What Defines an 'RTS' Game ?

[JudgeDredd]

...is just one thing to fixing RTS games

And who said they need fixing?

There are plenty of people who enjoy RTS games (I'm not really one of them) but for someone who's always shouting about people not allowing other people their opinion, you're more than a little self obsessed with your own.

[cdbeck]

See, Judge, that was my point to begin with. Asking for negatives of the RTS genre is assuming that everyone thinks RTS is "broken" or "not realistic" or "click-fest." I love RTS. I love TBS. I don't play them for the same reasons. Heck, I don't even play members of the RTS genre for the same reasons. For example World in Conflict plays VERY differently than C&C3 (both I love). WiC has strict unit limits, a decent reinforcement mechanic, a more "realistic" unit list and balance, and does not use resources. C&C is the direct opposite. Do I think C&C is broken or negative? No, I like them both and play them for a different feel (just like I love Ultima 7 and Diablo).

I think the two a priori problems with this conversation is that:
1. RTS is somehow "immature," overly action oriented, twitchy, a worse depiction of war, and does not fulfill the role in gaming it is meant to fill (put this in perspective grogs, you are a tiny minority, most of the gaming world loves RTS and hates TBS wargames).
2. That RTS is somehow one definable genre that you can easily generalizes. This is just silly! HoI and Crusader Kings are RTS. C&C are RTS. Word in Conflict and Ground Control are RTS. HTTR and CotA are RTS games. NONE of these game categories play like the other, so generalizations are a moot point. This is why RH sounds so schizophernic (at least in this debate). He says, I like slower RTS, but RTS is a click-fest. That is like saying, I like small dogs but dogs are typically large. You can generalize a genre whose members do not all conform to certain characteristics.

And I'll let that comment about the "ridiculous" nature of 1 second to 1 minute of time compression in RTS slide RH... because we all know that 1 click of the "end turn" button equating to 1 week, 1 month, or even 1 year is SOOOO much more rational... [:'(]

Here is what I suggest, if you want to bash RTS, at least refer the in sub-genres that the gaming trade has begun to use. Here are some of my suggestions.

Grand Strategy RTS: Hearts of Iron, Crusader Kings, EU3
Action RTS - C&C3, StarCraft, WarCraft
Control Point RTS - Ground Control, World in Conflict
Hybrid Control Point & Production RTS (or just Hybrid) - Warhammer:DOW, Company of Heroes
TBS/RTS Mix - Total War series, Lords of Magic,Star Wars: Empire at War
Empire Building RTS -Age of Empires, Rise of Nations
Historically Authentic RTS (Gamespot's term, not mine) - Take Command Series, HttR, CotA

This at least will help to subdivide the argument. I know that this is not as easy to type as just RTS, but lets face it, when you over-generalize the genre you begin to sound like the a group of old men on the porch, dwindling in numbers, complaining about the "clickfest games them youngsters play," and how much better it was in your "operational TBS days when we couldn't even afford unit graphics." Again you are in the minority, so RTS must be doing something right to have such mass appeal. It would be nice if serious wargames would take a page from RTS success and be able to sell in larger numbers.

SoM

[anarchyintheuk]

It's the OP's thread. If he wants to define RTS in a negative light he can. If you want to open a thread on the positives of RTS go right ahead.

[cdbeck]

Thanks, that added to the conversation. [8|]

Sure he can start a thread in a negative light (although the title simply asks what defines an RTS game), but I can also respond by saying "which RTS" or by criticizing the negative bias. It's called a conversation. Do we really want to clutter the board with two threads on the same topic in different biases? [:-]

SoM

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

Do we really want to clutter the board with two threads on the same topic in different biases? [:-]

SoM

Yes.

[Jeffrey H.]

SOM, point taken about the implied bias, and it was intentional in a way. I found myself wondering what *specifically* it was that got under peoples skin so much. What aspects of the gameplay experience led people to react that way. Kind of a psychology thing I suppose. I laught at myself because I keep thinking about the infamous definition of pr0nography.
 
But honestly, I used to HATE RTS games a lot like RH does but my wife, (mainly I just wanted to share a hobby with her) got me into the AOE series. I had a ton of fun with those, until the last one that is. But yeah, I totally agree they are not my cup of preferred tea. But what is it that I don't like about it ? What is it that makes others *like us* not like the genre ?
 
