Realistic RTS?

[Perturabo]

Has anyone ever tried to created a realistic Real Time Strategy?

[Hertston]

Odd question from a CC modder? [&:]

Where do you draw the line between RTS and wargame? Combat Mission: Shock Force, Jutland, Gettysburg: Scourge of War, Harpoon ACW, and Battles from the Bulge can all be played in real-time if you wish. And RTS games like Men of War and Theatre of War are a lot more 'realistic' than, say, Company of Heroes.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

Odd question from a CC modder? [&:]

Where do you draw the line between RTS and wargame? Combat Mission: Shock Force, Jutland, Gettysburg: Scourge of War, Harpoon ACW, and Battles from the Bulge can all be played in real-time if you wish.

These are Real Time Simulations, not RTS. They are tactical or operational games.

ORIGINAL: Hertston

And RTS games like Men of War and Theatre of War are a lot more 'realistic' than, say, Company of Heroes.

Neither of these are Real Time Strategies. They are Real Time Tactics games, sometimes hybridized with Real Time Simulations or RTS.

Realistic RTS would basically be a Strategic Real Time Simulation but with stylised graphics - for example with tank divisions represented with animated tank graphics, infantry divisions represented with animated infantryman graphics, stylized map and very accelerated time.
Like WitP/WitP lite in accelerated real time with Command & Conquer graphics.

[jomni]

So you're looking at something of a grander scale.
Hearts of Iron fits your description.  Real time, strategic in scope with resources, production and diplomacy.
But is it realistic? What is your definition of realistic? At least it's more realisitic than Age of Empires, Rise of Nations, etc.

[wodin]

The only decent rts game in my opinion is BftB and the other game sin the Panther series...all the others do nothing for me...loved CC in it's day but I went back and wasn't to impressed


Just remembered another damn fine rts game Achtung Panzer

[KG Erwin]

Even though the engine is dated, SPWAW does a decent job of it by introducing "opportunity fire" during the opponent's move.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: wodin

The only decent rts game in my opinion is BftB and the other game sin the Panther series...all the others do nothing for me...loved CC in it's day but I went back and wasn't to impressed


Just remembered another damn fine rts game Achtung Panzer

Neither of these are RTS.

RTS = a dumbed down strategic game in real time like DuneII, Command & Conquer and Age of Empires. The name RTS wasn't used before Dune II. Even more modern "RTS" like Company of Heroes and Dawn of War are hardly RTS as combat is placed on tactical-level and there are squads instead of nondescript units - they are more like an attempt of creating a tactical game by someone who has never played a tactical game in his life and decided to make RTS more "realistic" without realising that RTS are strategic games and that real time tactical games existed since a long time.

True real time wargames were called real time simulations since 80s. So, games like BftB, CC, Armored Brigade, Firefights, are real time simulations (RTSim?) not RTS.

ORIGINAL: jomni

So you're looking at something of a grander scale.
Hearts of Iron fits your description. Real time, strategic in scope with resources, production and diplomacy.
But is it realistic? What is your definition of realistic? At least it's more realisitic than Age of Empires, Rise of Nations, etc.

So, someone already had this idea[:D]? It's a grand strategy game, though, not a strategy.

[spelk]

..regarding Hearts of Iron...

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
So, someone already had this idea[:D]? It's a grand strategy game, though, not a strategy.

I'm intrigued at your definition of Strategy in the acronym RTS. Your'e saying most games classified as RTS'es nowadays are tactical in scale. But you then go on to dismiss something at the Grand Strategy scale as not being at the Strategic scale. So what game fits into your view of the Strategy that is represented by the term RTS? Is it something in the operational scale? Or perhaps a game such as RUSE?

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: spelk


..regarding Hearts of Iron...

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
So, someone already had this idea[:D]? It's a grand strategy game, though, not a strategy.

I'm intrigued at your definition of Strategy in the acronym RTS. Your'e saying most games classified as RTS'es nowadays are tactical in scale.

Yes. With DoW, Company of Heroes and DoW II they are practically "re-inventing" tactical games starting out with existing RTS designs.

