Define a True RTS
- Thread starter Zersy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
True RTS is something like the battle scenes in Total War, where actual strategy is required. If you're given a troop mix of your own choosing, thrown into a battle where you can't zerg-rush reinforcements, and the strategy is not a pre-defined series of moves and/or builds, and in addition the action's in real-time (turn-based strategy meets this same requirement), then you've got a true RTS.
Note that a definition this narrow excludes a LOT of games (from Blizzard War/Starcraft games through Age of Empires and even into chess on a board), but the art of war is as it is in life, a matter of making victory with what you are given, nothing more.
Note that a definition this narrow excludes a LOT of games (from Blizzard War/Starcraft games through Age of Empires and even into chess on a board), but the art of war is as it is in life, a matter of making victory with what you are given, nothing more.
A game where you spend 20 minutes trying to build a base, and then the enemy comes and starts blowing it up. As you are trying to desperately fend off the enemy more show up. As you have spent such a long time building resources you realize that the enemy has spent all his time building an army, and you wonder how the hell he made all of those troops without factories. Then you switch it off and go and play an FPS instead.
Besides the Total War example (where the strategy portion applies strictly to the battle scenes), most games accomplish this through pre-deployed scenarios, sometimes forming a Grand Campaign. The point is that you can't allow players to build their bases in-scene and/or unit-spam reinforcements.UNKNOWNINCOGNITO said:
Brilliant. My day has officially been made.cuddly_tomato said:
I still love RTSs, though. But since I know the AI is cheating under the Fog of War, I always cheat too. I'm just playing for epic battle scenes anyway.
Warhammer: Shadow of The Horned Rat
That game was so damn difficult even when you did have a strategy
That game was so damn difficult even when you did have a strategy
It's a strategy game that is played out in real time instead of turn-by-turn. (/cpt.obvious)UNKNOWNINCOGNITO said:
Truly, the genre is badly misnamed much of the time; instead of strategy, most RTSes focus on logistics and supply (via resource gathering and base-building) and tactics (the shooty bit) over actual strategy (maneuvering forces to engage the enemy on favourable terms) and that's been the case since the start.
Myth and Close Combat were good at simulating actual tactics, in my experience; both games minimised the "build" part (Myth by assigning pre-built armies to each player or by scenario, CC by only allowing building between games) and made tactics and strategy a much bigger factor as a result. For instance, casualties are much more serious in both because you can't replace them until the session's over... so don't waste troops, and try to bait your enemy into wasting his.
I'd love to see a revival of either style of play, myself.
-- Steve
Strategy. If an "RTS game" is just all about building 20 of the same units and conquer the enemy town in a matter of minutes that is not an RTS, that's a spam-fest.
I love the idea, but I think the emphasis most RTS games have these days sucks. I keep playing them, because I long for some strategy, but the only strategy I ever see is balancing act between resource creation and unit building. I would like to see you start with a decent set of defensive units so you can give yourself a fighting chance at getting some kind of working base ready, and then I would like to see more emphasis on strategy and use of those units you create.TheBluesader said:
If you look at Halo Wars, you build units, select them all, then order them all to go trash the enemies shit. There is no real strategy to speak of beyond balancing the building and upgrading of your army over sending them out to die. If you build a scarab, or build 10 tanks, the result is more or less the same.
RTSs like Total War I love though. I also loved Kessen 2, which was a bit like a RTS, Dynasty Warriors thing.
No RTS makes you actually think after you nailed it down...
Even in CoH or DoW(Fans of those games spent all day ravaging that CoH/DoW requires thinking.) after you nailed it the general idea all strategy and tactic gets trowned out of the window and becomes another memorize game and fast clicking.
Even in CoH or DoW(Fans of those games spent all day ravaging that CoH/DoW requires thinking.) after you nailed it the general idea all strategy and tactic gets trowned out of the window and becomes another memorize game and fast clicking.
I think that there are only a few true real time strategy games out there and none of them involve base-building in the actual real time part.
These games are the Total War games and also the Close Combat games (though I've only played 'A Bridge too Far' from them).
This is because you have to have an element of strategy in these games; you can't just recruit reinforcement's in-battle for that everlasting assault.
Edit: there are probably others, but I haven?t played them.
These games are the Total War games and also the Close Combat games (though I've only played 'A Bridge too Far' from them).
This is because you have to have an element of strategy in these games; you can't just recruit reinforcement's in-battle for that everlasting assault.
Edit: there are probably others, but I haven?t played them.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that's real time tactical, a game were you have a specific number of troops and cannot obtain any more, and need to work with what you've got. They usually try to simulate real battlefield simulations. (units have their own morale, ammunition, energy etc...)SimuLord said:
Though, Real Time Tactical is sometimes considered a sub-genre of real time strategy, its description probably can't define real-time strategy.
It might be a good argument to define good strategy games, but here I don't think it applies for real-time strategy games in general, unless you discriminate games that don't meet those standards from real-time strategy games.
