Without Basebuilding it wouldnt be an RTS. But since Developers these days wash the genre down all the time with claiming a game is an RTS while it is not, i wouldnt be surprised.
Just a hint, just having real time combat doesnt make a game a real-time strategy game.
Without Basebuilding it would just be an RTT (Real Time Tactics).
Since RTT isnt a popular genre (less popular than the RTS genre, which is pretty dead and unpopular right now, so thats an achievement), they obviously wouldnt slap an RTT tag on it and instead go for RTS.

Doesnt it have basebuilding right now? I thought it had.

If someone is concerned about the genre categorization and confused because some popular games you love to play are tagged as RTS games, they very likely arent. So to clear things a bit:
Total War, is no RTS. Yeah might be shocking. But it isnt. Parts of Dawn of War 2, no RTS. Wargame, no RTS. Ruse was an RTS, same company.
I think many devs are confused because they think that because the genre is titled "real time strategy" suddenly games like Divinity Original Sin are RTS games, or Total War is one. But they arent. Or we just kill the genre entirely and just call everything an RTS now, like Mario Kart 4, because its in real time and you make strategic decisions. Or have Fifa be tagged as RTS, because its "strategic" and runs in real time.
What many dont know, theres a difference between "Tactic" and "Strategy", as is there a difference between RTS and RTT or Tactical RPG.
If people actually grew up with these games and genres, they could know. Since many didnt, they dont. Just looking at many who classify Total War as an RTS, makes me wonder, its quite obvious why it isnt one.

Using these genres so widely as many devs today do, Mario Kart had to be a RTS Third Person Shooter Racing MOBA with a Cartoon SciFi Setting.
I think we can also just stick to the truth and call it an Arcade Racer. Btw. all of the named above genres would apply to a game like Mario Kart. If we would use these terms and genres like some developers do.
And so could we stick to call Strategy games in real time with basebuilding and subcomplex economy an RTS, while those with either a complex economy are build up games and those without basebuilding stay Real Time Tactic Games.

"Store Page" の投稿を引用：

The game combines resource management and base building with (...)

Game has base building. Hope that's clear now ;)

DC_vipeout の投稿を引用：

"Store Page" の投稿を引用：

The game combines resource management and base building with (...)

Game has base building. Hope that's clear now ;)

yeah i remembered to have seen that somewhere, normally thatst he first thing i check when i see a so called RTS popping up.
Just after that i wishlisted it as i am not interested in another RTT or dumbed down RTS, i wanted to make sure to keep track of it.
Thanks for reminding me, i was a tad bit surprised by this thread.
However, the above statement stands anyway.

NemesisZidar の投稿を引用：

DC_vipeout の投稿を引用：

Game has base building. Hope that's clear now ;)

... dumbed down RTS, i wanted to make sure to keep track of it.

Dawn of war 3? :D
Game so slow paced I'm sleeping while watching it.
Dawn of war 1 was a masterpiece though. One of the best RTS ever for sure.

Hibou の投稿を引用：

NemesisZidar の投稿を引用：

... dumbed down RTS, i wanted to make sure to keep track of it.

Dawn of war 3? :D
Game so slow paced I'm sleeping while watching it.
Dawn of war 1 was a masterpiece though. One of the best RTS ever for sure.

xD
I think DoW3 is....well. I would have loved a new DoW1 for sure, to get that right out of the way. I think out of the three parts, DoW1 was the best as it was simply an RTS out of the book. But it had new improvements, a fresh setting and several new mechanics making it unique.
Dow2 was bad. Not bad as a game, its a good game, its just absolute garbage as an RTS, since it is none. Or lets say it slides so close at the edge of being one that you could just call it by its name as not being one.
Dow 3 though, yeah thats sad on one hand. It kind of is the same as DoW 2, its a solid game on its own, takes a new combination of several influences, but its not a good RTS.
It is an RTS, but they decided to balance the game out between several genres.
I think the fun part with the story of DoW 3 is, they had two audiences, those who loved DoW 2 and so didnt want an RTS and those who wanted a fresh DoW 1 and the basic RTS roots back into the series. They tried to get right inbetween and deliver to both.
Only that DoW 3 ended up not pleasing any of them in the end, neither the DoW 2 fans, nor the DoW 1 fans. Too different for DoW 2 players, too simple for DoW 1 players.
WHat stayed was a small group of people who likes the game as what it is.
Fair enough, i think its a solid game, but yet again, a bad Dawn of War Game, a bad RTS Game.

So yeah, with dumbed down i somewhat meant that, but really i didnt mean DoW 3, i rather meant stuff like DoW 2 and Company of Heroes 2. Dumbed down RTS games that are really just glorfied RTT.

NemesisZidar の投稿を引用：

Hibou の投稿を引用：

Dawn of war 3? :D
Game so slow paced I'm sleeping while watching it.
Dawn of war 1 was a masterpiece though. One of the best RTS ever for sure.

xD
I think DoW3 is....well. I would have loved a new DoW1 for sure, to get that right out of the way. I think out of the three parts, DoW1 was the best as it was simply an RTS out of the book. But it had new improvements, a fresh setting and several new mechanics making it unique.
Dow2 was bad. Not bad as a game, its a good game, its just absolute garbage as an RTS, since it is none. Or lets say it slides so close at the edge of being one that you could just call it by its name as not being one.
Dow 3 though, yeah thats sad on one hand. It kind of is the same as DoW 2, its a solid game on its own, takes a new combination of several influences, but its not a good RTS.
It is an RTS, but they decided to balance the game out between several genres.
I think the fun part with the story of DoW 3 is, they had two audiences, those who loved DoW 2 and so didnt want an RTS and those who wanted a fresh DoW 1 and the basic RTS roots back into the series. They tried to get right inbetween and deliver to both.
Only that DoW 3 ended up not pleasing any of them in the end, neither the DoW 2 fans, nor the DoW 1 fans. Too different for DoW 2 players, too simple for DoW 1 players.
WHat stayed was a small group of people who likes the game as what it is.
Fair enough, i think its a solid game, but yet again, a bad Dawn of War Game, a bad RTS Game.

So yeah, with dumbed down i somewhat meant that, but really i didnt mean DoW 3, i rather meant stuff like DoW 2 and Company of Heroes 2. Dumbed down RTS games that are really just glorfied RTT.

Company of Heroes 2 is again, another masterpiece, but it's very close to be a RTT. The base building being almost absent/ troop management ressembling Men of War franchise way too much - which is a full RTT.

You want to know what are good RTS? Starcraft 1/2 are the best, Age of Empire 1-2-3-Mythology, Supreme Commander 1/2, Warcraft 2/3, Dawn of War1, Command & Conquer 3, 8-bit Armies Arena, Ashes of the Singularity Escalation, Planetary Annihilation/ TA/TA:Kingdoms, Grey Goo.
Ashes is the only high budget RTS of the current gen, it started as a tech demo/benchmark btw, and its a great game. Unfortunately people prefer their dumb shooters
Good games like Coh2, Halo Wars 1/2, DoW2, Homeworld serie, are not RTS (even Desert of Kharak) but instead slow paced RTT/RTS hybrid.

I own all of those, but yeah, exactly.
Although one notion here. Halo Wars is not the same as DoW or Homeworld or CoH2. Halo Wars has Basebuilding, economy management and logistics.
Contrary to the other named games.
Yes its a simplified RTS that dumbed down its mechanics, yet its more RTS than lets say CoH2.
Halo Wars also is very fast. I played it for a very long time, basically for 4 years. It might at first look basic, but as an RTS its actually deeper than most of the ones you named.
At least Halo Wars 1. While HW2 is somewhat the same, its sadly not as deep. Im also not quite sure about Homeworld. I know why you would put them closer to RTT, but im not actually sure. Problem for me with the game is, it hasnt standard building, because the spaceships and the mothership are said base(buildings).
So instead of placing a research building somewhere on the ground, you create research ships, instead of building an outpost close to resources, like in Starcraft, you place a ship close to it that serves as a station for gatherers.
So Homeworld has Basebuilding, only that the buildings arent stationary structures but either bigger ships, smaller drones or Hubs inside the Mothership.
Its still somewhat basebuilding, although very different.

Age of Empires and Age of Mythology for example slide closer to the RTS and Build-Up genre. Mostly because they add more complex aspects such as diplomatic options and trading to the mix. Which are aspects of Build-Up strategy games. So if this was a horizontal line and RTS was in the middle, build-up games in the right side and RTT on the left side, AOE was between RTS and Build-Up games.

I personally have to admit i prefer Build-Up strategy games, like Settlers 2 or Anno 1701, or Knights and Merchants, but thats why i demand RTS games need proper basebuilding, to at least somewhat have this aspect in it that i prefer. Otherwise its just unit management, and in my eyes thats horribly boring.

Halo Wars 2 is actually excellent - IF you play it with a controller.
For a K+M control, well the radial X-1 menu feels so bad I don't want to spend time on it personally.
The only thing I don't like in the rts genre: slow paced RTS.
APM is correlated with RTS to be honest. You want to play a slow ass strategy game? Play TBS/ RTT games, Idk some total war games or you get the idea.

While Warcraft 3 is a good strategy game, it's a sort of "bad" RTS in the sense that you have very few building, there's RNG involved (with item drops and things like that), and it's very micro-intensive.

OP should correct title of post

RTS = Real Time Strategy, does not have to involve base building.

I highly doubt anyone wants to call the Men of War series anything else than RTS. Or what about the total war series?

Dondergod の投稿を引用：

RTS = Real Time Strategy, does not have to involve base building.

I highly doubt anyone wants to call the Men of War series anything else than RTS. Or what about the total war series?

RTS has to involve base building. Otherwise its an RTT.
The Total War Series is a Turn Based 4X Strategy Game. It has ONE mechanic, the combat, which is RTT (Real Time Tactics).
RTS is a genre that evolved around specific aspects of strategy gaming, involving resource management, infrastructure (workers and economy building, like sending miners to a goldmine and have them carry the gold back to a building), recruitment of troops, Basebuilding and combat in real time.
All of that has to happen in one segment, not separate and all of that has to happen in a subcomplex way, meaning theres no refinement of resources, no long production lines. Otherwise, if it becomes more complex, it becomes a build up strategy game (for example Settlers or Knights and Merchants).
Besides that there are a bunch of detailled aspects that are common for RTS games but must not nessecarily apply. For example that in an RTS a building has to be built and isnt just placed and there.
The direct placement of buildings belongs to the CityBuilder Genre, aswell as the area of effect mechanic and the walker mechanic (buildings deliver a service in a certain area, buildings send out walkers who pass other buildings and deliver their service this way).
One example of a mix is Stronghold, which combines the citybuilding aspekt of placing structures with the other aspects of the RTS genre.

Men of War aswell isnt an RTS, its an RTT. It doesnt involve most of the genretypical mechanics of an RTS to come even close to the genre. Instead its a Tactics-Game.

What most people are unable to differ between is what a Strategy is, and what a Tactic is. Playing a certain Strategy contains several aspects and dedication to a direction and thought, for example when you direct and control your kingdom in a Total War Game.
Playing a battle contains of Tactics that you can use to win the battle but its one part of a bigger strategy.
One could argue, that you can break down a strategy on a smaller level, for example that you call defending with your army in a certain way, is a strategy that consist of a number of tactics.
In reality though, thats not true.
A strategy has to be planned and to consist of several steps that includes which types of units you even have, something that you cant change during battle in Total War. If the segments of Battle and Strategy were one thing in Total War, as they are for example in Stellaris, then we could argue whether it is an RTS.
Since they arent, it simply isnt.

Dont get me wrong, its sometimes hard to fit a game into a genre, even more when it comes to the strategy genre. But for most games is really quite easy and people just dont know it, mostly because they are relatively new to game in general or at least new to the genre.
As said, a Stronghold for example is hard to fit into only one genre of strategy gaming alone, but games like Men of War or Total War really arent that hard to categorize.
No basebuilding = no RTS, dead simple.

Base Building game havent war strategy mostly. Generete unit and move. I like Total war series eveytime. Base Buildings games are suck.

DC_vipeout の投稿を引用：

"Store Page" の投稿を引用：

The game combines resource management and base building with (...)

Game has base building. Hope that's clear now ;)

DAMN! i was hoping it was a RTT game with no base building! ;]


but i;ll still buy it. just base building seems sooooo old fashioned

Real Time Stratergy... If people learned the meaning of the selected title to describe a specific genre they would understand what it means or as shown above look like an utter moron.

Hardly anyone uses the term 'RTT' though. Most games describe themselves as RTS, even though reading by this topic they should be called 'RTT'.

I find it nitpicking over nothing really. Real-time-strategy simply means that it's strategy and it happens in real time. Nowhere in the name does it specify base-building.
FPS, TPS, titles like that specify. FPS is not a top down shooter, as it specifies to be a first person game.
It just seems some misplaced elitism to me to complain about games without base building being called RTS games.

Games like Commandos and such, I would agreed not calling those RTS games, seeing it's much smaller, only controling a handful of people. But in games where you control a sizeable number of units, being it with or without an economy, I'm just going to keep calling them RTS games.