Here are the questions: What are strategy elements and what are tactics elements in RTS games? Could a RTS with just strategy elements still be fun? And how coud such a game be designed? My take on the first question is that strategy implies a very broad view over a conflict, decisions that will influence many units, and will take much time to be accomplish. Strategy requires thought, thinking ahead. Tactics on the other hand are very quick decisions on a local level involving very few units. Tactics depend a lot on the speed of a decision. Tactics: - The scissor-paper-stone gameplay. (When two armies meet, the player that can issue more commands will be able to retreat faster when his units are attacked by a counter-unit, and attack the enemy faster with his counter-units. The result can often be dramatic.) - Special attacks. The *craft games have a lot of these - lots and lots of spells that require that the player controls a single unit. The skill with which the player controls that unit and the reaction time of the opponent have a huge impact on the game. - Scouting. (In Total Annihilation a lot of units can shoot far beyond their viewing range. In the rush of the battle the player who can have an eye on the enemy units the longest time will win) Strategy: Placement of defenses (Total Annihilation comes to mind with very extensive defensive building) Giving orders to large groups of units (Shogun Total War) Research and build strategy. Choosing what units will make the army. AI settings to allow units to micromanage themselves, thus removing tactics from the game (patrol missions; Dark Reign with its independence, damage tolerance attack orders settings- allowing the player to create missions ranging from to hit and run to seek and destroy) Creating plans for an attack (Total Annihilation - I could order a group of bombers to go through the map on a given course, make a bombing run on a target, move to another point on the map, make a bombing run on another target then return to base) I believe RTS without tactics can be fun (at least for the turn-based people) - something closer to Panzer General as gameplay, and tempo, but benefiting from all the advantages of RTS. As for how would I design one, I''d try to borrow as much as possible from the turn based games. Very high effect of terrain (infantry in city rules, tanks in the open annihilate, very low defense when crossing a river, bridging units, destroyable bridges), an improved logistics system (all units can trade between the damage they cause and the ammo consumption rate; many map features can be used for resupply - harbors, railways, airports, etc.) different goals for every mission , (capturing/holding certain map positions), group based approach (no orders for a single unit are allowed). tradeoff between moving speed and stealth/defense (this way one can move an army fairly fast across the map, but has to slow down closer to the front line).

Hmm.. given your definitions of Strategy and Tactics... a strategy-only game could be kind of interesting. It seems like you'd only be able to build static defenses and squadrons of units, and then the squadrons (which could only be moved as a group, of course) would fight squad-to-squad.

But... if you truly want *no* tactics, then you couldn't really make a fantasy-themed game unless you took out all magic, which might not go over very well.

--Edit: Oops, now that I reread the end of your post I realize I may not have said anything useful.

Edited by - draqza on December 20, 2001 10:25:06 PM

quote:
Original post by draqza

But... if you truly want *no* tactics, then you couldn''t really make a fantasy-themed game unless you took out all magic, which might not go over very well.

Not really. You''d just have to make the magic slower, but having larger, more powerful effects. More strategic.

An example:

Summon Earth Elementals: this spell would create an magical army. The enemy would know where this spell was cast, and would be able to stop it by capturing that location (probably a predefined location - a Stonehenge like temple, etc.) This creates a mini-plot - it requires the enemy to change his plans if he wants to stop the spell or to increase his defenses if he decides not to try and stop the spell - strategy.

I think it could/can be fun.

I remember playing C&C:Red Alert with a few other guys on our LAN - the most fun (to me) was building up my army. Placing the units in strategic positions and digging in

Of course the other guys liked to build and attack so, my style of play was severly hamperd *GRIN* I usually build a new base and would play two different styles. Or I would just send half of what I built off to defend from their advances and the other half I would dig in!

If you make it - I would play it.
You might want to take a look at my post which discussesAlternatives to micro-management. I think it may relate to yours.

Dave "Dak Lozar" Loeser

Dak Lozar-what if I make one?

I''m making one but it''s
1)not pure strategy and it''s
2)turn based.

But it includes everything from Diodor''s descriptions of
both strategy and tactics. It''s a case where sucking at
either one will lose you the game.

Create.

You''re really looking at strategy as the RTS definition, which really isn''t strategy, it''s tactics.

Here''s the difference between strategy and tactics:

Strategy is large units, commonly combined arms assignments (air+ground+artillery, etc...) and so forth. This is simply the "Go here and kill that army" type of command structure.

Tactics is much more detailed, but with fewer units. Whereas a General of an army will tell an infantry Colonel that he has to go to grid xy and destroy unit z, what support units he has at his disposal (air support, air defense, artillery, logistics, etc...), he has very little control over how the job is actually done. The Colonel decides which units go where, how they attack, when the artillery softens up the enemy and where.

To make it easy, Strategy is assignment, tactics is execution.

They commonly cross over. Someone who is responsible for the execution of a strategy handed to him will commonly give out strategic commands to people lower than him and will plan out tactics for the battle with key units.