I think RH just about pinned it down but OTOH some of those elements he doesn't like about them are exactly what makes a game gripping and exiting.
 
Maybe, just maybe, your comments about the old guys on the porch also ring true. Maybe it's just that older people expect a different game from younger people in general. It could be as simple as that right ?

[JudgeDredd]

Ok then. There are two key things I dislike about RTS...

•  The manic gameplay. I simply cannot keep up
• The strategy...I'm simply not interested in the "what to build first and why" aspect of the game...I'd rather the strategy was on a tactical level...I suppose, like RH said, it's the paper,scissors, rock thing...have your swordsmen in front of your archers in front of your trebuchet...then it's simply down to who can create faster and more!

I could have the series wrong, but that's how I see it and it pust me off.
 
The key one though is the manic gameplay.

[cdbeck]

Well, to be fair then Jeff, I do like RTS, but I will tell you some of the things that I would like to see changed.

In Action RTS (like StarCraft and C&C)

• Like Dredd said, the "paper, rock, scissors" mechanic is a bit contrite and I have trouble keeping up with what counters what. Are spearmen twice as effective against cavalry as swordsmen, how many swordsmen do I need more to make up the difference... it is all a bit overboard (this is why I like World in Conflict's multiplay, you pick one role and you have only those units - thus the air guy can ONLY build copters and the Infantry guy can ONLY build infantry and armored transports, makes it easier to specialize).
• I personally can't stand build orders, nor can I remember them. Against the AI this is usually not a problem, but against a human opponent it is killer. Try playing Warcraft 3 against a pro, then you understand.
• Hotkeys... I'm just too lazy to learn them all and they really make a difference in multiplay, when who gets their special ability off first often wins.

Now in Capture Point RTS (like WiC, W:DoW, and CoH) only one thing really irks me (in addition to some of the above). Why does it take my men so long to "capture" a point when no enemies are around. Seriously... that is kinda silly. I understand the gameplay mechanic, but it always bogs me down (now in WiC, and Ground Control, the points are captured instantly when no opposition is present).

In Grand Strategy RTS (like EU3 and Crusader Kings) my major beef is the absolute lack of control over battles (it boils only down to tech, numbers, initial morale, the province you attacked from and the province you attacked into, and leader ratings). Also these types of RTS tend to also have the Speed Up/Slow down effect. Meaning, you speed up the game because nothing happens for years and years, then suddenly you get hit with 14 different things at once and the game goes to a crawl. Meh...

Oh... and Jeff, I didn't mean that wargamers actually ARE old... I meant that they SOUNDED like old-timers on the porch. [:D] I really don't think opinion about RTS vs. TBS has much to do with age.

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Yes.

No.

SoM

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

It's the OP's thread. If he wants to define RTS in a negative light he can. If you want to open a thread on the positives of RTS go right ahead.

Yes, I agree SOM is OT in everyone of his posts. He's not defining RTS games in the negative light. But, as you can see it's pretty easy to define RTS in the negative and if we're so much of a minority SOM how come you are the only one defending RTS here or can't stay on topic? huh? eh? That's what I thought. hahahaha. I'd also like to see your "documented evidence" that turn based gaming is a "minority" now that's taking inot account EVERY SINGLE TURN BASED game out there and ever made. Show me those numbers please. I'd venture to say Monopoly sales outnumbers every RTS game ever sold to date. Turn based gaming is hardly a minority, perhaps some subgenres of it can't compare to RTS, but, hardly is turn based gaming a minority.

[JudgeDredd]

I retract...his posts speak for themselves [:D]

[HansBolter]

Here’s my two copper pieces:

While real time games with the ability to pause to issue orders may not truly fit a narrow definition of RTS games they do split the difference between unpausable RTS games and TB games. In doing so the provide what I see as the best of both. They provide the exciting feel of real time action while still allowing for the deliberation and assessment necessary on the part of the player to be able to truly control the action with out the action getting out of control leading into the downward spiral of “clickfesting”.

