Why do people get so stingy about the definition of RTS games?

Sage for faggot comic.

Wew, sounds like somebody can't even blob right.

wew lad

Sage and reported for being THIS retarded and expecting to get away with it.

Satellite Reign was a squad-based RTS.
Not AoE-style build a base and build units, but it was still good.

OP, I think I've read every page they've ever put out, but it's mostly garbage and the vast majority is just propaganda or 2deep4u.

Yeah dude, I hear they also have a lot of turn based strategy games. These are RTS, right?

Agreed on Satellite Reign. It's a very fun game, although I felt it was too different from Syndicate. Don't get me wrong I love mostly everything about SR but I kind of hoped for a modern syndicate.

It's pretty frustrating having to micromanage agents that should be able to determine they need to take cover themselves.

I think it's good how he mixes sexual themes and humor without going overboard sexually and just having a very casual attitude about it.

I approve desu.

I didn't really have an issue with that. Mostly my issues with SR was the performance and how stealth can be fairly broken by the end. And pre a recent update how bullet spongey everything was.

You're retarded, OP.

just kill yourself

Who hurt you, user?

Casuals who made low-skill meme games into "e-sports", while leaving behind all the good games. All it's done is add a bunch of faggots who claim to be "RTS players". When publishers look at numbers, they group them together, and it means less money for real RTS games.

RTS was once considered too deep for casualfags to ruin, so they did what they did with MMOs: make a new genre and use the same name.

It's called having standards. We can't all be ignorant casuals like you.

I realized I could do without a gay comic that stopped being funny a long time ago. Found both authors to be annoying cunts.
What about you ? Can't go on without penises in your fun ? Need more multicultural gays ? Women in charge or women with penises ?
Is that what made you fail the basic definition of RTS or are you just a moron who uses the loose definitions, that steam uses?

I am playing Grand Strategy.

How can I be an ignorant casual?

I just much prefer the system of Total War where ressource, empire management, the strategical layer is actually properly simulated, isntead of being heavily abstracted and forced into the real time battle layer.

Why would I ever want to look at the twitter account of a comic creator if I am just there for the comics, fam?

He or her could be literally bdsm fanatics and I would not care.

Also I don't see anything bad he is saying on your two pics. The first one is meh and I have no idea wtf he is talking about in the second.

honestly that seems like the case. they spend more time jerking off over their sitcom of a scenario than talking about strategy or game play.

He's shitting on the next american vice president if that is not obvious enough. His/her earliest tweets involve gays, drag queens and etc so it's no surprise.
The authors are pretty much the embodiment of SJWs.
Oh, so you just enjoy oglaf for the humongous amount of dicks and multicultural gays? Can you even remember the last time it was funny ?

As long as they're not shoving it into their work, who gives a fuck. It's like not like you're buying the comics or giving them money to support their koolaid inebriated opinion.

Their *work* amounts to every comic ending in gay sex or men licking/fisting dicks. Do you find that funny or something ?

Haven't read Oglaf in probably 2 years myself but it used to be pretty popular on the chans and I thought it was good then. I only stopped reading as I liked a bit of the continuity and the update was a tiny bit to slow for me.

His point about liking something regardless of the creators personal views is valid imo. I can't find too many comics with slapstick sexual humour written by natsocs mate.
========

Also OP is right GSGs have really filled the gap and are very good. The real unfortunate thing about this imo though is I think they are horrible games to play in multiplayer against humans. Games with an overhead fast paced strategy element tend to suffer too in recent years with there being less and less popular. I can't really think of any but SC2. I know AoE2 is still popular but do people play multilayer AoE3 or is it just a game living on nostalgia?

There have been some interesting variants of RTS cross FPS games however. I can't remember them off the top of my head but games where (a set percentage) e.g 90% of the soldiers/ vehicles were controlled by bots controlled by an overhead games master and 10% of soldiers where players are interesting and hopefully could be a promising future. Particularly when the individual players can command and control squads in first person too if allowed.

What is the specific name for a game like SC1 or AoE2? I feel like it should be a distinctly different genre from other RTS games like Defcon.

GSGs have been getting more and more casual by the year. Paradox hasn't helped at all. EU4 was bad, but improved a bit. HoI4 is a shallow disaster, though.

