History SoYouWantTo / WriteARealTimeStrategy

3rd Mar '16 12:52:18 PM Morgenthaler
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* For games that branch back into the genre's roots as TurnBasedStrategy, check out ''VideoGame/AgeOfEmpires'' and ''RiseOfNations'', which is sometimes considered its SpiritualSuccessor.

to:

* For games that branch back into the genre's roots as TurnBasedStrategy, check out ''VideoGame/AgeOfEmpires'' and ''RiseOfNations'', ''VideoGame/RiseOfNations'', which is sometimes considered its SpiritualSuccessor.
3rd Mar '16 11:16:33 AM Morgenthaler
Is there an issue? Send a Message


What resources are in your game? YouRequireMoreVespeneGas gives the overview, but most titles in this genre go with basics: Gold, Lumber and Population. Others have tweaked the scale: resources you might not need, tons of resources, only one or two... This has an impact on gameplay, remember. ''RiseOfNations'' proved that resource diversification makes things ''way'' easier, but maybe you don't ''want'' it easier. Maybe you want The Player to think long and hard about every build order issued. For that matter, what if you want The Player to be able to de-emphasize resourcing? How about building a race into your game that doesn't resource ''at all'', thus depriving opponents of a vital weak spot to hit?—though at the cost of some other weakness, of course. What if each faction in your game needed extra amounts of a certain Lumber-style resource? This would force each faction to stick to certain locations on the map, where said resource is prevalent, and thus have an effect on their playing style.

Any extras you want to throw in? Squads of infantry instead of individual soldiers? {{Support Power}}s? A tech tree? RPGElements and persistent troops that gain experience points? Hero units? Terrain bonuses? What if you were to splash in FourX traits, like ''SinsOfASolarEmpire'' has? What about some CollectibleCardGame flavor, like ''PoxNora''? Courts-martial if you screw up really badly? (The ''VideoGame/WingCommander'' flightsims had these as a NonStandardGameOver for screwing up [[ButThouMust plot-critical]] missions.) Something else entirely? The sky's the limit.

to:

What resources are in your game? YouRequireMoreVespeneGas gives the overview, but most titles in this genre go with basics: Gold, Lumber and Population. Others have tweaked the scale: resources you might not need, tons of resources, only one or two... This has an impact on gameplay, remember. ''RiseOfNations'' ''VideoGame/RiseOfNations'' proved that resource diversification makes things ''way'' easier, but maybe you don't ''want'' it easier. Maybe you want The Player to think long and hard about every build order issued. For that matter, what if you want The Player to be able to de-emphasize resourcing? How about building a race into your game that doesn't resource ''at all'', thus depriving opponents of a vital weak spot to hit?—though at the cost of some other weakness, of course. What if each faction in your game needed extra amounts of a certain Lumber-style resource? This would force each faction to stick to certain locations on the map, where said resource is prevalent, and thus have an effect on their playing style.

Any extras you want to throw in? Squads of infantry instead of individual soldiers? {{Support Power}}s? A tech tree? RPGElements and persistent troops that gain experience points? Hero units? Terrain bonuses? What if you were to splash in FourX traits, like ''SinsOfASolarEmpire'' ''VideoGame/SinsOfASolarEmpire'' has? What about some CollectibleCardGame flavor, like ''PoxNora''? Courts-martial if you screw up really badly? (The ''VideoGame/WingCommander'' flightsims had these as a NonStandardGameOver for screwing up [[ButThouMust plot-critical]] missions.) Something else entirely? The sky's the limit.



Oh boy. We could list hundreds of hours of addicting gameplay here and still not do a good job. Basically, though, any game you've seen mentioned in the rest of the article is worth playing, even if only for a little while so that you can learn what that game did differently than everyone else. (''SinsOfASolarEmpire'' and ''RiseOfNations'', for example, are games you can basically master in 10 hours. You'll probably play longer, because they're ''fun'', but in terms of just getting an understanding of their mechanics, what they do well and what they could improve, it won't take long.)

to:

Oh boy. We could list hundreds of hours of addicting gameplay here and still not do a good job. Basically, though, any game you've seen mentioned in the rest of the article is worth playing, even if only for a little while so that you can learn what that game did differently than everyone else. (''SinsOfASolarEmpire'' (''VideoGame/SinsOfASolarEmpire'' and ''RiseOfNations'', ''VideoGame/RiseOfNations'', for example, are games you can basically master in 10 hours. You'll probably play longer, because they're ''fun'', but in terms of just getting an understanding of their mechanics, what they do well and what they could improve, it won't take long.)