The game engine I have discovered that provides the best experience of pausable real time action is without a doubt the Airborne Assault game series. Ravinhood’s notion that a realistic “feel” of command is not possible in this genre is dead wrong. I haven’t yet succeeded in getting him to see the light, but I continue my efforts.

No other game engine creates anywhere near the level of “command feel” that one gets from the AA games (HTTR: Highway to the Reich and COTA: Conquest of the Aegean).

The basic game unit company level with some platoons and battalions.

The engine utilizes a command hierarchy whereby the player can choose to command every last individual unit individually (not recommended for the best game experience) or to command at higher levels allowing the AI to issue orders to subordinate formations.

It allows for three different speeds for the real time action, the slowest of which facilitates the players desire and efforts to keep up with real time action across the battlefield occurring at disparate locations, although there is an element of “if I spend too much time focusing my attention here I will miss some of the action elsewhere” which is not necessarily a bad thing overall. If I have a full division under my command, meaning I represent the divisional commander, as a reflection of reality I should NOT be able to closely monitor the actions of each and every last company of my division. It forces the player to act as a real commander and make a decision on which is the most critical action in need of my direct attention and which actions I can afford to loosely monitor with an occasional look into them.

The real time nature of the action portion of the game can be segmented with a “run until” command, meaning that the player can mimic a turn based game simply by using consistent settings for the “run until”. You issue orders, set the run until command for the “turn” increment you feel most comfortable with, turn on the action, then go fix a cup of coffee while the action proceeds unmonitored, return to the computer and examine the results of your “turn”. Again, I don’t feel this is the best way to enjoy the game as watching the action take place is a lot of the fun of the game experience. I get to see the fight go down rather than resolving it instantly with a random result on a CRT.

The game allows for a realistic implementation of “orders delays” meaning that orders issued by me, the division commander, don’t cause my units to react immediately. The game can be played without this, but again, the most realistic experience comes from using them. Delays increase with the size of force receiving the command. Platoons respond really fast, companies somewhat slower, battalions slower yet and regiments take a considerable amount of time to disseminate the orders from above down through their subordinate units to get them moving.

This provides for a very, very realistic real time experience. If I have ordered battalion to conduct an assault over a distance of two kilometers, part of which is open terrain and in the middle of the assault several of it’s companies begin getting a pasting from enemy artillery causing me to reconsider my orders, I can’t intervene in a way that will immediately cancel the action. It will take roughly 1.5 hours (with the Painfully Realistic Orders Delays I play with) for my new orders to the battalion headquarters to cancel the assault to be processed by the battalion staff and filter down to the individual companies. Like a real life commander I have to sit and watch while the events I previously set in motion play out before my “adjustment” takes place.

If I am moving to contact in a meeting engagement situation and some of my force is footslogging infantry, I have to monitor their progress toward the contact point with the enemy making sure they don’t march so far, so fast that they become over fatigued before the reach the fight. Knowing that my order to stop and rest will take time to implement, I have to decide when to issue that order and how long I can allow them to rest before they needs of the fight force me to push them on again. If I want them resting for the night, but to be mobile by 6 AM, I may need to issue the “move out” order around 4:30 AM. All of this contributes heavily to the fantastic “feel of command” this game system provides.

I recommend that anyone who might be intrigued by my contentions that this game system provides just such a “fell of command” should take a look at my as yet incomplete AAR of my beta test of the “Race for the Meuse” scenario in the upcoming new release of the next game in the system “Battles from the Bulge”. BFTB has it’s own forum here on the Matrix site and my AAR is a “sticky” at the top of the forum. It is a very detailed AAR wherein I try to give the reader an insight into my thought processes during play and how, where, when and why I issued the orders that I did.

In my not so humble estimation this game engine provides the absolutely best command experience of any wargame I have ever played and that is a considerable list as I am an ultragrognard with 33+ years of wargaming experience under my belt. I often refer to it as a “command simulator” rather than as a wargame.

[Jeffrey H.]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

It's the OP's thread. If he wants to define RTS in a negative light he can. If you want to open a thread on the positives of RTS go right ahead.