Total War is also growing more casual.

Also, I'd hardly consider Total War a "grand" strategy game. Empire management has always been about army logistics, not "managing a nation". The game is all about real time battle, just at a slower pace.

But that's the real difference: Total War is about strategizing and then adapting, while StarCraft is about starting on equal footing and using an overall strategy to allow certain tactics to be used.

While I'd describe Total War as a whole as a bit less casual-friendly than StarCraft, I'd also say it's quickly become more casualized. StarCraft II dropped the ball, but Total War has stripped stuff out without even having a demand for it. Why do retarded developers keep weakening their games and expecting an army of customers to show up to reward them?

You think you have to be natsoc to not enjoy men fisting penises as a joke ? Or gay sex as a joke ?
I too was a moron 2 years ago and thought the gay jokes were just a random thing. Then I realized that they had somehow become 80% of the content. 100% in some of the months.
Yes oglaf avoids the political propaganda and substitutes it for gay propaganda because that is what is on the mind of both authors most of the time.

Nowadays it's like being on a gay blog or tumblr or something. You have to really be blind to deny it.

olgaf became shit when they killed the permavirgin character, it hasn't redeemed or been funny since.

Source?

I agree. :^)

I never said or implied that Total War games were grand strategy. They are their own subgenre. I didn't mean that both paradox games and total war games share a sub genre.

Well, Warhammer proved them right.

Sadly.

oglaf

I haven't read it in a long time because of that very reason. It may be hard to grasp, but you can defend the right for anons for freely enjoy shit without you being a dicksucking fan of it too, you know.

Why would I go out of my way to do that Their *right* to do that is never in any danger.
Their choices to pretend it's good however are pleb choices and they should be ridiculed for it. Like ASSFAGGOT players.

I think everyone is seriously exagerating on Oglaf. There's gay shit there but not that often and it doesn't ruin most of the jokes anyway.
If you want to be offended, you'll find plenty of reasons but that's on you. The OP comic for instance is just a fun thing with changelings, the gay sex doesn't even matter there as they aren't even real humans and anyone offended was just too stupid to fall for their tricks.

Why do people get so stingy about the definition of RTS games?
Because it's actually a very specific term applied buy many to a broad range of games. In the end, it ends up not describing much because it's mis-used and then problems arise because of that.

RTS is for a lot of people synonymous with "strategy games" despite the fact that it's a very specific sub-genre of strategy games.
So you have a lot of people that try it looking for a specific type of gameplay they don't find anywhere at all and they fuck off somewhere else, annoying themselves and RTS fans.

You have buildfags that get tired of rushing everything and move on to 4X
You have strategyfags that get tired of hotkey and micro bullshit, so they move to GSG
You have turtlefags that get tired of papermade turrets\walls so they move to tower defense
You have tacticsfags that get tired of build orders, so they move to RTT

And then you have the few fags that actually enjoy the RTS genre that play it and get tired of all the other fags that join the game and don't rush, don't counter their rush, actually try to turtle or don't even setup a good economy\base.

The RTS genre is experiencing a downfall for a long time now because the controls it has aren't suited at all for the kind of stuff most people look for to the point that only severe autists that varely play anything else are the only ones good enough at the game.
It always devolves into micro\build orders and rushing with games lasting 15-20 minutes if you're equally skilled, otherwise even less.
You never get a massive army or even use half of your units anyway because if you try, you'll end up dead before that happens.

Nobody tries to improve on the formula becase RTSfags have gotten used to how it works (see some of the changes to Starcraft 2 that most people would consider good but their players hate because "it makes it too easy") and they straight out refuse anything new while every other player is looking for something different that's covered by another genre that does it better than RTS.

Do you say that for every strip from the past 2 years? Well conditioned, aren't you ?

Thanks.

Is this a popular thing or something? Because I only looked up it because I wanted porn, and that's more or less what it seems to be so far. Lots of cock, plenty to fap to.

literally using CTR memes, are we

Yes, I say that for the last 2 years. The gay sex is there, I see it plainly. Doesn't make me want to fuck dudes and doesn't make me respect or care about them anymore than I did before.

Is your mind really that undeveloped that you can't risk exposing it to some gay sex or leftist propaganda without being subverted? Do you fear adverts in TV as well because you can't resist buying shit after the man on the telly tells you you'll never be happy without that new gillete?