Then some of the mentioned games like Theatre of War, Achtung Panzer! and Men of War seem to be classified as "RTS" only for marketing purposes and actual feature descriptions avoid applying that term to the games.

ORIGINAL: spelk

But you then go on to dismiss something at the Grand Strategy scale as not being at the Strategic scale. So what game fits into your view of the Strategy that is represented by the term RTS? Is it something in the operational scale? Or perhaps a game such as RUSE?

Hearts of Iron fits it as grand strategy is still strategy. I just doesn't fit the exact kind of RTS that I'm looking for.

How I would imagine a realistic RTS that I'm looking for? Something like this but in RT and with graphics like these (just imagine there's a popup window showing the state of a Heavy Tank Brigade instead of the name of "Mammoth Tank").

Basically, a realistic RTS wouldn't be dumbed down so much - it would have supply lines, no monolithic units (for example there wouldn't be "light infantry" dude but a light infantry brigade/division which would work like in a normal strategic game), production handled like in hardcore strategy games, military bases and production facilities separated, combat resolution would be more complex, the game would have a consistent scale, etc.

[ilovestrategy]

My favorite rts is Warcraft 2. I tried it again about 3 months ago and loved just as much as I did back in the 90s. Never could get into the C&C games. Not my cup of tea.

As for as realism goes, I'm not 100% sure that any computer game is realistic, even flight simulators.

[spelk]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
Basically, a realistic RTS wouldn't be dumbed down so much - it would have supply lines, no monolithic units (for example there wouldn't be "light infantry" dude but a light infantry brigade/division which would work like in a normal strategic game), production handled like in hardcore strategy games, military bases and production facilities separated, combat resolution would be more complex, the game would have a consistent scale, etc.

RUSE is the closest thing I can think of, where you're not at the tactical scale with proper lines of supply and defined bases and production, with upgrade trees and overarching strategic options (provided by the RUSE cards). I don't think it fits into the "hardcore" strategy game niche though.

If you say "realistic RTS" to me, I instantly think of BftB though. Its got the hardcore depth to it, and has you performing commands at the operational level, using (and relying on) the AI sub-ordinates to carry out the movements. AFAIK its not strictly a tactical experience.

Then my thoughts would move onto Scourge of War: Gettysburg, which is more tactical - but is reliant upon chains of command and real time movements. However its not got bases and production as such. Although it has a supply model.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: spelk

If you say "realistic RTS" to me, I instantly think of BftB though. Its got the hardcore depth to it, and has you performing commands at the operational level, using (and relying on) the AI sub-ordinates to carry out the movements. AFAIK its not strictly a tactical experience.

I think that the tactical part in a realistic RTS should be handled AI sub-ordinates. Actually, there should be AI subordinates for many tasks as RT wouldn't allow much micromanagement.

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL: spelk

If you say "realistic RTS" to me, I instantly think of BftB though. Its got the hardcore depth to it, and has you performing commands at the operational level, using (and relying on) the AI sub-ordinates to carry out the movements. AFAIK its not strictly a tactical experience.

I think that the tactical part in a realistic RTS should be handled AI sub-ordinates. Actually, there should be AI subordinates for many tasks as RT wouldn't allow much micromanagement.

Ah that's where BFTB shines. You can just leave your troops and watch the AI handle them on it's own fighting your AI opponent. But BFTB lacks strategic elements.

I guess you're looking for BFTB at a larger scale.. something close to WITE. That is also a dream game for me.

[sullafelix]

I believe Achtung Panzer is what you would be looking for. It is nowhere near the arcade like TOWs and Men of War etc.. It is much like a wonderfully rendered Close combat.

I have also seen the term RTS used as Realtime strategy which has always meant in the games magazines etc. a game like Command and Conquer. I haven't seen a real wargame like BFTB described as a RTS. Even though you people are correct it is a realtime strategy game.

RTS has come to mean a game like AOEs etc..