Yes, I agree SOM is OT in everyone of his posts. He's not defining RTS games in the negative light. But, as you can see it's pretty easy to define RTS in the negative and if we're so much of a minority SOM how come you are the only one defending RTS here or can't stay on topic? huh? eh? That's what I thought. hahahaha. I'd also like to see your "documented evidence" that turn based gaming is a "minority" now that's taking inot account EVERY SINGLE TURN BASED game out there and ever made. Show me those numbers please. I'd venture to say Monopoly sales outnumbers every RTS game ever sold to date. Turn based gaming is hardly a minority, perhaps some subgenres of it can't compare to RTS, but, hardly is turn based gaming a minority.

Oohhhh got him cold with that one. Extend the arguement to chess and card games and you just about have him dead to rights on that arguement.

[ravinhood]

If you're going to "pause" playing a real time game like that, then you are doing no less than making it a turn based game to begin with. I've stated this many times before. Pausing a real time game defeats the purpose of it being real time in the first place. You cheat the AI and you cheat yourself out of the challenge. You can't have both it's an either or, all real time or all turn based. The second you use pause you have turned the game into a turn based game and cheated the game and yourself. Thus the "feel" of command control is lost and cannot be felt in either game RTS or turn based. The elements of TIME are not exact therefore you cannot feel what is not realistic. If it's not 1 sec equals 1 sec or 1 minute equals 1 minute then it cannot be realistic time. You also could NEVER PAUSE a REAL battle mid stream to be able to issue commands and orders. Turn based is no better. The pieces and the time frame are merely represented by "animations" there's nothing really realistic about them, numbers vs numbers. The difference in the two genre's is nothing more than clickfest vs organized stoppage and the TIME elements of an RTS game which are NEVER accurate. Plus you can play a turn based game PBEM, try that with an RTS game.
 
There's another negative about RTS games, can't play PBEM. You really can't do anything with them but play with yourself or online clickyfests. Remove the micromanagement in simulated time and put in sliders to reduce the battle speed to ALL players requirements and RTS could really take off. Like Lords of Magic it has a perfect combat speed setting feature. Second Manassas: I never feel rushed playing this game. The Seven Kingdoms: Another game with a decent speed setting, though it is not numbers the slowest setting is pretty slow. All the Paradox Games: Very Slow setting is perfect to play those games in real time without using pause. Kohan II: Another game with very little micromanagement and the lowest speed setting is sufficient enough to enjoy this game without it feeling like a clikyfest.
 
In the end of course it always comes down to preference. One can either play a strategical and tactical mind game of a turn based nature or they can choose to play a lite kiddy clickfest RTS game just copying some template from online and preceeding to stompage over and over again. That rock paper scissors system is old an unrealistic though. I'd much rather play something like Combat Mission with "researched" combat value stats based on "realism" vs a spearman that can take out a tank.
 
Now for the GOOD things about RTS games:
 
1.

[Hertston]

Back on the subject of definitions, I've been playing Crusader Kings over the weekend for a quick refresher before the expansion is released. It, as with the other EU based games, is a great example of how far people are willing to stretch that definition because 'RTS sells better than turn-based'. True, it is (pausable) continuous time - 'real' time would obviously be nonsensical - but anyone who bought it on the basis of the ads saying it was "REAL TIME STRATEGY" must have been very surprised, if not disappointed or even angry while most TBS fans would take to it like a duck does to water. Just goes to show you can only judge a game by playing it, not on how it is labelled.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

If you're going to "pause" playing a real time game like that, then you are doing no less than making it a turn based game to begin with. I've stated this many times before. Pausing a real time game defeats the purpose of it being real time in the first place. You cheat the AI and you cheat yourself out of the challenge. You can't have both it's an either or, all real time or all turn based. The second you use pause you have turned the game into a turn based game and cheated the game and yourself. Thus the "feel" of command control is lost and cannot be felt in either game RTS or turn based. The elements of TIME are not exact therefore you cannot feel what is not realistic. If it's not 1 sec equals 1 sec or 1 minute equals 1 minute then it cannot be realistic time. You also could NEVER PAUSE a REAL battle mid stream to be able to issue commands and orders. Turn based is no better. The pieces and the time frame are merely represented by "animations" there's nothing really realistic about them, numbers vs numbers. The difference in the two genre's is nothing more than clickfest vs organized stoppage and the TIME elements of an RTS game which are NEVER accurate. Plus you can play a turn based game PBEM, try that with an RTS game.