Same thing for me back when the Aprentice story was rolling. Shame about that "ending" and the stories now being mostly skits.
Even the Vampire Doctor was pretty cool.

fuck♂you

Why aren't there any erotic RTS games where your armies fuck eachother?

M8, I've monitored oglaf for much longer than you. I don't go to tumblr gay blogs because I see no reason to. I see no reason to bother with oglaf anymore either.
If you find gay sex, fisting or man on man action that funny, so funny that it is the only joke he/she uses in most of the comics, then that is entirely your problem.

but it's kinda unfair if people who look on steam or elsewhere for rts games won't find Total War games for example under your definition

Or what if there are prizes for different categories and there is one turn-based strategy and RTS one? Again discrimination against those games if we use your definiiton.

This is what bothers me.

There was a flavour text which said something like that in an older total war game.
IIRC It was about something about the vikings forcing their enemies to suck them off, which they did historically.

he is kinda lacking lately, most of his just get a meh from me now

others are fine

...

the entire clicking genre of games is a blight on the industry. from diablo to menu simulators like vicky 2. Absolute boring chores. Your operating systems have better actual game play than these pieces of shit.

Play Multiwinia. The only Strategy game worth a damn.

Why is Goku hugging a green faggot?

He hugged the biggest faggot he could find but you weren't around at that time.

That's RTT. If you don't build a base, then it's tactics, not strategy.

Total War is both grand strategy and RTT.

Where the fuck the rest?

I didnt mind the lesbian lewds, but I gave up reading that shit the moment they stop making the wizard apprentice story arc

I don't. But I can easily overlook those things and enjoy the rest of the comic just fine because I'm not a sensitive fag.

The dwarves are still awesome, the Ice Queen is still adorable, the mythological creatures are still very fun, the Vampire Doctor is quite far from being gay and still makes me laugh and the whole God of Pranks arc was hilarious, especially the last page. If you can't enjoy any of those things just because there's dick-fencing, it's your loss but stop acting like there's any moral high ground to have here.

Forgot Pic

Total War games are not real time for the world map and they are not standard RTS in the fights themselves.
Total War games are shallow 4X in the world map and decent RTT in the battles, they never really are RTS because they always separate both aspects.
Europa Universalis would be far closer to an RTS than Total War and it's not even there.

Then Turn-Based Strategy has it's own prizes to win and shouldn't concern itself with RTS.

Does it bother you that those games don't win prizes for best simulation despite simulating economies and armies?
Does it bother you they don't win prizes for racing games despite featuring cavalry?
Or storytelling prizes despite having campaigns, some even related to IRL stuff?

It's a different category that's incredibly different from regular RTS and you should be happy it is so, embrace it and enjoy it.
Leave the RTS fags to slowly die in their micro-build order-rush fests until someone unfucks the whole genre.

Please stop arguing about porn.

...

lol ice queen. There hasn't been a strip about her in ages. Same with dwarves. You are remembering shit from years back.

STOP POSTING THIS SHITTY WEBM YOU PLEB

...

Because the faggots that play mobas think they're playing an RTS

You ould say that RTS is the roguelite of Strategy.

Rogue-lites are the Dark Souls of twinstick shooters.

Great analysis and definitions.

Pretty legit rundown. If you have played it, what are your thoughts on Impossible Creatures as a good RTS game?

I think it is fairly decent as people create their own armies and though some units like would probably get (e.g Chameleons X Hippos or Crocodile X Hornets) overused it seems to offer pretty varying strategies and styles. Range vs Close combat, rush heavy vs late game, Flight vs Amphibious.

I haven't really played it in maybe 10 years now but it was a bloody good game. Would force people to adapt to different maps and every unit gets used and you have to be selective beforehand. Massive armies are also possible if you are using some small burrowing force like a Rat X Ant cross to deliver plagues and kill the economy.

No, they're the ASSFAGGOTS of CRAPCUNTS.

no they arent

RTS are dead

no, they evolved into the superior moba genre :^)

This tbh fam.

When Supreme Commander came around RTSfags in their bulk refused a paradigm shift, and the community splintered.

