Before I embarked on this essay, I thought to myself, "Why? Why should I write something on RTS? After all, everyone knows what it is." But then I realized that not everyone realizes what RTS encompasses, of what it entails as a game. With that said, let us begin.
We must ask ourselves, "What is RTS?" The definition of RTS is Real-Time Strategy. But what does this mean? Is it commanding hundreds of units throughout battles? Is it the micromanaging of resource buildings and structure builders? Or is it a massive "clickfest" with no depth? These are some of the questions I hope to answer.
If Real-Time Strategy is what the title suggests, then it must be a game where one commands every aspect of a strategy. Thus, this includes the managing of armies, navies, air forces, heroes, and resources all at once. Nevertheless, it seems that there must be more to the RTS genre than being a manager of units. It also entails devising and executing battle plans, build orders, spell powers, and advanced tactical maneuvers. With this answered, we must move on to what defines a RTS.
Gameplay
Gameplay. Such a short word with such a long meaning. It covers a broad range of topic, including interaction, unit managing, how one plays the game, the resource system, and the way the units interact with one another. What is the specific definiton of gameplay? Is it, like mentioned above, the microing of hundreds of units and resources? Or is it enjoying the game and playing it to one's best ability, even if one loses? This definition is still not complete. Gameplay must also include the feeling that one experiences when an army successfully pulls off an assault, when a hero manages to use his ultimate power right before defeat is at hand. Additionally, gameplay transfers the true essence of being in command, of actually making a difference. The decisions one makes during a game influences gameplay and the future of the match, on how one plays the game.
More can be said about gameplay. Gameplay also is how the player interacts with the world. For BfME2, an example would be flammable terrain. This affects how the player works with the game world by deciding if one should move forces through flammable terrain when he knows the enemy has fire arrows. Small things like this have a major effect on how the player moves with the world in an RTS.
How resources are gathered is a major portion of the RTS genre. The only style of game where one must collect resources, this is arguably one of the things that sets the RTS genre away from other categories. In traditional RTS games such as the Age of Empires series, a player would produce resource gatherers called villagers. The villager would produce buildings, gather resources, and fix objects, if applicable. The resource system was fairly complex: one had to collect a variety of items such as wood, iron, gold, and food to be able to create any structures or units. In BfME1, a player would simply produce a structure like a farm or a slaughterhouse that would, over time, produce generic money used to fund your war machine. This was a simple and effective measure taken to enhance battles and reduce the need to micro resource gatherers. The Evil factions also had lumber mills that could gain more resources at the expense of creating laborers. Often regarded as more of a simplistic way of production, this system attracted many new players to the RTS genre.
In BfME2, EA decided to completely change the resource system. Utilizing a new effiency method, the game designers decided to base the amount of resources gained through location to other resource producing structures. A farm right next to another farm would take a severe penalty for being so close. This new system of resource gathering essentailly forces the gamer to gain map control, at least enough to the point where the have a sufficent income to fund their army. However, there have been matches in BfME2 where the loser had map control, but due to lack of utilizing it, lost the match to a player who used their land wisely and more effectively.
Balance
Balance. Another short word with a deep meaning. Balance is one of the most important factors in an RTS game. Balance means that no matter what faction one chooses, no one side will have a long-term advantage over the other. Note long-term. Balance is often misinterpreted. One might say that, for Battle for Middle-Earth 2, the Goblins are overpowered. Many people base this opinion on the fact that the Goblin faction can rush easily. This is not balance, this is something entirely different. Another example would be that the Elven faction is overpowered late game. Is this truly balance? Or is it more of a gameplay decision? I believe that it is more of a gameplay factor than a true balance issue. Balance refers to the faction as a whole, not one individual segment of the faction's lifespan. Where Elves lack in early game, they make up for in late game. This is the true meaning of balance, whether a side's weaknesses and strengths are cancelled out over the course of the match.
Balance also refers to individual units and their respective strengths and weaknesses. For example, a battalion of Mirkwood Archers have very high damage, but low hitpoints are armor to withstand melee attacks. Thus, the unit is balanced due to its low armor but high damage rate. There are some issues with some units strengths overpowering its weaknesses, but hopefully these will be ironed out through the use of patches.
Overpowered units have a severe effect on gameplay and balance. An overpowered unit essentially refers to a unit has more strengths than weaknesses. A good example would be Gandalf, from BfME1. At level ten, he was "A mounted form of Jesus" (to quote HERO). One could say that his strenghts smothered his weaknesses. Overpowered units detract from overall gameplay and game balance by providing the user of that unit with an object that nearly always proves to be hard to counter.