There's another negative about RTS games, can't play PBEM. You really can't do anything with them but play with yourself or online clickyfests. Remove the micromanagement in simulated time and put in sliders to reduce the battle speed to ALL players requirements and RTS could really take off. Like Lords of Magic it has a perfect combat speed setting feature. Second Manassas: I never feel rushed playing this game. The Seven Kingdoms: Another game with a decent speed setting, though it is not numbers the slowest setting is pretty slow. All the Paradox Games: Very Slow setting is perfect to play those games in real time without using pause. Kohan II: Another game with very little micromanagement and the lowest speed setting is sufficient enough to enjoy this game without it feeling like a clikyfest.

In the end of course it always comes down to preference. One can either play a strategical and tactical mind game of a turn based nature or they can choose to play a lite kiddy clickfest RTS game just copying some template from online and preceeding to stompage over and over again. That rock paper scissors system is old an unrealistic though. I'd much rather play something like Combat Mission with "researched" combat value stats based on "realism" vs a spearman that can take out a tank.

Now for the GOOD things about RTS games:

1.

Could you be any more clueless?

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

If you're going to "pause" playing a real time game like that, then you are doing no less than making it a turn based game to begin with. I've stated this many times before. Pausing a real time game defeats the purpose of it being real time in the first place. You cheat the AI and you cheat yourself out of the challenge. You can't have both it's an either or, all real time or all turn based. The second you use pause you have turned the game into a turn based game and cheated the game and yourself. Thus the "feel" of command control is lost and cannot be felt in either game RTS or turn based. The elements of TIME are not exact therefore you cannot feel what is not realistic. If it's not 1 sec equals 1 sec or 1 minute equals 1 minute then it cannot be realistic time. You also could NEVER PAUSE a REAL battle mid stream to be able to issue commands and orders. Turn based is no better. The pieces and the time frame are merely represented by "animations" there's nothing really realistic about them, numbers vs numbers. The difference in the two genre's is nothing more than clickfest vs organized stoppage and the TIME elements of an RTS game which are NEVER accurate. Plus you can play a turn based game PBEM, try that with an RTS game.

There's another negative about RTS games, can't play PBEM. You really can't do anything with them but play with yourself or online clickyfests. Remove the micromanagement in simulated time and put in sliders to reduce the battle speed to ALL players requirements and RTS could really take off. Like Lords of Magic it has a perfect combat speed setting feature. Second Manassas: I never feel rushed playing this game. The Seven Kingdoms: Another game with a decent speed setting, though it is not numbers the slowest setting is pretty slow. All the Paradox Games: Very Slow setting is perfect to play those games in real time without using pause. Kohan II: Another game with very little micromanagement and the lowest speed setting is sufficient enough to enjoy this game without it feeling like a clikyfest.

In the end of course it always comes down to preference. One can either play a strategical and tactical mind game of a turn based nature or they can choose to play a lite kiddy clickfest RTS game just copying some template from online and preceeding to stompage over and over again. That rock paper scissors system is old an unrealistic though. I'd much rather play something like Combat Mission with "researched" combat value stats based on "realism" vs a spearman that can take out a tank.

Now for the GOOD things about RTS games:

1.

Could you be any more clueless?

Nope, I don't take up your bad habits.

[RyanCrierie]

My first thought is tanks or other armored vehicles doing circles around each other fighting from what appears to be arms length distance, trading half a dozen shots as their green health bars slowly decline.

My second thought is having some magical way of producing what is, for all practical purposes, UNLIMITED number of units of all types (in most RTS games it's "barracks" or base, in WIC it's simply a parachute drop at player's request).

A-MEN

Also; any semblance of strategy or tactics are completely lost, unless you either:

1.) Constantly manuver your units around like you have tourettes syndrome.
2.) Constantly monitor the entire battlefield
3.) Constantly micromanage your units every little thing; pop smoke, drop flares; etc.

World In Conflict is a good example of this. The Single player campaign is pretty fun, but when you go to multiplayer; it's just a horrible mess; which consists of:

Constantly moving your units around to avoid them getting hit by artillery or airstrike spam, eliminating any real semblance of tactics.