Doesn't invalidate that there's good comics there or that the new ones are bad. If the only criticism people is "there's gay stuff, ew" then I'll mock you for being prudish "I'm offended!" types and missing out on good stuff because of that.

I played it, it was a fun game and seemed to have a solid campaign.
The resources were fairly simple and basic, as was the construction and teching which kinda makes it a short game.

It was neat that you could create your own armies for skirmish and against friends, but it kinda sucked that you couldn't tweak on the fly GEDDIT or that you could only combine 2 creatures together. The game would be better if you combined traits of creatures but each had a specific cost to it. There were also plenty of bad combinations or OP combinations, but it had potential.

I prefer to think that the problem with RTS lies in the controls to the point that you either gook click or you don't stand much of a chance. Many RTS refuse to adress this as fans have gotten used to this, just check Starcraft 2 that still doesn't ahve auto-queue for units or a flow economy.
I wished someone took the idea of Squads from the Perimeter games and expanded on to it so you could design squads, station their commander near a base and have it auto-recruit the needed troops to fill it as you programmed.

Micro is the bad of strategy, it forces players to reduce down to reflexes all the minucious actions they have to take in order to pull off some really difficult plans when all that should matter is their tactical genius, not their reflexes. But too many people have gotten used to this and will never accept the alternative, some even argue bad pathfinding is good because there's skill involved in guiding a large army 12 units at a time through narrow spots.

I haven't found a single game that does defense better than it is in RTS games. All those tower defense games all play no differently than they did back in 2002, while having not even an atom of the depth presented by RTS mechanics.

There hasn't been good stuff in a while. You are a nostalgiafag, the same way most drones are. From blizzdrones to biodrones.

Grand strategies are the most challenging strategy games there are, you're just too stupid to play them Holla Forums.
And what is dark about fixing the mistakes of our ancestors? With that line you revealed your nose.

At least you included a picture of yourself.

No they aren't
Most of them are just map painters at best

remove yourself from this imageboard please

Some of them and even then only very recent ones, definitely not most of them.
Most of them do require more strategical understanding than other RTS games, a lot more.

Nah, that man is right. Paradox is cucked, HOI4 is garbage, EU4 is too. Only Victoria 2 and Darkest Hour are worth something. Everything else is bland and plain. You have to have depth in map painter, or else you just conquer all territories with your color like an idiot.

At some point you just grow up from those pretentious games, at least to not poison your mind with swedish ideas of politics.

...

Nah. There are lots more GSG than just Paradox games, they don't have a monopoly on it. And I wouldn't say EU4 is "cucked" or "garbage", it's pretty good in multiplayer (just not as single player since AI is too easy).

that's just the newest releases. There are plenty of other games, though.

Never

got a couple hundred hours in it
the game isn't hard at all beyond figuring out IC use and effective division set up
It's also inferior to Darkest Hour

There is an ad free mobile game called gladiabots where you program the ai of your units to win objectives. would you think a game where you can preprogramed the ai of units to act differently in combat would be a good thing to reduce the micro load?

Not having a build queue sounds fucked.

Those tower defense games have a larger variety of towers, often they double as walls as well, they have to be placed far more tactically and they lend themselves to a nice progression.
Some tower defense games have also went with FPS elements or RPG elements. You wouldn't think it but Orcs Must Die is a neat example, for instance.
There's even a custom map for Warcraft 3 where players have oposing lanes and you buy the minions you send to your oponent, trying to outlast him.

I've seen far more innovation in tower defense games than in RTS and keep in mind that they are always shitty games regardless.

Personal opinions. I find the latest comic funny because geometry puns are hilarious to me.
Oh, you're just a contrarian. Opining disregarded.

Every fan and player of Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis always complains about how easy it is to blob the world and every expansion is just the devs trying to curb the blob with some new mechanic that only manages to slow it down. Sometimes.

4X is far more chalenging and deep than GSG and that's still quite easy to understand. There's nothing wrong with liking GSG, I personnaly love Age of Wonders, Lords of Magic and Endless Legend, but let's not pretend they are some sort of 5D chess.

Crusader Kinds and Europa Universalis are GSG and they aren't turn based. You can slow and pause the time but it still runs on real time, not turns.

This is a fun RTS game. Anyone else here played it?

Considering there's Dominions, a game where you can't directly control your troops, merely issue commands to be executed if a fight happens, and it's an amazing game, yeah.