To me, an average real-time strategy game is a military simulation were you can typically construct buildings and train/create new units, gather resources and research technology. You must also be able to indirectly control multiple units, and it must not be restricted by turns. (hence the name 'Real Time' strategy)
Though to be less literal, I think a true RTS is a game were you must control your economy, place buildings and build different units strategically, command your units in an organized and strategic/tactical way, and be able to adapt to different situations to win. So, you can't do one thing the exact same way over and over again and expect to come out victorious every time. You should also need to use tactics to control your units during battles, rather than just throwing your units against the enemy, and then quickly scrolling back to your base to make more. (the last part is generally used more in games were units have special abilities, rather than just stats, like in War/Starcraft and Dawn of War 1/2)
Again, Simulord's definition might work for the definition on a 'true' RTS, but not the RTS genre in general. (But I don't think this thread is about RTS's in general anyway) But I don't agree that pretty much all RTS's besides those in the Real Time Tactical sub-genre should be considered not 'true' RTS's.
As one last thing, RTS's that include base building/recource gathering/unit production (like Simulord's examples) are usually on a much greater scale. This fact kind of separates the two genres, as tactics are short term plans and strategies are long term ones. In real-time strategy, instead of just focusing on a single battle in every scenario, it might focus on an entire war, an entire phase of a war in one area. This generally means that time is sped up, maybe to a year or month per second. It might also mean that it covers a much greater distance, maybe up to an entire country or continent. So they are not any less realistic or in close relation to the art of war, they just speed things up a lot and show you many more battles, probably at the cost of the detail of those battles. And the increased scale in distance mean that your base could be considered maybe thousands or hundreds of miles away from another person's base, so you would build training barracks's and research buildings there. This isn't true with all base-building RTS's though, like Command and Conquer for example. CnC has a scale that's pretty much even to that of the real world's scale, so in that game none of the above applies.
no offense or hatred to you Simulord, and I'm not proclaiming myself right either, just stating my opinion.
you should check out soldiers heroes of ww2 and its sequels faces of war and men of war.
they provide action and require tactics because you get no base so that means you get no reinforcments. and you cant just charge straight into enemys because you die ALOT so you have to sneak around behind.
they provide action and require tactics because you get no base so that means you get no reinforcments. and you cant just charge straight into enemys because you die ALOT so you have to sneak around behind.
I still reckon Age of empires 2 is the best RTS. You can be as simple or as complicated as you want to be.
You have the choice of drawing your enemys gathered forces out of thier base towards your own defense, using seige weapons and gun towers to support your troops while you rush thier unprotected walls with battering rams defended by pikeman. Then quickly rush in with horses to quickly destroy the unit producing buildings so if the plan fails you have a better chance of regrouping faster. Then after destroying most resistance you focus on the castle and use the last of your might to win the game.
OR
spam Paladins and trebutchets
either way works
You have the choice of drawing your enemys gathered forces out of thier base towards your own defense, using seige weapons and gun towers to support your troops while you rush thier unprotected walls with battering rams defended by pikeman. Then quickly rush in with horses to quickly destroy the unit producing buildings so if the plan fails you have a better chance of regrouping faster. Then after destroying most resistance you focus on the castle and use the last of your might to win the game.
OR
spam Paladins and trebutchets
either way works
If you hate RTS's then it's probably because you suck at that game no-offense and no the AI doesn't cheat. In DOW if you play insane against orks then you'll get the idea of the AI cheating because the enemy has like 6 full squads and all you have is 2 sqauds and a commander. But of course the reason for this is because the enemie's requisition is like 40 coz they just rushed.
My point is RTS's can only be fully enjoyed if you are a pro.
A true RTS has alot of clicking and that is essential coz a RTS is about clicking! You cant take away clicking unless its on a console.
But all games have some kind of strategy e.g DOW you wont send 10 scouts against friggin tanks just because you think the numbers can over-whelm them. So you can never say this
"I'm gonna send 10 squads of guys with anti-unit weapons against 3 tanks coz ten squads of 5 guys can beat 23 tanks" Thats not a RTS its someone building a army of squads against anything coz they think thats a RTS.Getting guys out and sending them to the enemy!
*Facepalm.
Don't blame the RTS blame ur self.
My point is RTS's can only be fully enjoyed if you are a pro.
A true RTS has alot of clicking and that is essential coz a RTS is about clicking! You cant take away clicking unless its on a console.
But all games have some kind of strategy e.g DOW you wont send 10 scouts against friggin tanks just because you think the numbers can over-whelm them. So you can never say this
"I'm gonna send 10 squads of guys with anti-unit weapons against 3 tanks coz ten squads of 5 guys can beat 23 tanks" Thats not a RTS its someone building a army of squads against anything coz they think thats a RTS.Getting guys out and sending them to the enemy!
*Facepalm.
Don't blame the RTS blame ur self.
Predeployed armies, with occasional reinforcements, placed in a strategic way favourable to the player, while weakening the enemy horde who is also trying to do the same too, all the while taking place in real-time.
AKA make turn based games real time, but keep the basic mechanic, but instead of build in a day and use the next, build a unit and use in like 10 seconds . Are you listening Intelligent Systems?
AKA make turn based games real time, but keep the basic mechanic, but instead of build in a day and use the next, build a unit and use in like 10 seconds . Are you listening Intelligent Systems?