Underpowered units also have a major effect on balance. Underpowered units are what their title suggests: units that strengths are overshadowed by their weaknesses. Units like these are typically never used unless a bizarre gameplay situation occurs. Underpowered units clutter the game's build order screens and are typically ignored.
Over or underpowered factions are also in the RTS genre. The most severe type of inbalance, the faction inbalance refers to a faction as a whole. One side will be more powerful overall througout the game than another faction. Starcraft and Warcraft 3 both were examples of nearly perfectly balanced units and factions.
Graphics
Graphics have very little effect on actual gameplay. Nevertheless, they are an important factor in the game. Who wants to play a modern game that looks blocky and chunky? No one. Modern gamers want a beautiful landscape, detailed units and stunning special effects to wage war on. Graphic design can make or break a game.
Music
The art score of a game is also a very important factor in the game. Often overlooked, the music of an RTS adds a backdrop, a feeling of emotion to the game. Going hand-in-hand with graphics, music adds the life to the game. Without a good art score, any game will lack the certain substance needed for a successful game.
Singleplayer
Singleplayer. A touchy subject for most people on the online gaming community. Often regarded as incidental to the experts at RTS games, they are rather quick to disregard it. However, they could not be more wrong. Without a good singleplayer, an RTS game will fail horribly. One might ask, "Why?". The answer is simple. Singleplayer adds the basis, the fundamentals of the game. It is where people learn their first strategies, their favorite faction, their ideal unit combinations. Providing the basic gameplay design, singleplayer is essentially one of the most important factors in an Real-Time Strategy game. Recent polls showed that over seventy percent of the people who buy RTS games play only singleplayer. This leaves only thirty percent of the buyers on multiplayer, which leads into our next section. However, singleplayer must be well-made and wholesome, otherwise the game will fail at sales, and in turn fail utterly. The basis of this form of play is the AI. AI, or artificial intelligence, is the opponent that one competes against in a singleplayer match. Regrettably, the AI is often the weakest portion of the game. Simply put, no AI in existence or the near future has the ability to act like a human, to react with a wild, risky strategy to pull of a miraculous save. The AI simply follows a code with some variables, but once a human has figured out the strategy, the AI becomes nothing more than an annoyance.
Multiplayer
Multiplayer. Another interesting topic to discuss. Multiplayer is the first portion of an RTS game designer to finish and the one that will give it the most longevity in the gaming community. Playing against a human opponent is one of the most exciting things any RTS gamer could do, and arguably the most satisfying. Multiplayer provides the players of any game with the ability to always be devising new strategies, new ways to hone their skill. It is the only thing that keeps games from disintegrating into a relic of the past. Games such as Starcraft have been out for over seven years and they still have a roaring multiplayer base. Why? Because the game designers realized the value of multiplayer and designed an efficient, balanced game built for it. Gamers online form tight-knit clans, close bonds over years of playing, and oftentimes friendships are forged. Without multiplayer, the true balance and realization of any RTS simply cannot be discovered. The online community also has a major impact on the designing of an RTS game. During the production of The Battle for Middle-Earth, EA asked for the help, advice, and skills of many of the online community's prominent members. Through the advice of these people, as well as by listening to the general opinion of how the game developed truly revealed how the community can help the RTS genre develop.
Reviewing an RTS
Generally, RTS reviews are lacking. The interesting thing about RTS reviews is that they must encompass the full scope of the game. Most review focus only on singleplayer. This is not a true representation of the RTS genre. Singleplayer, while important, lacks the depth that one gets from playing an online match and besting a human opponent. Only against a human will a gamer discover new and improved strategies to be victorious in a match. With all the reviews on The Battle for Middle-Earth 2, they nearly all only have small sections dedicated to multiplayer. Thus, the game receives scores lower than could be earned if the reviewer had done a truly in-depth look into both the single and multiplayer aspects of the game. Reviews for the game based on how well the AI performed is not an accurate representation.
An RTS should be graded on the following:
Singleplayer
1) Campaign: must be scipted, immersive. Player must want to know what happens. 2) AI: AI must be sufficent enough to provide challenge for average RTS players.
Multiplayer
1) Must be balanced to the point where no one side has advantage. 2) Must have good multiplayer support, e.g. quick patches (if needed). 3) Must have good tournament/ladder system to ensure competitive play.
Additional Factors
1) Graphics: must be pleasing to they eye, e.g. good animations, no blocky pixels. 2) Music: must be good enough to provide sufficent emotion to game.