Some people have suggested that units should target their prefered target when possible on their own, seek cover and perform all kinds of behaviours that are very small actions on their own but very large in numbers done automatically by the units. If units could take cover for reduced damage, would it make sense to force the player to move them all individually behind every rock on the ground? Even if it "increased the skill level"? Of course not.

Programming troops might not fit very well with RTS though, not much time for that or variety in behaviour. Smarter troops would be a better choice, especially if their inteligence was part of the gameplay.
For instance, you tech up grenades for your troops, now they automatically throw them in combat but with low accuracy and in the wrong time. you tech up again or something else like drill maneurers and they'll use them more often and with better aim.
Same thing for finding cover, prioritizing targets, etc. Morale could be a mechanic that shifts all this in the oposite as well.

It is. The player is expected to hotkey his production buildings and cycle them every 30 seconds to queue a few more units but not too many, you don't want to sink minerals in troops and have none to build\tech.
What the enemy player sees is exactly the same as if there were build queues, it's just an extra thing the other player has to do to keep him busy and nothing else.

Grand strats are shit.
RTS requires actual game play and thought. Not circle jerking 40k and Trump memes. Sorry Holla Forums bros, but alot of you have shitty taste in games, and are ANTI video games. So fuck off and git gud.

You say that as though faggotry isn’t implicitly leftist.

Kill yourself, you fucking kikelover.

Can confirm that when I play Civ, the Jewest player allways wins.
It's the Gold that makes the world spin.
And it's the Goldenstein that makes the nukes fall.

I use to play old grand strats before RTS games existed AKA table top board games. Grand start video games real genre should be called Maps & Menus. Anyone I know who plays Civ, Europa, all that shit are the most autistic faggots who can even get a line down in Tetris or get past the first level in Doom.

All good points. Gtg now but you made this thread good.

if you have an android phone take a look at galdiabots though. community based programming of units for their ai functions that could be set very simply would be pretty cool. Skill level remains high and the complexity to execute is reduced.

Sounds to me like you are talking about Dungeon Defenders, Sanctum, and obviously OMD, which are all pretty shitty defense games. You defend the thing because reasons, can't wall off paths because reasons, are attacked at your own pace because reasons, and you only defend on a single map for a handful of waves before you move on to the next map and start over from scratch. Meanwhile in an RTS you still have tons of towers and defensive options, but you have to go out and get the resources for your defense yourself, are defending your base so you can crush the enemy with superweapons, and can be attacked at any time in any way regardless of how prepared you are for it.

Before I read your other posts I understood that part differently from what you most likely intended. There's nothing wrong with having rushes and being able to defend against them, but RTS as a genre should not be limited to just rushing and countering rushes, even though RA2 and SC1 put those on a pedestal.

...

You're about the 10th time someone in this thread has assumed CK2 and EU4 are the only Grand Strat games there are.
Hahahahahahaha
No.

That's what I said in the message you replied to, moron.

no but i really should start looking into ds emulation

You mistook 4x for Grand Strategy, fam.

Although often the starting conditions of the map feel pretty 4x-y. Only in the campaigns the dare to portray a supremacy of a nation, they really like to give every nation only one starting territory, so that gives it that 4x feel.

Let's not talk about that.

I wasn't talking about that, idiot. I was talking about games like Total War which would be unfairly discriminated against.

But either your strategy game is turn-based or real-time, at least many prize categories think in those terms.

This thing happened with Dark Messiah too. Is it a shooter, an rpg, an action game? When I look it up, it often gets excluded from those categories, because it doesn't exactly fit in there, which is sad, because it's one of my favourite games of all time.

You mean a Dota-like? :^)

Total War Warhammer is the most popular "RTS" with the normalfags and is the first game since SC2 Wings of Liberty to appeal to a non-strategy audience.

I agree. I am having lots of fun with Geopolitical Simulator 4 though.

Haha, what epic human specimens these find Starcraft players are! If only I could press buttons this fast!

Thanks, I'll give it a try.

Not defending Tower Defense, I hate most of those games anyway and find they terribly boring.
But at least they try to change the formula every now and then so they can be at least different from each other which is more than most RTS games can say.