And ''this'' category could be really big too. Of course, few of them have articles here on the site--primarily ''because'' they're epic fails. Ever heard of ''VideoGame/NexusTheJupiterIncident''? ''GenesisRising''? ''VideoGame/HaegemoniaLegionsOfIron''? ''VideoGame/ConquestFrontierWars''? What was wrong with them? Absolutely nothing! Sure, they weren't blockbuster hits, but they weren't ''bad'' either. The problem is, the standard for RTS is ''really high'' (damn you, ''VideoGame/{{StarCraft|I}}''), and as such even mediocre games just don't cut it. It's like trying to make a ''Zelda'' clone: either you go big or you go home.

to:

And ''this'' category could be really big too. Of course, few of them have articles here on the site--primarily ''because'' they're epic fails. Ever heard of ''VideoGame/NexusTheJupiterIncident''? ''GenesisRising''? ''VideoGame/GenesisRising''? ''VideoGame/HaegemoniaLegionsOfIron''? ''VideoGame/ConquestFrontierWars''? What was wrong with them? Absolutely nothing! Sure, they weren't blockbuster hits, but they weren't ''bad'' either. The problem is, the standard for RTS is ''really high'' (damn you, ''VideoGame/{{StarCraft|I}}''), and as such even mediocre games just don't cut it. It's like trying to make a ''Zelda'' clone: either you go big or you go home.
3rd Mar '16 11:15:41 AM Morgenthaler
Is there an issue? Send a Message


What sort of setting are you looking at? As long as there's people, there's war, so you can have stick-wielding cavemen, high-tech futures with robots and lasers, magic-based fantasy, or anything in between. (Heck, ''RiseOfLegends'' did all three, though with Da Vincian steampunk instead of cave thugs.) You could even go supernatural: zombie invasion? Vampire invasion? Werewolves? Mutants? {{Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot}}s? (''ComicStrip/CalvinAndHobbes'' once had Tyrannosaurs flying F-14s. Calvin: "[[SoCoolItsAwesome This is so cool!]]" Hobbes: "[[CoolButStupid This is so stupid]].") Also, what's your battle plane? Are we talking ground-based armies here? How about interstellar fleets with full 3D maneuvering?—it's a known fact that the ''VideoGame/{{Homeworld}}'' fandom is looking for love. What about something in between? How about ''both''?

Would you like your gameplay to emphasize macro- or micromanagement? The former is best exemplified by ''TotalAnnihilation'' and ''VideoGame/SupremeCommander'', both of which are the brainchildren of the same guy (Chris Taylor), and both of which allow you to command thousands of units at once. The latter's adherents currently play ''VideoGame/{{Warcraft}} III'', in which an army of 50 units is considered quite large, and you have to be able to watch over all of them, activate their abilities and keep them healthy. (If this sounds difficult, it is, but ''War3'''s popularity suggests that people like it anyhow.)

to:

What sort of setting are you looking at? As long as there's people, there's war, so you can have stick-wielding cavemen, high-tech futures with robots and lasers, magic-based fantasy, or anything in between. (Heck, ''RiseOfLegends'' ''VideoGame/RiseOfLegends'' did all three, though with Da Vincian steampunk instead of cave thugs.) You could even go supernatural: zombie invasion? Vampire invasion? Werewolves? Mutants? {{Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot}}s? (''ComicStrip/CalvinAndHobbes'' once had Tyrannosaurs flying F-14s. Calvin: "[[SoCoolItsAwesome This is so cool!]]" Hobbes: "[[CoolButStupid This is so stupid]].") Also, what's your battle plane? Are we talking ground-based armies here? How about interstellar fleets with full 3D maneuvering?—it's a known fact that the ''VideoGame/{{Homeworld}}'' fandom is looking for love. What about something in between? How about ''both''?