Gameplay
1) Game must be fun to play. 2) Units must have fast response times, e.g. must be able to micro. 3) Resource system must be efficient and able to be used effectively.
Why play Real-Time Strategy?
The question on many peoples' minds is, "Why should I play RTS games?" The question, while being short, has a long and complex answer. The easiest answer is that you get to see massive armies clashing, thousands of units being thrown into battles. After all, no modern gamer doesn't like a game where you see lots and lots of warriors fighting. Only in an RTS game can one truly experience the magnificence of this style of gameplay.
However, one could also say that one likes to envision oneself in a position of power, a situation where one's decisions can actually have an effect on what happens, on who lives or dies, on what lands will be enslaved by the enemy, on which lands need to be liberated first. Personally, when I play RTS games, I envision little scenarios, little stories. I think of short stories to give the battles I'm fighting some reason, some purpose. This is why I love a good campaign, because I love a good story. I love having a true goal to accomplish and a specific target I'm trying to reach. This is a major factor of why I prefer RTS games more than any other genre.
Another point to bring up is the competitive side of PC gaming. Many people dream about winning online tournaments. RTS is one of the only games where true skill is shown in tournaments. In a first-person shooter, is there truly much skill? Of course there is, but it is hard to deny that an RTS takes more managing skill, more microing, and more future-awareness skill. A FPS is more of a boots-on-the-ground, shoot 'em type game, where as an RTS is more thinking and strategic.
Which RTS to play?
There are several types, several subclasses of RTS that one may play. I chose to divide them into two categories: Tactical and Strategy. A tactical version is something along the lines of Bliztkrieg and Star Wars: Empire at War. Tactical games focus more on the actual fighting then base-building, resource collection, and unit managing all at once. While Empire at War has an economy system, it is far from the traditional true RTS gameplay design.
On the other hand, we have true RTS. I refer to these as strategy games. Strategy games require the player to fight battles, gather resources, manage builders, and anything else. Strategy games require more micro and much more skill as a strategist compared to a tactical RTS. True RTS games include Battle for Middle-Earth 2, Empire Earth, Starcraft, Warcraft 3, and the Age of Empires series.
Conclusion
One may define RTS as a simply Real-Time Strategy, but the true meaning of the game is lost in the translation. A true RTS game requires the gamer to manage resources, fight battles, and build up infrastructure all at once. Unique to its companions, the RTS genre is the only style of game that truly allows a player to immerse themselves in the history and future of a game and make a difference in the outcome on a strategic, global level in the gaming world.
*Author's Note*
If applicable, I would greatly pleased if this article was added to the Article section of BfME2, where I feel it fits in with the works of other people.
This post has been edited by sigsiggerson: Mar 9 2006, 04:08 AM
Awesome essay. Thanks for putting in the time . I didn't know that 70% of people who buy RTS games only play Singleplayer and the Skirmishes verse A.I.
Edit: ^I would if I could
This post has been edited by Pszonkadonk: Mar 8 2006, 03:28 AM
Nice philisophical write up, seems like some things could've been covered better though such as balance or gameplay, seemed like those were kind of breezed over, no offense.
And I can't help but have a small laugh at this line:
QUOTE
A FPS is more of a boots-on-the-ground, shoot 'em type game, where as an RTS is more thinking and tactical.
I was under the impression that in RTS games you shoot people and in FPS games you made tactical decisions
Great article! I suggest adding some of the content here to the Wikipedia for better visibility. Would it be alright if I took some of what you have said and placed it in the Wikipedia article on RTS?
ps. on a more serious note, warcraft 3 wasn't balanced. every patch had a new "cheese" tactic discovered quite rapidly, and night elf huntress rush was like imbalanced for the first 5 patches or w/e.
then it became orc tower rush with shadow hunter hero and serpent wards during frozen throne beta and first couple of patches and then it became spirit walkers with taurens.
it's no wonder they're up to about patch 20 now. of course they disguise their patches as addons by adding a panda hero or two ;p
the only fun in w3tft these days is fucking around with custom maps tbh.
This post has been edited by justinkb: Mar 21 2006, 00:09 AM
I never really got into WC3, seemed a bit too much like a RPG for me. From my limited experience, it seemed relatively balanced, but I never tested it fully.
