Real time vs turn-based which do you prefer

[Spyder]

High ground? Flanking? Please direct me to a typical RTS (C&C, AoE, Starcraft) in which these are a factor. And what precisely is Focus Fire?

Starcraft units on lower ground can't see on to the high ground unless there's something flying overhead. There's also a penalty for units trying to hit others on the high ground.

Flanking is a factor in almost any RTS, just a matter of attacking from multiple directions. How effective flanking is depends on the game. In starcraft's case you'd want to try and flanking can get rid of ranged units at the back while they're focused on your main force. Again in SC if it gets into late game it pays to build high level structures at one of your expansions, you can usually pull off some quite good pincers that way.

[Super-Gagme]

I still don't see how any of these are real tactics just different ways of play created by the Rock Paper Scissors rule type. Where morale? Pinning? Fatigued? Ammunition? Play a game which employs real tactical and strategic thinking and you would get absolutely crushed.

[Silver Paladin]

I still don't see how any of these are real tactics just different ways of play created by the Rock Paper Scissors rule type.

Wait...let's assume High Ground is Rock. What beats high ground? Certainly not low ground. Flanking? Not really, because that requires you to be on even ground with him.

Let's say focus fire is Paper. What's the counter to Focus Fire? Break your opponent's fingers so he can't focus fire?

How about Flanking as a Scissor? Focus Firing doesn't stop it. High Ground/Cover doesn't prevent it. The only counter is to not build any support units that can get flanked. Of course, if you play like that, you'd lose in a straight up confrontation anyways.

[Thunderfire]

Depends how you've built your base. If you were going for an air tactics build then it's entirely possible, otherwise you're probably right.

Terran Air Units suck against ground units. The first attack will be 3-6 muta
+ 12-24 zerglings. Marines are good at killing both of em.

[Darth Wong]

I still don't see how any of these are real tactics just different ways of play created by the Rock Paper Scissors rule type. Where morale? Pinning? Fatigued? Ammunition? Play a game which employs real tactical and strategic thinking and you would get absolutely crushed.

The fact that these games are less realistic than reality does not mean they are necessarily less realistic than turn-based games. Don't change the subject.

[Super-Gagme]

I still don't see how any of these are real tactics just different ways of play created by the Rock Paper Scissors rule type. Where morale? Pinning? Fatigued? Ammunition? Play a game which employs real tactical and strategic thinking and you would get absolutely crushed.

The fact that these games are less realistic than reality does not mean they are necessarily less realistic than turn-based games. Don't change the subject.

Part of the point is most turn-based games have much more detailed rules/factors in combat which make them more strategic/tactical over typical RTS games.

[RedImperator]

Turn based. I build empires, not bases.

[Embracer Of Darkness]

Turn based. I build empires, not bases.

Amen to that.

[Silver Paladin]

I still don't see how any of these are real tactics just different ways of play created by the Rock Paper Scissors rule type. Where morale? Pinning? Fatigued? Ammunition? Play a game which employs real tactical and strategic thinking and you would get absolutely crushed.

The fact that these games are less realistic than reality does not mean they are necessarily less realistic than turn-based games. Don't change the subject.

Part of the point is most turn-based games have much more detailed rules/factors in combat which make them more strategic/tactical over typical RTS games.

Perhaps. But in the end, for a TBS, you play a computer rather than a real person. A computer follows scripted events that through trial and error, even the most incompetent player can exploit. A real player (or multiple thousands of real players online), doesn't lack this weakness. They adjust on the fly to your tactics and strategies, forcing you to adjust as well. I remember in MoO1, if you made thousands of tiny ships with 1 weapon (I forget which weapon it was), then had the computer autofight your battles, you would almost always win, even against fleets 3 times your size.

For all the sophistication of a TBS, in the end, it's just you playing against your computer. Sure it MAY have superior implementation of strategy over a RTS, but to be successful at the game doesn't require superior strategy.

[SirNitram]

I still don't see how any of these are real tactics just different ways of play created by the Rock Paper Scissors rule type. Where morale? Pinning? Fatigued? Ammunition? Play a game which employs real tactical and strategic thinking and you would get absolutely crushed.

If I wanted to play such a level of realism, I'd unite my warring brothers and go conquer someplace.