Would you like your gameplay to emphasize macro- or micromanagement? The former is best exemplified by ''TotalAnnihilation'' ''VideoGame/TotalAnnihilation'' and ''VideoGame/SupremeCommander'', both of which are the brainchildren of the same guy (Chris Taylor), and both of which allow you to command thousands of units at once. The latter's adherents currently play ''VideoGame/{{Warcraft}} III'', in which an army of 50 units is considered quite large, and you have to be able to watch over all of them, activate their abilities and keep them healthy. (If this sounds difficult, it is, but ''War3'''s popularity suggests that people like it anyhow.)
15th Jan '16 9:43:40 PM Kuruni
Is there an issue? Send a Message


What resources are in your game? YouRequireMoreVespeneGas gives the overview, but most titles in this genre go with basics: Gold, Lumber and Population. Others have tweaked the scale: resources you might not need, tons of resources, only one or two... This has an impact on gameplay, remember. For this troper's money, ''RiseOfNations'' proved that resource diversification makes things ''way'' easier, but maybe you don't ''want'' it easier. Maybe you want The Player to think long and hard about every build order issued. For that matter, what if you want The Player to be able to de-emphasize resourcing? How about building a race into your game that doesn't resource ''at all'', thus depriving opponents of a vital weak spot to hit?—though at the cost of some other weakness, of course. What if each faction in your game needed extra amounts of a certain Lumber-style resource? This would force each faction to stick to certain locations on the map, where said resource is prevalent, and thus have an effect on their playing style.

to:

What resources are in your game? YouRequireMoreVespeneGas gives the overview, but most titles in this genre go with basics: Gold, Lumber and Population. Others have tweaked the scale: resources you might not need, tons of resources, only one or two... This has an impact on gameplay, remember. For this troper's money, ''RiseOfNations'' proved that resource diversification makes things ''way'' easier, but maybe you don't ''want'' it easier. Maybe you want The Player to think long and hard about every build order issued. For that matter, what if you want The Player to be able to de-emphasize resourcing? How about building a race into your game that doesn't resource ''at all'', thus depriving opponents of a vital weak spot to hit?—though at the cost of some other weakness, of course. What if each faction in your game needed extra amounts of a certain Lumber-style resource? This would force each faction to stick to certain locations on the map, where said resource is prevalent, and thus have an effect on their playing style.



This editor is a little biased on the topic, but let me say it anyway: the vast majority of storytelling is about characters, and their relationship to each other. And nothing I have seen, in all the fiction I've read and all the games I've played, has ever convinced me otherwise. There are very few exceptions, mostly in the form of travelogue stories—tales like ''Literature/TheWonderfulWizardOfOz'' or ''Literature/GulliversTravels'' where the setting itself is practically a character in its own right. ...And yet even that seems to affirm my statement: the land of Oz, and Dorothy's relationship to it, is the most important character in the story. And, in terms of storytelling, RealTimeStrategy is no different. The good ones may have great gameplay, but the ''best'' ones also have great characters, characters we care about and whose fates we want to learn about. They may not be the ''main'' reason we play... but they're definitely up in the top three. And the games that don't have characters... Well, there's only two reasons to play them (RuleOfFun, and online competition with your friends). That'll get you some mileage, but not as much as it could have.

to:

This editor is a little biased on the topic, but let me say it anyway: the The vast majority of storytelling is about characters, and their relationship to each other. And nothing I have seen, in all the fiction I've read and all the games I've played, has ever convinced me otherwise. There are very few exceptions, mostly in the form of travelogue stories—tales like ''Literature/TheWonderfulWizardOfOz'' or ''Literature/GulliversTravels'' where the setting itself is practically a character in its own right. ...And yet even that seems to affirm my statement: the land of Oz, and Dorothy's relationship to it, is the most important character in the story. And, in terms of storytelling, RealTimeStrategy is no different. The good ones may have great gameplay, but the ''best'' ones also have great characters, characters we care about and whose fates we want to learn about. They may not be the ''main'' reason we play... but they're definitely up in the top three. And the games that don't have characters... Well, there's only two reasons to play them (RuleOfFun, and online competition with your friends). That'll get you some mileage, but not as much as it could have.