This post has been edited by sigsiggerson: Mar 21 2006, 02:18 AM
I disagree that Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne is not balanced. To first order, it is. All races win big tournaments. The "imba" strats all have counters if you know what you're doing. It is a game of skill with a little luck thrown in. And it is still very popular and in my opinion still a better game than BFMEII. The graphics in BFMEII are great, but graphics shouldn't matter. It's what game is more fun that makes the most difference to me.
Yeah Warcraft 3 and Starcraft are some of the most balanced RTS games ever tbh. Everything has good counters. Look at the pro leagues and all the races have equal chances. BFME2 need a lot of fixes to have the same level of balance.
The only thing I dont like about War3 is that the population limit is so low and the battle field is usually small, so usually you can't attack several places at once, do flanking, maneveuring... as in BFME2.
Another game that has great balance is Empire Earth. If you ever play Empire Earth in Atomic Modern Age, there are around 20 different types of units but they are all very balanced. Every unit has several good counters and every unit is useful. EE is still my most favourite RTS game of all the time.
@sigsiggerson: Nice article. Although I think tactical games can be put on a different category that ppl call RTT (Real-Time Tactical games).
This post has been edited by SithLordsrock: Mar 26 2006, 00:17 AM
I never really got into WC3, seemed a bit too much like a RPG for me. From my limited experience, it seemed relatively balanced, but I never tested it fully.
Great article was a good read. why does wc3 look like a rpg to you?
Mainly because it focused more on individual units than an army as a whole. WC3 was mainly about the usage of units not as a whole. There was a great deal of depth to it, but my experiences led me to believe that the game backed away from the traditional RTS standpoints. It seemed to back away from larger battles and focus more on smaller, "RPG" stlye conflicts. While I know it was never intended to be an RPG at all, it seemed to have more of that theme to it than any other RTS.
Nevertheless, I truly enjoyed WC3 and the changes it brought to the genre.
It would be interesting to see if Blizzard would make a Starcraft 2, to see if it would have any of the old classicism of the original.
but it was really interesting
. This should give a lot of people some perspective on the genre.
We must ask ourselves, "What is RTS?" The definition of RTS is Real-Time Strategy. But what does this mean? Is it commanding hundreds of units throughout battles? Is it the micromanaging of resource buildings and structure builders? Or is it a massive "clickfest" with no depth? These are some of the questions I hope to answer.
If Real-Time Strategy is what the title suggests, then it must be a game where one commands every aspect of a strategy. Thus, this includes the managing of armies, navies, air forces, heroes, and resources all at once. Nevertheless, it seems that there must be more to the RTS genre than being a manager of units. It also entails devising and executing battle plans, build orders, spell powers, and advanced tactical maneuvers. With this answered, we must move on to what defines a RTS.
Gameplay
Gameplay. Such a short word with such a long meaning. It covers a broad range of topic, including interaction, unit managing, how one plays the game, the resource system, and the way the units interact with one another. What is the specific definiton of gameplay? Is it, like mentioned above, the microing of hundreds of units and resources? Or is it enjoying the game and playing it to one's best ability, even if one loses? This definition is still not complete. Gameplay must also include the feeling that one experiences when an army successfully pulls off an assault, when a hero manages to use his ultimate power right before defeat is at hand. Additionally, gameplay transfers the true essence of being in command, of actually making a difference. The decisions one makes during a game influences gameplay and the future of the match, on how one plays the game.
More can be said about gameplay. Gameplay also is how the player interacts with the world. For BfME2, an example would be flammable terrain. This affects how the player works with the game world by deciding if one should move forces through flammable terrain when he knows the enemy has fire arrows. Small things like this have a major effect on how the player moves with the world in an RTS.
How resources are gathered is a major portion of the RTS genre. The only style of game where one must collect resources, this is arguably one of the things that sets the RTS genre away from other categories. In traditional RTS games such as the Age of Empires series, a player would produce resource gatherers called villagers. The villager would produce buildings, gather resources, and fix objects, if applicable. The resource system was fairly complex: one had to collect a variety of items such as wood, iron, gold, and food to be able to create any structures or units. In BfME1, a player would simply produce a structure like a farm or a slaughterhouse that would, over time, produce generic money used to fund your war machine. This was a simple and effective measure taken to enhance battles and reduce the need to micro resource gatherers. The Evil factions also had lumber mills that could gain more resources at the expense of creating laborers. Often regarded as more of a simplistic way of production, this system attracted many new players to the RTS genre.