I like to think of all wargames as simulations and not as games. I cannot put Panzer general in the same basket as WITP or WITE. Not just because of its simplicity but its gameyness.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: sulla05

I believe Achtung Panzer is what you would be looking for. It is nowhere near the arcade like TOWs and Men of War etc.. It is much like a wonderfully rendered Close combat.

It's not a RTS. It's a tactical game. And if it's as realistic as Close Combat then it's a real time simulation.

ORIGINAL: sulla05

I have also seen the term RTS used as Realtime strategy which has always meant in the games magazines etc. a game like Command and Conquer. I haven't seen a real wargame like BFTB described as a RTS. Even though you people are correct it is a realtime strategy game.

BftB is an operational game, not a strategy game. It isn't a RTS.

RTS games are (usually dumbed down) strategic games in real time, not any real time wargame. The difference is really drastic when one compares RTS games of 90s like Dune II, Command & Conquer, Starcraft, Seven Kingdoms, Age of Empires, etc. with real time simulations like Close Combat and Airborne Assault.

Only later there were some attempts to bring "realism" and complexity to the RTS genre which basically are hybrids of RTS/RTT (Dawn of War - has base building but also has actual squads, cover, chance to hit for each individual weapon, etc. - they can be very weird - for example in DoW despite stuff like cover and chance to hit, visual is still very short and each individual soldier has a lot of HP like a typical RTS unit) games and finally some pure RTT games (like DoWII?), which still are very far from actual simulations, though.

ORIGINAL: sulla05

I like to think of all wargames as simulations and not as games. I cannot put Panzer general in the same basket as WITP or WITE. Not just because of its simplicity but its gameyness.

I agree.

ORIGINAL: jomni

I guess you're looking for BFTB at a larger scale.. something close to WITE. That is also a dream game for me.

Yes.

[spelk]

Real Time War in the East sounds like a mind blowing nightmare!

[sullafelix]

I haven't found and RTS that I have cared for yet. They are all afflicted with the " tank rush " strategy of Command and Conquer. I had high hopes for the Theatre of War series but they are to me so unhistorical as to be funny.

" Real Time War in the East sounds like a mind blowing nightmare! "

They made it and even released it to reveiwers it was called " The Road to Moscow ". One person on this forum was unlucky enough to play it. It was supposed to have many of the design ideas that Panther games now use.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: spelk

Real Time War in the East sounds like a mind blowing nightmare!

With AI subordinates it wouldn't be a micromanagement nightmare clickfest[:'(].

ORIGINAL: sulla05

I haven't found and RTS that I have cared for yet. They are all afflicted with the " tank rush " strategy of Command and Conquer. I had high hopes for the Theatre of War series but they are to me so unhistorical as to be funny.

I played C&C series up to Red Alert 2 but only for the cut-scenes. The gameplay was pretty boring. Not because of the tank rush stuff but because it's not a tactical game and it's too dumbed down to be a good strategic game.

One can't for example use two bikes to make a fast hit & run attacks against harvesters. Everything needs to be used in mass because the damage is too slow.
In a tactical game a vehicle can often be destroyed/crippled very quickly if the attacker has a proper weapon.

I find real time tactics games similarly annoying as they tend to be dumbed down in comparison to real time simulations and sometimes keep the bizarre RTS combat.

ORIGINAL: sulla05

" Real Time War in the East sounds like a mind blowing nightmare! "

They made it and even released it to reveiwers it was called " The Road to Moscow ". One person on this forum was unlucky enough to play it. It was supposed to have many of the design ideas that Panther games now use.

Panther Games already have used these ideas in Fire-Brigade (1989). By the way, it's fascinating how they released their second computer game 13 years later after their first.

I'll have to check out that Road to Moscow.

[sullafelix]

There were two games called Road to Moscow. The one I'm referring to never made it to store shelves.

I still have and play fire-Brigade and it is just a straight wargame. SSGs games were closer to command control that I like in wargames but sadly I was told by one of them that they would never make a game like those again.

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: spelk

Real Time War in the East sounds like a mind blowing nightmare!

Nope with chain of command and AI like BFTB then you can let your Army Group / Army / Corps commanders do their own thing while you focus on telling them what to take and where to send reinforcements.