This is more a personal gripe from this editor, but it's worth mentioning: try to keep your single-player campaign consonant with the multi-player experience. By which we mean: don't introduce (many) heroes, abilities or units that aren't available in multi. [[YouRequireMoreVespeneGas We Require More Demographics Research]], but my hunch is that many players expect the 1P campaign to basically be a glorified tutorial, and to come away from it knowing how units work in multi. So throwing in a lot of things that aren't ''in'' multi will just annoy them. As a case in point, check out the ''VideoGame/StarcraftII'' 1P campaigns--which were a ''lot'' of fun, but have almost nothing in common with how the game is actually played against other people. Roaches that {{Spawn Broodling}}s, roaming wolfpacks of Goliaths and Diamondbacks, teleporting Swarm Hosts, Thors and Ultralisks that respawn when killed... None of these are in multi, so anyone who grew to rely on them is screwed. And by the way, all these things are {{Game Breaker}}s, so the number of players who relied on them is, well, AllOfThem. This plays into a concept called "First Time User Experience," FTUE, which simply asks, "How can we make the process of Picking Up The Game For The First Time as un-confusing as possible?" A 1P campaign with lots of extra units--especially extra units that, as in ''SC2'', are not ''marked'' as being extra units--does not make for good FTUE.

to:

This is more a personal gripe from this editor, but it's It's worth mentioning: try to keep your single-player campaign consonant with the multi-player experience. By which we mean: don't introduce (many) heroes, abilities or units that aren't available in multi. [[YouRequireMoreVespeneGas We Require More Demographics Research]], but my hunch is that many players expect the 1P campaign to basically be a glorified tutorial, and to come away from it knowing how units work in multi. So throwing in a lot of things that aren't ''in'' multi will just annoy them. As a case in point, check out the ''VideoGame/StarcraftII'' 1P campaigns--which were a ''lot'' of fun, but have almost nothing in common with how the game is actually played against other people. Roaches that {{Spawn Broodling}}s, roaming wolfpacks of Goliaths and Diamondbacks, teleporting Swarm Hosts, Thors and Ultralisks that respawn when killed... None of these are in multi, so anyone who grew to rely on them is screwed. And by the way, all these things are {{Game Breaker}}s, so the number of players who relied on them is, well, AllOfThem. This plays into a concept called "First Time User Experience," FTUE, which simply asks, "How can we make the process of Picking Up The Game For The First Time as un-confusing as possible?" A 1P campaign with lots of extra units--especially extra units that, as in ''SC2'', are not ''marked'' as being extra units--does not make for good FTUE.
9th Dec '15 4:08:59 AM jormis29
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Keep an eye on your GUI. A game is only as easy to play as it is to control. In RTS that's less of an issue (especially if it's a computer game), but it might be a good idea to review the StockControlSettings for the genre, as well as catalogue any improvements on these schemes. ''VideoGame/TheSims'', which is basically a RTS without war, gives you a visual queue of a character's not-yet-executed orders, which you can then modify on the fly. ''VideoGame/SupremeCommander'' lets you issue unit orders to a ''factory'', so that any units produced there will come out with that queue already assigned. ''War3'' gave you auto-casting on some spells; unfortunately, toggling ''auto-cast'' spells didn't come along until ''LeagueOfLegends'', which also gave you orange highlights to show when an enemy was targeting your OneManArmy, and—best of all—an auto-reconnect function, lag meter and framerate counter all built into the GUI. ''RiseOfNations'' is the king of of innovations: an entity's control palette is always bound, positionally, to the QWERT, ASDFG and ZXCVB buttons, meaning you can keep your hand there and always have full control over any unit or building you select. Pressing '''Tab''' lets you cycle through all available research. Pressing '''Home''' instantly finds ''all'' units, anywhere on the map, of the type(s) you currently have selected. All these make the game more fun—or, at least, make it easier to concentrate on ''playing'', since you don't have to fight a twiddly interface. So check out these UI innovations. You might want them.

to:

