have a placement stage like superior board games like GO
I fucking swear, 95% of all people who claim "go superior to chess" are brainlets who never played go and are too retarded for chess. Thus dropping this bullshit in every argument they get with anyone who defends chess.';

'>>1734191
No private servers';

'>>1734602
Wrong!

The issue is lack of:
> granular unit customization at the production queues
> variety in terrain/weather effects
> general sameness of units & maps';

'>>1735997
And yet you have nothing to say about Seega which is my preferred game of the three despite having no community or following around it.

>>1735242
>It's not played competitively
But it kind of IS. The community is often filled with people who get a faction win then change things up, admittedly, but there are large multiround competitions held every year.

Besides if we're talking about tactics games with rng that have competitive scenes there's Field of Glory.';

'>>1740436
>granular unit customization at the production queues
being able to granularly customize units would still end up with having a few units that are effectine at one thing and not effective in another, as that's just more efficient. kinda like what the games already have with different unit types.
See also XCOM EU/EW/2 multiplayer, where you could deck out your soldiers however you wanted, but most comp players just gravitated towards archetypes like "grenades guy" or "machinegun guy" or "Squadsight abuse" or "cheap cannon fodder for spam".
>variety in terrain effects
some games already have variety of terrain features that do everthing from modifying how much damage units take, to how far they can go (if at all, for example cars can't into mountain travel and ships can't walk on land). More games can use this, yes, but such a feature is a delicate balance, not every game needs to be bloated by useless terrain.
Weather effects could be interesting, if done correctly. But people are gonna (rightfully) say that weather benefits more to one side of the turn order (good weather benefits the attacker/first player, bad weather benefits the defender/last player). So a lot of games don't do it, or tie it to abilities like Advance Wars' CO Powers that sometimes turn the whole battlefield into a land of snow and low movement ability.
>sameness of units
Wargroove fixed this with unit formations/critical hits. Each unit has a condition upon which it'll deal double damage, and it's different for different units, so if you wanna squeeze the most out of your army you'll need to plan ahead on not moving your achers so they can aim their shots, moving your spearmen together in a phalanx, moving anti-air mages through high cover areas, and so on and so forth. Other turn-based strategy games can learn from this, and also get a "units get bonuses when doing a thing™"
>sameness of maps
factually untrue for good games with player-made mapping support.';

'>>1734191
What AoE2:DS ripoff am I looking at here?';

'>>1743070
it's actually an Advance Wars ripoff by the devs of Starbound, called Wargroove. it's addition to the AW turn based battles is SupCom style commander units that can be killed as an alternative win condition, but also their CO powers affect their local area instead of the whole battlefield. its pretty neat and had some potential but not much was done with it and now the sequel is out and it's more of the same eh';

'>>1734191
chess';

'>>1745441
So it's a AoE2:DS clone then?
tmy initial joke was how the NintendoDS port of AoE2 was an entirely different game that's basicly a medieval AW(2)';

'>>1734191
It would suck
Every TBS is full of gimmicks and shortcuts, so much that experienced players always have to challenge themselves on each play to not use those exploits. Also, I have yet to see one that's balanced and doesn't have at least one OP faction.';

'>>1734191
Man, I loved playing AW:Days of Ruin

What's a game I can play on my android?';