Flanking, astoundingly, is a real world tactic. You might be a bit stupid, but flanking maneuvers have been responsible for many military victories. Experienced RTSers can do this very well, though Fog Of War makes it easier to perform(And riskier, of course, as you may run into their flanking maneuver!).

High Ground is, historically, a huge advantage.

Focus Fire is the incredibly and mind-blowingly advanced tactic of everyone concentrating fire on one opponent until it's down, then moving down. Though this tactic is used less in reality than in RTS' for various reasons, it's still sound and logical, and not 'rock paper scissors!'

So, faced with evidence there's more than 'Rock, Paper, Scissors' to these games, do you retract your comment? No, you simply throw the blanket term on the whole thing and start acting superior.

As for 'Morale, pinning, fatigued, ammunition' challenge, several games include ammunition(Most especially in those combat vehicles that have short engagement times in RL, like aircraft), and one could make arguments about applying the 'promotion' system some RTS' use as morale(Reflecting the increased morale of a bunch of people kicking ass).

[Super-Gagme]

The fact that these games are less realistic than reality does not mean they are necessarily less realistic than turn-based games. Don't change the subject.

Part of the point is most turn-based games have much more detailed rules/factors in combat which make them more strategic/tactical over typical RTS games.

Perhaps. But in the end, for a TBS, you play a computer rather than a real person. A computer follows scripted events that through trial and error, even the most incompetent player can exploit. A real player (or multiple thousands of real players online), doesn't lack this weakness. They adjust on the fly to your tactics and strategies, forcing you to adjust as well. I remember in MoO1, if you made thousands of tiny ships with 1 weapon (I forget which weapon it was), then had the computer autofight your battles, you would almost always win, even against fleets 3 times your size.

For all the sophistication of a TBS, in the end, it's just you playing against your computer. Sure it MAY have superior implementation of strategy over a RTS, but to be successful at the game doesn't require superior strategy.

Where the hell did that come from? Its amazing what they do with TBS these days...a little thing called Multi-player! And since you're comparing the ages old Moo1 I'd say you don't know much at all about modern TBS games do you?

[Spyder]

Rock-paper-scissors is pure chance, RTS is not. I thought I made that clear a couple of posts ago? You can't send a spare SCV into your opponants head to figure out what hand guesture he's going to pull.

Now, I will admit that video game elitism I have been guilty of in the past but people shouldn't assume that just because a genre isn't right for them then it is obviously inferrior.

[Super-Gagme]

I still don't see how any of these are real tactics just different ways of play created by the Rock Paper Scissors rule type. Where morale? Pinning? Fatigued? Ammunition? Play a game which employs real tactical and strategic thinking and you would get absolutely crushed.

If I wanted to play such a level of realism, I'd unite my warring brothers and go conquer someplace.

Flanking, astoundingly, is a real world tactic. You might be a bit stupid, but flanking maneuvers have been responsible for many military victories. Experienced RTSers can do this very well, though Fog Of War makes it easier to perform(And riskier, of course, as you may run into their flanking maneuver!).

High Ground is, historically, a huge advantage.

Focus Fire is the incredibly and mind-blowingly advanced tactic of everyone concentrating fire on one opponent until it's down, then moving down. Though this tactic is used less in reality than in RTS' for various reasons, it's still sound and logical, and not 'rock paper scissors!'

So, faced with evidence there's more than 'Rock, Paper, Scissors' to these games, do you retract your comment? No, you simply throw the blanket term on the whole thing and start acting superior.

As for 'Morale, pinning, fatigued, ammunition' challenge, several games include ammunition(Most especially in those combat vehicles that have short engagement times in RL, like aircraft), and one could make arguments about applying the 'promotion' system some RTS' use as morale(Reflecting the increased morale of a bunch of people kicking ass).

Suddenly now with the insults? Some people around here are pathetic, they can't look at a single opinion with bringing in some kind of insult. This is not a debate to prove one way or the other, it is more down to personal opinion. It is my opinion that typical RTS like Command and Conquer series do not employ many battlefield tactics. Sure they have their own kind of tactics created by the designers but thats dull in my opinion and doesn't take much brains. Have you ever played Close Combat series? World War II RTS game (and please don't picture Sudden Strike) which involves you commanding over multiple squads each carrying different weapons, theres buildings, cover, morale etc about as real as you can get in a game like it. Most common Starcraft players would play this game and find themselves being brutally slaughter to bits most likely due to drag selecting every squad and running around trying to kill one man at a time.