Keep an eye on your GUI. A game is only as easy to play as it is to control. In RTS that's less of an issue (especially if it's a computer game), but it might be a good idea to review the StockControlSettings for the genre, as well as catalogue any improvements on these schemes. ''VideoGame/TheSims'', which is basically a RTS without war, gives you a visual queue of a character's not-yet-executed orders, which you can then modify on the fly. ''VideoGame/SupremeCommander'' lets you issue unit orders to a ''factory'', so that any units produced there will come out with that queue already assigned. ''War3'' gave you auto-casting on some spells; unfortunately, toggling ''auto-cast'' spells didn't come along until ''LeagueOfLegends'', ''VideoGame/LeagueOfLegends'', which also gave you orange highlights to show when an enemy was targeting your OneManArmy, and—best of all—an auto-reconnect function, lag meter and framerate counter all built into the GUI. ''RiseOfNations'' ''VideoGame/RiseOfNations'' is the king of of innovations: an entity's control palette is always bound, positionally, to the QWERT, ASDFG and ZXCVB buttons, meaning you can keep your hand there and always have full control over any unit or building you select. Pressing '''Tab''' lets you cycle through all available research. Pressing '''Home''' instantly finds ''all'' units, anywhere on the map, of the type(s) you currently have selected. All these make the game more fun—or, at least, make it easier to concentrate on ''playing'', since you don't have to fight a twiddly interface. So check out these UI innovations. You might want them.
30th Nov '15 7:16:02 AM FF32
Is there an issue? Send a Message


As to the plot itself... Well, the sky's the limit, really. But most RTS titles tend to have a designated BigBad, someone (be it a race, a culture or a person) who is just bent on bloody conquest and needs to be defeated. Why not get rid of that? Why not a war that's started by a misunderstanding, where alliances and peace treaties are possible—nay, desirable!—but keep getting sabotaged by ineptness, backstabbing henchmooks and other IdiotBall moments? (ThreeIsCompany, [[RecycledINSPACE AT WAR]]!!) Or, how about a war where you start off ''as'' the BigBad, launching an unprovoked blitzkrieg on people who haven't done anything to you? You could put The Player in a ''really'' uncomfortable position by getting him to sympathize and identify with people who are unquestionably bad. (Check out Ron Jones' movement [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave The Third Wave]] or [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment]] for ideas on how you can encourage The Player to buy into authority.) You're writing a war story, so you're probably going to be on the cold end of the SlidingScaleOfIdealismVsCynicism, but you don't have to be. LighterAndSofter ''does'' exist, and rarely gets any attention from this genre. ...Primarily because wars are so steeped in bloodshed, of course. WarIsHell. But maybe you can make it happen. ItsUpToYou.

to:

As to the plot itself... Well, the sky's the limit, really. But most RTS titles tend to have a designated BigBad, someone (be it a race, a culture or a person) who is just bent on bloody conquest and needs to be defeated. Why not get rid of that? Why not a war that's started by a misunderstanding, where alliances and peace treaties are possible—nay, desirable!—but keep getting sabotaged by ineptness, backstabbing henchmooks and other IdiotBall moments? (ThreeIsCompany, [[RecycledINSPACE AT WAR]]!!) Or, how about a war where you start off ''as'' the BigBad, launching an unprovoked blitzkrieg on people who haven't done anything to you? You could put The Player in a ''really'' uncomfortable position by getting him to sympathize and identify with people who are unquestionably bad. (Check out Ron Jones' movement [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave The Third Wave]] or [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment]] for ideas on how you can encourage The Player to buy into authority.) You're writing a war story, so you're probably going to be on the cold end of the SlidingScaleOfIdealismVsCynicism, SlidingScaleOfIdealismVersusCynicism, but you don't have to be. LighterAndSofter ''does'' exist, and rarely gets any attention from this genre. ...Primarily because wars are so steeped in bloodshed, of course. WarIsHell. But maybe you can make it happen. ItsUpToYou.
2nd Jul '15 4:38:06 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