In BfME2, EA decided to completely change the resource system. Utilizing a new effiency method, the game designers decided to base the amount of resources gained through location to other resource producing structures. A farm right next to another farm would take a severe penalty for being so close. This new system of resource gathering essentailly forces the gamer to gain map control, at least enough to the point where the have a sufficent income to fund their army. However, there have been matches in BfME2 where the loser had map control, but due to lack of utilizing it, lost the match to a player who used their land wisely and more effectively.
Balance
Balance. Another short word with a deep meaning. Balance is one of the most important factors in an RTS game. Balance means that no matter what faction one chooses, no one side will have a long-term advantage over the other. Note long-term. Balance is often misinterpreted. One might say that, for Battle for Middle-Earth 2, the Goblins are overpowered. Many people base this opinion on the fact that the Goblin faction can rush easily. This is not balance, this is something entirely different. Another example would be that the Elven faction is overpowered late game. Is this truly balance? Or is it more of a gameplay decision? I believe that it is more of a gameplay factor than a true balance issue. Balance refers to the faction as a whole, not one individual segment of the faction's lifespan. Where Elves lack in early game, they make up for in late game. This is the true meaning of balance, whether a side's weaknesses and strengths are cancelled out over the course of the match.
Balance also refers to individual units and their respective strengths and weaknesses. For example, a battalion of Mirkwood Archers have very high damage, but low hitpoints are armor to withstand melee attacks. Thus, the unit is balanced due to its low armor but high damage rate. There are some issues with some units strengths overpowering its weaknesses, but hopefully these will be ironed out through the use of patches.
Overpowered units have a severe effect on gameplay and balance. An overpowered unit essentially refers to a unit has more strengths than weaknesses. A good example would be Gandalf, from BfME1. At level ten, he was "A mounted form of Jesus" (to quote HERO). One could say that his strenghts smothered his weaknesses. Overpowered units detract from overall gameplay and game balance by providing the user of that unit with an object that nearly always proves to be hard to counter.
Underpowered units also have a major effect on balance. Underpowered units are what their title suggests: units that strengths are overshadowed by their weaknesses. Units like these are typically never used unless a bizarre gameplay situation occurs. Underpowered units clutter the game's build order screens and are typically ignored.
Over or underpowered factions are also in the RTS genre. The most severe type of inbalance, the faction inbalance refers to a faction as a whole. One side will be more powerful overall througout the game than another faction. Starcraft and Warcraft 3 both were examples of nearly perfectly balanced units and factions.
Graphics
Graphics have very little effect on actual gameplay. Nevertheless, they are an important factor in the game. Who wants to play a modern game that looks blocky and chunky? No one. Modern gamers want a beautiful landscape, detailed units and stunning special effects to wage war on. Graphic design can make or break a game.
Music
The art score of a game is also a very important factor in the game. Often overlooked, the music of an RTS adds a backdrop, a feeling of emotion to the game. Going hand-in-hand with graphics, music adds the life to the game. Without a good art score, any game will lack the certain substance needed for a successful game.
Singleplayer
Singleplayer. A touchy subject for most people on the online gaming community. Often regarded as incidental to the experts at RTS games, they are rather quick to disregard it. However, they could not be more wrong. Without a good singleplayer, an RTS game will fail horribly. One might ask, "Why?". The answer is simple. Singleplayer adds the basis, the fundamentals of the game. It is where people learn their first strategies, their favorite faction, their ideal unit combinations. Providing the basic gameplay design, singleplayer is essentially one of the most important factors in an Real-Time Strategy game. Recent polls showed that over seventy percent of the people who buy RTS games play only singleplayer. This leaves only thirty percent of the buyers on multiplayer, which leads into our next section. However, singleplayer must be well-made and wholesome, otherwise the game will fail at sales, and in turn fail utterly. The basis of this form of play is the AI. AI, or artificial intelligence, is the opponent that one competes against in a singleplayer match. Regrettably, the AI is often the weakest portion of the game. Simply put, no AI in existence or the near future has the ability to act like a human, to react with a wild, risky strategy to pull of a miraculous save. The AI simply follows a code with some variables, but once a human has figured out the strategy, the AI becomes nothing more than an annoyance.
Multiplayer
Multiplayer. Another interesting topic to discuss. Multiplayer is the first portion of an RTS game designer to finish and the one that will give it the most longevity in the gaming community. Playing against a human opponent is one of the most exciting things any RTS gamer could do, and arguably the most satisfying. Multiplayer provides the players of any game with the ability to always be devising new strategies, new ways to hone their skill. It is the only thing that keeps games from disintegrating into a relic of the past. Games such as Starcraft have been out for over seven years and they still have a roaring multiplayer base. Why? Because the game designers realized the value of multiplayer and designed an efficient, balanced game built for it. Gamers online form tight-knit clans, close bonds over years of playing, and oftentimes friendships are forged. Without multiplayer, the true balance and realization of any RTS simply cannot be discovered. The online community also has a major impact on the designing of an RTS game. During the production of The Battle for Middle-Earth, EA asked for the help, advice, and skills of many of the online community's prominent members. Through the advice of these people, as well as by listening to the general opinion of how the game developed truly revealed how the community can help the RTS genre develop.
