Why are co-op turn based strategy games so uncommon?

[Krillock]

Im talking only strategy similar to turn based board games like xcom, fallout 1,2, & tactics, or Tyranny. I've only seen 1 game in this format that supports co-op called Pit People. What confuses me more is that it should be relatively simple to implement host based co-op. I get that in most of these games you are commanding a group of people but wouldn't it be cooler if you played as a single character in a team of others who are doing the same and you are forced communicate with your group to form a strategy.

[Start_Running]

Because turn based tends to mean you're waiting on the other guy. Also every so often the games industry gets into their skulls that certain games won't sell until a game comes along tat proves them wrong.

The Survival Horror Genre was like that for a good while

[Krillock]

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

Because turn based tends to mean you're waiting on the other guy. Also every so often the games industry gets into their skulls that certain games won't sell until a game comes along tat proves them wrong.

The Survival Horror Genre was like that for a good while

the games industry isn't smart/coordinated enough to create gameplay mechanics that are more complicated than rock-paper-scissors damage types. So there's no hope there. Y'know there could just be an optional timer untill your turn is played by an ai or a teammate? You could just limit the turns to 20seconds or whatever.

[secuda]

First of all Tyranny and fallout is not strategy games, they are RPG games.
second most Strategy games have co-op against computer, such as civilization, galactic civilization 2, sins of solar empire etc.

[Krillock]

secuda の投稿を引用：

First of all Tyranny and fallout is not strategy games, they are RPG games.
second most Strategy games have co-op against computer, such as civilization, galactic civilization 2, sins of solar empire etc.

Not all strategy games have to be a micromanagment sim, technically every game is a strategy game to a certain extent but tile based tactic reliant games are the grandfathers of the strategy genre even if it also has a open ended story. You quite litterally need to strategize and not rush headfirst into the enemy in order to last more than two turns without getting your face melted.

[secuda]

Krillock の投稿を引用：

secuda の投稿を引用：

First of all Tyranny and fallout is not strategy games, they are RPG games.
second most Strategy games have co-op against computer, such as civilization, galactic civilization 2, sins of solar empire etc.

Not all strategy games have to be a micromanagment sim, technically every game is a strategy game to a certain extent but tile based tactic reliant games are the grandfathers of the strategy genre even if it also has a open ended story. You quite litterally need to strategize and not rush headfirst into the enemy in order to last more than two turns without getting your face melted.

Yes but you have to take note that those are the early games in the serie (excluding Tyranny and e-xcom KS) wich means that most common ways where to use modem to hook upp with the internet and most likley did not have as much money as they have now with the serie.
and to be honest atleast with the fallout series was build around SP experience anyway.

and further more when we are talking about turn based strategy we for the most part are talking about 4X games wich i mention. wich Fallout and tyranny is not.

[Krillock]

secuda の投稿を引用：

Yes you are correct but {and here begins an unrelated argument over whether or not old rpg strategy games could be made co-op or not because they are usually built around singleplayer (fps games used to be built around single player before internet was easy to use too *cough* )}

You were making sense, you were blatantly wrong but you were coherent in your statement but now i have no idea how this relates to this format of game being classified a strategy game or not. Maybe take some time to check your logic and dont support your previous argument with a new one that is unrelated to the first.

Wat chu just did is: "Yes the sky is blue but why is my porcupine brown? athiests."

[secuda]

Krillock の投稿を引用：

secuda の投稿を引用：

Yes you are correct but {and here begins an unrelated argument over whether or not old rpg strategy games could be made co-op or not because they are usually built around singleplayer (fps games used to be built around single player before internet was easy to use too *cough* )}

You were making sense, you were blatantly wrong but you were coherent in your statement but now i have no idea how this relates to this format of game being classified a strategy game or not. Maybe take some time to check your logic and dont support your previous argument with a new one that is unrelated to the first.

Wat chu just did is: "Yes the sky is blue but why is my porcupine brown? :checkmate: athiests."

sorry for the confusion but frankly i went for the statement on the title. but to put it short i direkt you to a link for examples.
http://www.pcgamer.com/the-best-strategy-games/
and most of them being listed have co-op.

[Krillock]

secuda の投稿を引用：

and further more when we are talking about turn based strategy we for the most part are talking about 4X games wich i mention. wich Fallout and tyranny is not.

They both use the same combat system as X-com (a strategy game) but the characters you fight with also happen to make story related decisions makeing an rpg aswell as a strategy game. if you gave xcom soldiers their own story and decisions would xcom no longer have it's strategy gameplay?

you know there are sutch things as sub-genres right?

[secuda]

Krillock の投稿を引用：

secuda の投稿を引用：

and further more when we are talking about turn based strategy we for the most part are talking about 4X games wich i mention. wich Fallout and tyranny is not.

They both use the same combat system as X-com (a strategy game) but the characters you fight with also happen to make story related decisions makeing an rpg aswell as a strategy game. if you gave xcom soldiers their own story and decisions would xcom no longer have it's strategy gameplay?

you know there are sutch things as sub-genres right?

yea and i think where you are going with this and i should really stop obsessing with the naming genres again sorry for the confusing on my behalf.

[Gallifrey - CSSC Gaming Founder]

I think the main reason is that they are hard to programme and a niche market. AI for a strategy game is a lot more difficult than for a FPS. The AI has to understand every strategy in the game and how to counter. In FPSs the AI opponents can have a far more basic set of responses and still be effective.

Not everyone has a set up microphone so remote cooperation can be clumsy. Then you're talking a very niche product - Strategy, Turn Based, Multiplayer, Co-operative.

At least one of the Talisman expansion sets allows cooperative player. Best up however would be Talisman: The Horus Legacy which is Talisman in Warhammer 40K. That has two Loyal vs 2 Chaos so is ideal for cooperative vs the AI. However I hated the graphics, thought the card deck was rather dull, and Strategems are badly flawed compared to standard Talisman's spells. However you should be able to pick it up in the next major sale for a couple of dollars or thereabouts. It's not a bad game - just a bit disappointing and underpowered compared to Talisman.

S.x.