You might want to consider the ''tone'' of your story. Blizzard titles especially seem to take place in a WorldHalfEmpty where RocksFallEverybodyDies on a frequent basis. This got especially bad in ''VideoGame/{{Warcraft}} III'', where characters would die only 15 minutes after their introduction and long before any pertinent characterization could be attempted. Instead of making the war seem tragic, this KillEmAll attitude just makes it seem like your enemy is faceless and meaningless; the attempt at humanizing the enemy completely backfires. That's not to say that characters shouldn't die in a war; leave too many heroes alive and you strain WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief (the series finale of the new ''[[Series/BattlestarGalacticaReimagined Battlestar Galactica]]'' suffers from this). In the end, war is a pretty bleak prospect... But just how much do you want to play that up?

to:

You might want to consider the ''tone'' of your story. Blizzard titles especially seem to take place in a WorldHalfEmpty where RocksFallEverybodyDies on a frequent basis. This got especially bad in ''VideoGame/{{Warcraft}} III'', where characters would die only 15 minutes after their introduction and long before any pertinent characterization could be attempted. Instead of making the war seem tragic, this KillEmAll attitude just makes it seem like your enemy is faceless and meaningless; the attempt at humanizing the enemy completely backfires. That's not to say that characters shouldn't die in a war; leave too many heroes alive and you strain WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief (the series finale of the new ''[[Series/BattlestarGalacticaReimagined Battlestar Galactica]]'' ''Series/BattlestarGalactica2003'' suffers from this). In the end, war is a pretty bleak prospect... But just how much do you want to play that up?
2nd May '15 8:28:38 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


What sort of setting are you looking at? As long as there's people, there's war, so you can have stick-wielding cavemen, high-tech futures with robots and lasers, magic-based fantasy, or anything in between. (Heck, ''RiseOfLegends'' did all three, though with Da Vincian steampunk instead of cave thugs.) You could even go supernatural: zombie invasion? Vampire invasion? Werewolves? Mutants? {{Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot}}s? (''CalvinAndHobbes'' once had Tyrannosaurs flying F-14s. Calvin: "[[SoCoolItsAwesome This is so cool!]]" Hobbes: "[[CoolButStupid This is so stupid]].") Also, what's your battle plane? Are we talking ground-based armies here? How about interstellar fleets with full 3D maneuvering?—it's a known fact that the ''VideoGame/{{Homeworld}}'' fandom is looking for love. What about something in between? How about ''both''?

to:

What sort of setting are you looking at? As long as there's people, there's war, so you can have stick-wielding cavemen, high-tech futures with robots and lasers, magic-based fantasy, or anything in between. (Heck, ''RiseOfLegends'' did all three, though with Da Vincian steampunk instead of cave thugs.) You could even go supernatural: zombie invasion? Vampire invasion? Werewolves? Mutants? {{Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot}}s? (''CalvinAndHobbes'' (''ComicStrip/CalvinAndHobbes'' once had Tyrannosaurs flying F-14s. Calvin: "[[SoCoolItsAwesome This is so cool!]]" Hobbes: "[[CoolButStupid This is so stupid]].") Also, what's your battle plane? Are we talking ground-based armies here? How about interstellar fleets with full 3D maneuvering?—it's a known fact that the ''VideoGame/{{Homeworld}}'' fandom is looking for love. What about something in between? How about ''both''?
14th Apr '15 10:26:43 AM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


EasyLogistics are a tricky one. If you've played ''VideoGame/{{Homeworld}} 1'' or other titles in which you ''do'' have to refuel and rearm your units, you know it's freaking annoying and rightly ought to be removed. But what about maintenance? What about non-combat casualties?—wars have been won by both superior tactics and diarrhea. What about unit fatigue and/or morale, like in ''DawnOfWar''? What about communication?—even during these days of radio and cellphone communication, it's not easy to guarantee that your soldiers have their orders ''or'' that they're carrying them out properly (or at all), and an ambush kind of doesn't work if one flank is late to the party. For that matter, what about intercepting enemy communications? Battles, sometimes entire wars, have been won by waylaid intelligence. This is generally incorporated into between-mission cutscenes in an RTS, if it's included at all; but what about making it a part of ''gameplay''?