Reviewing an RTS
Generally, RTS reviews are lacking. The interesting thing about RTS reviews is that they must encompass the full scope of the game. Most review focus only on singleplayer. This is not a true representation of the RTS genre. Singleplayer, while important, lacks the depth that one gets from playing an online match and besting a human opponent. Only against a human will a gamer discover new and improved strategies to be victorious in a match. With all the reviews on The Battle for Middle-Earth 2, they nearly all only have small sections dedicated to multiplayer. Thus, the game receives scores lower than could be earned if the reviewer had done a truly in-depth look into both the single and multiplayer aspects of the game. Reviews for the game based on how well the AI performed is not an accurate representation.
An RTS should be graded on the following:
Singleplayer
1) Campaign: must be scipted, immersive. Player must want to know what happens.
2) AI: AI must be sufficent enough to provide challenge for average RTS players.
Multiplayer
1) Must be balanced to the point where no one side has advantage.
2) Must have good multiplayer support, e.g. quick patches (if needed).
3) Must have good tournament/ladder system to ensure competitive play.
Additional Factors
1) Graphics: must be pleasing to they eye, e.g. good animations, no blocky pixels.
2) Music: must be good enough to provide sufficent emotion to game.
Gameplay
1) Game must be fun to play.
2) Units must have fast response times, e.g. must be able to micro.
3) Resource system must be efficient and able to be used effectively.
Why play Real-Time Strategy?
The question on many peoples' minds is, "Why should I play RTS games?" The question, while being short, has a long and complex answer. The easiest answer is that you get to see massive armies clashing, thousands of units being thrown into battles. After all, no modern gamer doesn't like a game where you see lots and lots of warriors fighting. Only in an RTS game can one truly experience the magnificence of this style of gameplay.
However, one could also say that one likes to envision oneself in a position of power, a situation where one's decisions can actually have an effect on what happens, on who lives or dies, on what lands will be enslaved by the enemy, on which lands need to be liberated first. Personally, when I play RTS games, I envision little scenarios, little stories. I think of short stories to give the battles I'm fighting some reason, some purpose. This is why I love a good campaign, because I love a good story. I love having a true goal to accomplish and a specific target I'm trying to reach. This is a major factor of why I prefer RTS games more than any other genre.
Another point to bring up is the competitive side of PC gaming. Many people dream about winning online tournaments. RTS is one of the only games where true skill is shown in tournaments. In a first-person shooter, is there truly much skill? Of course there is, but it is hard to deny that an RTS takes more managing skill, more microing, and more future-awareness skill. A FPS is more of a boots-on-the-ground, shoot 'em type game, where as an RTS is more thinking and strategic.
Which RTS to play?
There are several types, several subclasses of RTS that one may play. I chose to divide them into two categories: Tactical and Strategy. A tactical version is something along the lines of Bliztkrieg and Star Wars: Empire at War. Tactical games focus more on the actual fighting then base-building, resource collection, and unit managing all at once. While Empire at War has an economy system, it is far from the traditional true RTS gameplay design.
On the other hand, we have true RTS. I refer to these as strategy games. Strategy games require the player to fight battles, gather resources, manage builders, and anything else. Strategy games require more micro and much more skill as a strategist compared to a tactical RTS. True RTS games include Battle for Middle-Earth 2, Empire Earth, Starcraft, Warcraft 3, and the Age of Empires series.
Conclusion
One may define RTS as a simply Real-Time Strategy, but the true meaning of the game is lost in the translation. A true RTS game requires the gamer to manage resources, fight battles, and build up infrastructure all at once. Unique to its companions, the RTS genre is the only style of game that truly allows a player to immerse themselves in the history and future of a game and make a difference in the outcome on a strategic, global level in the gaming world.
*Author's Note*
If applicable, I would greatly pleased if this article was added to the Article section of BfME2, where I feel it fits in with the works of other people.
This post has been edited by sigsiggerson: Mar 9 2006, 04:08 AM
Posts: 13,597
Clan: EPIC
Game: