RTS sub-genres: "real-time tactics" vs. "real-time logistics". Choose.

I actually enjoy the tactic's element more, but it seems the logistics level is defiantely where the battle is won in most games. My biggest problem with the tactical element is just the ridiculous click fest it always degenerates into, with my screaming obscenities at my terminally retarded troops as they mill around aimlessly.

I don't play multiplayer RTS too much. Can you tell?

That being said, I find games that integrate both styles to be the most enjoyable.

I hate the Myth series and all "tactical" RTS with a passion. It's all about figuring out which way to face the ass of X units relative to you and the asses of X enemy units. I like to build, collect, research, and choose, to have total control.

Earth 2150 was indeed a GREAT game, but its depth was matched by the fact that a single game took FOREVER to play. In fact, I think have one I've yet to finish...

Here's my take on the whole RTS vs RTT thing.

Strategy involves large groups of units. It IS essentially having large plans of attack where you send massed forces to completement eachother and try and exploit an opponents weakness with your stregths. Tactics, on the other hand, is much smaller scaled and centers around the use of certain methods to defeat an opposing group.

I abhore tactics. I want my units to operate somewhat intelligently and do the tactics on their own, and not have to clicky-fest them into doing it. They should pick their targets intelligently based on what they're best at and what's their worst threat, etc. I should be able to focus on getting the resources together to make my army, then giving it overall commands on where to go and when, etc, and leave the tactics to the AI.

Unfortunately, most RTS games don't have a good enough AI for that. Starcraft is the prime example. This is why everyone thinks RTS gaming is all about clicking alot.

I've tried a few RTT games, and I frankly don't like them. It feels like its all about replaying the same senario over and over until you find the key that'll let you beat that particular force in that particular position with the particular force and position you have when you start. Its essentially and overblown puzzle game with no real strategy to it.

Homeworld was a great example of a good RTS game. The units, relatively, were intelligent enough to pick their targets and move around somewhat, while allowing you to adjust the force makeup and position of said forces.

Ground Control is the game I often hear brought up as a good RTT game, and while it may be, the whole thing doesn't appeal to me much. While doing the best with what you have is admirable, when I play a game I want to play it in a way that makes me feel like I'm in control, and that I can make my method of victory work, whatever that may be. RTT feels like "Oh, well your anti-tank troops weren't in position here at the time they were needed so reload and try it again" and that's just not fun to me.

Myth spoiled me for any game that tries to make me allocate resources and/or build things during gameplay. RTT is what I like best. Sure, let me distribute a fixed set of resources before the game starts in order to build my army, but once the whistle blows, it's just me and my guys. When even one archer dies, I feel it -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --

It's more like an FPS from a different angle than a puzzle game. There are countless ways to win, and reflexes rarely enter into it. In Myth at least, it's all about terrain and movement. There is nothing remotely rock/paper/scissors about it. I hate those kinds of games, but that's what happens when the game is really about choosing whether to build rock, paper, or scissors. The actual battle is unimportant in those games. You could eliminate it and get a ProgressQuest-style *Craft game -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vampyre:
I've tried a few RTT games, and I frankly don't like them. It feels like its all about replaying the same senario over and over until you find the key that'll let you beat that particular force in that particular position with the particular force and position you have when you start. Its essentially and overblown puzzle game with no real strategy to it.

---

This is a very good point, and I see exactly what you mean. Personally, I like a heavy dose of puzzle-solving in my real-time games, which is why I have so much fun with the Commandos series of games (though they can be wicked hard) and don't really enjoy the "traditional" RTS games like *Craft or C&C.

-Gabe

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darkseid:
Warzone 2100 I miss thee.

---

-- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif --

Definitely tactics, but only because the logistical end of most RTS's is crap. Games like Warlords Battlecry allow you to focus on the tactics and the logistics WITHOUT the crappy "harvester line" problems. I'd definitely rather focus on a way to destroy supplies, like blowing up a mine, than deal with the perpetually stupid harvesters.

Rob Nelson
ronelson@vt.edu

Tactics are better for me, simply because I suck at balancing base-building and taking offensive actions at the same time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Digitali:

quote:

---

I abhore tactics. I want my units to operate somewhat intelligently and do the tactics on their own, and not have to clicky-fest them into doing it. They should pick their targets intelligently based on what they're best at and what's their worst threat, etc. I should be able to focus on getting the resources together to make my army, then giving it overall commands on where to go and when, etc, and leave the tactics to the AI.

---

Vampyre=true.

I'm sick of my soldiers shooting their 5.56 rounds at tanks while my Paladins are trying to shoot up the infantry with AT weapons.

dB

---

I agree on the intelligence of units issue presented here. I enjoy the logistics more because I like building things, camps, bases, whatever. I like to see how I can set up the best defense while not expending too many resourses. I wish there was a castle building game or something where it got attacked and the levels would get harder (more attackers) and you could only perform a limited number of improvements/repairs. A lot like that defend the castle from the Mongol hord flash (java?) game a while back, but where I do nothing in the level, except perhaps issue some commands to archers defending my castle from turrets and whatnot.

quote:

---

And to lay the charge of tacticsless at SC's door is to be immensely wrong. This was even true in wc2 - I had a friend who, given 9 ogres of an equal tech level to my 9 ogres, would always, always win.

---

So true. One of my buddies was fairly infamous in the war2 latter world (PCSPEKAR YAY!!!!). I've also seem some semi-pro korean SC players, and watched said buddy and other climb to the top of the war3 2v2 ladder. What I saw in all three of these games is with skilled players, micro-management skills matter most. I mean, simple scouting can prevent it from being a pure game of P/R/S.

You can't pick a single point and satisfy everyone. Some gamers want only strat, some one only tactics. Blizzard seems to show that if you make motions to appease both, you'll sell the most.

quote:

---

Note to the entire game industry: Get Rid Of Resourcing.

---

You have to be able to fight over something. If it's just a case of "destroy the other guy first" it can be fun, but it'll also be repetative. To create variety, you need something that pins each side down somewhat. To use an FPS example, CS is much more popular than say, rocket areana for precisely this reason. That said though, there's gotta be some new ideas for RTS's other than "fight over the expansion points" or "fight over the exp and items from creeps".

quote:

---

It's 100% RPS, just with more options. Highground trumps low, cav trumps archers, etc.

---

I think I see the problem:

quote:

---

I never got into the myth

---

High ground trumps low ground? Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. And the ground is more than just two binary levels, high and low! -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif -- Even with troops, it's not as if "troop A can always kill troop B." It always depends on context. And even when you seem to be assured victory, you never know when, say, 50 undead are hiding underwater on your flank -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --

I guess it's not fair to say *Craft games had NO tactics, but you could be a tactical genius and lose bigtime to a blind clicker if you don't know how to build or develop skill trees or all the other stuff.

That is the meat of those games: building and development. Go into any forum where players are discussing these games and you'll see tons of comparisons of build strategies, race choices, skill choices, etc. Go into a Myth forum (when they existed, *sniff*) and you'll mostly see discussions of troop formations and movements, geography, and physics. That's been my experience, anyway.

In Myth, almost regardless of how you select your troops, there's a winning plan of attack out there for you if you're skilled enough to execute it. With most "RTS" games, you must become proficient in resource building and skill development before you can even have a fighting chance.

Greetings,

MechCommander is my favorite RTS game. I am a tactician.


ML

quote:

---

Originally posted by PsionEdge:
I wish there was a castle building game or something where it got attacked and the levels would get harder (more attackers) and you could only perform a limited number of improvements/repairs. A lot like that defend the castle from the Mongol hord flash (java?) game a while back, but where I do nothing in the level, except perhaps issue some commands to archers defending my castle from turrets and whatnot.

---

Get Stronghold and Stronghold: Crusader. The later sieges in Stronghold are immense, and except for two missions you're always on the defensive.

-Gabe

I don't know what's wrong with the Total War series. (or maybe i'm reading "pretty big time suck" incorrectly) Or at least, Timecommanders has _REALLY_ turned me on to Rome:Total war, and they were using a unfinished engine of Rome: Total War. Actually, All they'd need to do to get me to go goo-goo-ga-ga over R:TW is basically do a Timecommander type of mode. Lots of Historical battles, you only get x amount of units, there's your battlefield. But anyway, getting back to the main point, I think perhaps the RTT/RTS split that Vampyre laid out is correct, however, I think both genres will be well served in the coming times. SC2 (I hope) will stay partially true to the RTS side, and you have a great game in R:TW coming out for the RTT side.

What I _do_ hope as a change in SC2 is exactly what Vampyre said - that there will be more unit intelligence so that micromanagement is not necessary and that things like strategic decisions...for example, zergling rushes are fairly easy to beat. Zergling rushes aganist long range units WITH a defiler WITH dark swarm, OTOH, are fucking INSANE to beat. If I don't have to worrya bout clicking on each individual zergling to get him to some sort of efficiency, then I can worry about deploying the dark swarm - infact, this has been my major complaint aganist SC in so far as if you aren't a clickmaster, it's hard to employ mage units in crisis situations because you simply don't have the time to do so.

-Alpha

There are more "Logistical" RTSes out that that aren't as focused on combat. I can't think of any titles off the top of my head (Cultures, maybe?) but they are one of my favorite types of games.

I think there's a common problem which exists with both the subgenres you present: complexity. In my experience, the majority of people (myself included) don't entirely understand what they're doing in RTS games. In RTL for example, you can't tell that building that soldier at that time will always put your economy 2 minutes behind that of the player who didn't build it without sitting down and analysing all the variables involved (of which there are many many many!) Similarly, many RTT games tend, in my experience, to go for as realistic a battle recreation as possible; in these conditions, most players will not realise that it was the fact that those archers were facing 15 degrees off the optimal angle which made them lose that battle.

This may be why Turn Based Strategy remains popular with a small hardcore. TBS games can often give simple integer values for the abilities of units; when you know that each unit can move 1, 2 or 3 spaces and has a firepower of 1, 2 or 3, and that that is the ONLY thing that will affect the outcome of a battle, it makes understanding the consequences of your actions, and acting accordingly, much easier. (Disclaimer: I am aware that some TBS games out there have hideously complicated numbers of complex number variables that only the bastard offspring of Einstein and Hawking would have the faintest chance of understanding; the point was that TBS is the only arena so far where simple rules have been relatively widely used.)

I don't really mind the amount of strategy or tactics in RTSs (although if pushed I'd lean towards preferring the tactics side); what I do want is for the workings of the games to be more obvious to allow for more informed strategic decisions by players.

(As an aside, one game I thought pulled this simplicity off pretty well was Z back in 95/96: units had nice simple numbers for speed, firepower and range and you would typically have ~10-15 total at any one time. Combined with the fact that territory was basically your only resource, and that ALL your territory was precious, it meant that rather than micromanaging your individual troops in battle (RTT) or managing your economy better than the other guy (RTL), most strategy lay in assigning the few troops you had to the part of the battlefield where they could do the most good at that time, which seems to me more like what you'd be doing as a real-world general.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Digitali:

quote:

---

I abhore tactics. I want my units to operate somewhat intelligently and do the tactics on their own, and not have to clicky-fest them into doing it. They should pick their targets intelligently based on what they're best at and what's their worst threat, etc. I should be able to focus on getting the resources together to make my army, then giving it overall commands on where to go and when, etc, and leave the tactics to the AI.

---

Vampyre=true.

I'm sick of my soldiers shooting their 5.56 rounds at tanks while my Paladins are trying to shoot up the infantry with AT weapons.

dB

---

Thirded. I can't wait for an RTS game to include a decent scripting system for units so you can spent hours tinkering with unit behaviour if you so desire, rather than setting one of five completely inadequate stances. (Which usually seem to equate to one of "Chase enemy across the map in a military Benny Hill reenactment" (I swear, you can hear the music playing and everything!) or "Sit and play cards with your mates while they're being bayonetted through the chest") At least then when they act like a bunch of monkeys you can glow with the pride that they're your monkeys -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --

quote:

---

Originally posted by BillyBones:
Sure. Territory, flags, existing fortifictions, roads, bridges, supply routes.. these are what military forces fight for.