RealTimeStrategy contains two sub-genres. One is better described as "RealTimeTactics," in which the emphasis is on controlling small numbers of units and there is no base-building or administrative detailing. ''[[VideoGame/{{Myth}} Myth The Fallen Lords]]'' and ''DawnOfWar 2'' lean in this direction, with ''DefenseOfTheAncients'' and its MultiplayerOnlineBattleArena spinoffs taking it to its most logical extreme: you control just one hero, ''an'' hero, and nothing else. On the opposite end of the scale is (for lack of a better term) "RealTimeBaseBuilding," with lots of structure-placing and administrative choices, but little focus on actual military maneuvers. The most obvious examples here are TowerDefense games like ''VideoGame/PlantsVsZombies''; the ''Starcraft II'' mod "Nexus Wars" in which your entire job is deciding which soldiers to throw into battle; and the "dictator simulator" ''GratuitousSpaceBattles'', in which you design ships and determine fleet composition, but don't get to do anything except watch the fireworks once the battle is joined.

to:

EasyLogistics are a tricky one. If you've played ''VideoGame/{{Homeworld}} 1'' or other titles in which you ''do'' have to refuel and rearm your units, you know it's freaking annoying and rightly ought to be removed. But what about maintenance? What about non-combat casualties?—wars have been won by both superior tactics and diarrhea. What about unit fatigue and/or morale, like in ''DawnOfWar''? ''VideoGame/DawnOfWar''? What about communication?—even during these days of radio and cellphone communication, it's not easy to guarantee that your soldiers have their orders ''or'' that they're carrying them out properly (or at all), and an ambush kind of doesn't work if one flank is late to the party. For that matter, what about intercepting enemy communications? Battles, sometimes entire wars, have been won by waylaid intelligence. This is generally incorporated into between-mission cutscenes in an RTS, if it's included at all; but what about making it a part of ''gameplay''?

RealTimeStrategy contains two sub-genres. One is better described as "RealTimeTactics," in which the emphasis is on controlling small numbers of units and there is no base-building or administrative detailing. ''[[VideoGame/{{Myth}} Myth The Fallen Lords]]'' and ''DawnOfWar ''VideoGame/DawnOfWar 2'' lean in this direction, with ''DefenseOfTheAncients'' and its MultiplayerOnlineBattleArena spinoffs taking it to its most logical extreme: you control just one hero, ''an'' hero, and nothing else. On the opposite end of the scale is (for lack of a better term) "RealTimeBaseBuilding," with lots of structure-placing and administrative choices, but little focus on actual military maneuvers. The most obvious examples here are TowerDefense games like ''VideoGame/PlantsVsZombies''; the ''Starcraft II'' mod "Nexus Wars" in which your entire job is deciding which soldiers to throw into battle; and the "dictator simulator" ''GratuitousSpaceBattles'', in which you design ships and determine fleet composition, but don't get to do anything except watch the fireworks once the battle is joined.
9th Jul '14 5:53:35 AM SeptimusHeap
Is there an issue? Send a Message


And ''this'' category could be really big too. Of course, few of them have articles here on the site--primarily ''because'' they're epic fails. Ever heard of ''VideoGame/NexusTheJupiterIncident''? ''GenesisRising''? ''VideoGame/HaegemoniaLegionsOfIron''? ''ConquestFrontierWars''? What was wrong with them? Absolutely nothing! Sure, they weren't blockbuster hits, but they weren't ''bad'' either. The problem is, the standard for RTS is ''really high'' (damn you, ''VideoGame/{{StarCraft|I}}''), and as such even mediocre games just don't cut it. It's like trying to make a ''Zelda'' clone: either you go big or you go home.

to:

And ''this'' category could be really big too. Of course, few of them have articles here on the site--primarily ''because'' they're epic fails. Ever heard of ''VideoGame/NexusTheJupiterIncident''? ''GenesisRising''? ''VideoGame/HaegemoniaLegionsOfIron''? ''ConquestFrontierWars''? ''VideoGame/ConquestFrontierWars''? What was wrong with them? Absolutely nothing! Sure, they weren't blockbuster hits, but they weren't ''bad'' either. The problem is, the standard for RTS is ''really high'' (damn you, ''VideoGame/{{StarCraft|I}}''), and as such even mediocre games just don't cut it. It's like trying to make a ''Zelda'' clone: either you go big or you go home.
This list shows the last 10 events of 47. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=SoYouWantTo.WriteARealTimeStrategy