Oh and just to get my own back..I am stupid? Well you smell!

[Darth Wong]

RTS games involve tactics. Turn-based games involve strategy. This is not difficult to see.

[Silver Paladin]

[quote="Super-GagmeWhere the hell did that come from? Its amazing what they do with TBS these days...a little thing called Multi-player! And since you're comparing the ages old Moo1 I'd say you don't know much at all about modern TBS games do you?[/quote]

Let me ask you 2 questions then.

1) How many COMPLETE multiplayer games of TBS have you played?
2) How many COMPLETE single player games of you vs. CPU of TBS games have you played?

For your sake, we'll say games in the past 3 years (so we're talking about relatively modern games). As far as RTSes go, I probably have a 10:1 ratio (if not greater) of multiplayer games to vs. CPU games. And I'm counting each campaign map as a seperate CPU game.

You can't simply compare a RTS (where multiplayer either makes or breaks the game), to a TBS (where multiplayer is regarded as a cool novelty).

[SirNitram]

Suddenly now with the insults? Some people around here are pathetic, they can't look at a single opinion with bringing in some kind of insult.

Amazingly, when you're condescending, people will insult you! It might not be as subtle as your condescending, but remarkably, people treat it the same.

This is not a debate to prove one way or the other, it is more down to personal opinion. It is my opinion that typical RTS like Command and Conquer series do not employ many battlefield tactics.

Ah, another one of those sophists who believe you can toss around any kind of comment, and the instant someone throws out something you can't refute, you hide behind 'It's just opinion! It's just opinion!', no matter how hard you pushed it before.

Sure they have their own kind of tactics created by the designers but thats dull in my opinion and doesn't take much brains. Have you ever played Close Combat series? World War II RTS game (and please don't picture Sudden Strike) which involves you commanding over multiple squads each carrying different weapons, theres buildings, cover, morale etc about as real as you can get in a game like it. Most common Starcraft players would play this game and find themselves being brutally slaughter to bits most likely due to drag selecting every squad and running around trying to kill one man at a time.

Whoop De Shit. You bring up game mechanics to try and claim Starcraft and Westwood RTS' have no tactics? You're pretty pitiful.

Oh and just to get my own back..I am stupid? Well you smell!

If it makes you feel better, you can claim whatever you want. I brought up evidence showing what you dismissed as 'rock paper scissors' wasn't. If you cannot handle this, you may blow me.

[Super-Gagme]

RTS games involve tactics. Turn-based games involve strategy. This is not difficult to see.

Can you explain this one a bit more? Ever played Combat Missions?

[Hamel]

I truly love Starcraft, but out of the 4 years I played it, I never progressed beyond a newbie level and only won my games on BGH pubs, with a few LT victories here and there

Kinda weird that one of the games I loved most, I sucked at the most

[gravity]

I like both genres equally; in fact they're my two favourite. RTS can get pretty stressful though, TBS is usually more relaxing.

Also, I think Starcraft is the best RTS ever, and it require s shitton of skill and intelligence to do well. Damn TA fans .

[gravity]

RTS games involve tactics. Turn-based games involve strategy. This is not difficult to see.

Most games of either type have both tactics and strategy. Very few RTS or TBS games are purely one or the other. For example, Myth is purely tactical, but any base-building RTS has a mixture of both tactics and strategy.
Of course this depends on exactly how you define tactics and strategy. If by strategy you mean advanced logistics, then very few non-wargames are "strategic". If you use strategy in the same sense that it's used in chess, then virtually ever RTS or TBS is strategic (you just have to think faster in RTSes).

[gravity]

I still don't see how any of these are real tactics just different ways of play created by the Rock Paper Scissors rule type. Where morale? Pinning? Fatigued? Ammunition? Play a game which employs real tactical and strategic thinking and you would get absolutely crushed.

RTS games are (usually) meant to be just that: games, not simulations. Just because a game doesn't feature morale, doesn't make it simplistic or unstrategic. Chess and Go are incredibly simple games rules-wise compared to any RTS or TBS, but they have huge strategic and tactical depth. Likewise, just because a particular RTS or TBS is more complicated than another, doesn't mean that the more complicated one is a better or more strategic game. In fact, greater realism can in some cases can actually *reduce* your strategic/tactical options.