The idea that a force goes in and builds a bunch of refiniries, forts and factories in a few minutes with a war going on around them is purely a computer game construct, and a stupid one IMO.

Even in a protracted war you don't just occupy a territory and fire-up tank factories. The obsession with resourcing & building in computer RTS debases the whole genre of war games on computers.

Nor can I see why gamers who like commanding armies would be expected to be interested in the drudgery of management, and vice versa. But apparently the makers of just about all RTS think they are.

---

Uhm, RTS != war simulation. It's about fun.

But, to offer some counter-examples about your real life strategy: a lot of modern warfare is still booring logistical building. Example: the 3 month prelude to the first gulf war.

While we don't literally build industrial infrastructure out of nowhere in modern wars, we *do* do a lot of theater development. Very mundane stuff related to adapting existing airfields or docks to meet our needs, building stockpile locations and logistical depots.

And in some cases, we really *do* build an industry out of nowhere. Example: the city we built in Laos durring the vietnam conflict.

I do think some of the stuff you mention would be a lot of fun in an RTS. In a war we usually go about fighting over geographic features in order to shape enemy movements. To use go strategic terms, we're developing aji in our favor. Most RTS games I've played have pretty limited ways of doing this: scouting, towers, and occasionally walls. It'd be more interesting if you could do stuff like blow up bridges, build fording points, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jason_watkins:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BillyBones:
Sure. Territory, flags, existing fortifictions, roads, bridges, supply routes.. these are what military forces fight for.

The idea that a force goes in and builds a bunch of refiniries, forts and factories in a few minutes with a war going on around them is purely a computer game construct, and a stupid one IMO.

Even in a protracted war you don't just occupy a territory and fire-up tank factories. The obsession with resourcing & building in computer RTS debases the whole genre of war games on computers.

Nor can I see why gamers who like commanding armies would be expected to be interested in the drudgery of management, and vice versa. But apparently the makers of just about all RTS think they are.

---

Uhm, RTS != war simulation. It's about fun.

---

That's a good reason to get rid of resourcing then, which isn't fun IMO.

So tell me, if RTS aren't supposed to equate to the centuries old pastime of "wargaming" (war simulation would be something the military does I suppose) what is? Almost _every_ tactical-level combat game available seems infected with RTS-style resourcing and all the trimmings. No-one seems to think it possible to build a "war" game without them, much as it seem to be impossible to produce an RPG that doesn't use of AD&D's stupid levelling system.

quote:

---

But, to offer some counter-examples about your real life strategy: a lot of modern warfare is still booring logistical building. Example: the 3 month prelude to the first gulf war.

---

As you know, this is not done by battlefield commanders.

quote:

---

While we don't literally build industrial infrastructure out of nowhere in modern wars, we *do* do a lot of theater development. Very mundane stuff related to adapting existing airfields or docks to meet our needs, building stockpile locations and logistical depots.

And in some cases, we really *do* build an industry out of nowhere. Example: the city we built in Laos durring the vietnam conflict.

---

Not in an afternoon, while battle rages a few metres away.

Also, if a game hopes to recreate the scope of a long-term conflict like South-East Asia, then I'd hope in-game issues of politcs, resourcing and supply would be a little more sophisticated than the tick-the-boxes RTS system we get now.

quote:

---

What is so great about tactical RTS? You sit around and point and click your mouse to orient your units in different formations and stances. I remember this as a staple in all the Myth games, not to mention the dreadful zombie-like voice-over..."casualty....casualty...casualty".

---

Perhaps there's a connection between your very limited "point and click your mouse to orient your units in different formations and stances" gameplay technique and the frequent occurrence of the "casualty" voice-over... -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif --

Because a game should not be about who can micro-manage or be Korean-like in hotkey presses, I'll choose tactics thanks.