Complaining about not being able to wall everything makes no sense, that's not the purpose of the game and it's not even true for all games. Several ones will let you place barricades too but they can be damaged.
Basically, if the enemy can attack your fortifications, you can wall them off, otherwise a line of towers will autowin every game.

You have towers for land units, towers for air units and sometimes a single tower that does both things.
You have walls and weaker walls.
And maybe a scouting tower\watching post. That's it.
See Age of Empires\Mythology, Supreme Commander and similar games, tell me how much variety there really is there.
See also Empire Earth, all 3 where you get anti-aircraft, regular turret and then wall or pallisade.

It's actually very rare for RTS to have something more interesting than that. I know Earth games have different guns to be placed on top of buildings for one.

I'm going to dedicate a whole post explaining to you what's the problem with rushes.

Well, that sure showed me…
Compare the metagame surrounding Science in any Civ game to research done in most GSG where it's often completely out of your hands.
Compare the exploitation of resources, or how you get a random map you must adapt to, not an historical one that either gives you an advantage or with fixed conditions you can exploit everytime.

Oh I remenber you. I though we settled this in that thread.

Total War is a GSG, not an RTS. It's realtime battles are RTT and separated from the world map, that's why it's not included in the RTS category.

Dark Messiah (pretty cool game) is an action-rpg game, I have no idea why you think it's excluded from those categories when it's not. A shooter is stretching it since half the game is melee anyway, you only shoot bows and if you're aiming your magic at your enemies, you are casting it wrong.

Then why doesn't it have any rewards or video game oscars in the rpg or action category?

I remember pitching an idea sort of like this once to an RTS thread, and I was wholly unprepared for the giant shitstorm spergout it caused. When I said I'd be more interested in RTS if it did a better job of simulating a battlefield commander, which the micro the genre is generally known for does not do, I was accused of wanting them game to play itself.

I loved the shit out of Impossible Creatures, for all it's flaws. I was always a little sad it didn't take off.

God I love whiny Op's who complain about not being accepted into the cool kids club.

So Battle for middle earth 2 was a tactics games too?

The only difference between it and total war is how they handle ressources and even that can be avoided in their campaign mode.

Fucking Codemonkey…

pastebin.com/acPfCDZz

You don't command troops and build structures on the same map and in realtime in Total War while BTFME2 does this.
Campaign modes are not indicatives of gameplay since they are restricted by their own rules.
I'll however assume you were talking about the Conquest mode, where you still can't avoid it. As soon as a battle jumps to the map, you still gotta worry about resource allocation.

BFME2 doesn't stop being an RTS because it also features GSG
Total War doesn't start being an RTS because it doesn't has those elements in the game at all. just GSG and RTT.

This should be banned desu. Made the mode pointless.

But it's not turnbased! What kind of major sub genre does it belong to? Turn-based or real time strategy?

What we need is a new name for what you consider sc2 clone style RTS are!

Just shows you don't play grand strats because they're too hard for you. That statement is completely untrue.

And tons of GSGs have random maps too you retard.
Jesus, why do you bother trying to start arguments about games you know nothing about?

You didn't think before you post, but you never do so I won't hold you at fault.

It has battalions like Total War games.

Seriously, why do you guys get off on putting Total War in the RTT camp and use that weird term that barely anyone uses, when most normalfags think that there are RTS, Turnbased and Base/City Building Games?

Imo RTT is a SUB-CATEGORY of RTS.

So even if you are right and Total war is an RTT, which I can accept. Under my definition it would be both an RTS and a RTT!

Because the most basic definition is in the end to just be based in real time.

Kill yourself.

Total War uses two subsets of skills, that of managing the growth of your empire, and that of managing your armies. They occur separately, with no crossover. In an RTS you must use both skills simultaneously, all the time. That's the core experience of the game.

Well your opinion is not only wrong, but shit. RTT don't use half the fucking skills of a modern RTS. It's like calling GTA a third person shooter. It's like calling Quake a MOBA. It's like calling CoD an RPG, because

If you don't get why an RTT (and Total War) aren't RTS, then tell me, what's the furthest you've got playing an RTS competitively. And I don't mean 'I played some skirmishes with friends', I mean, learning builds, optimizing strategies, playing properly. Because the fucking fact that you have builds separates RTS from RTT in a big way.

What kind of sarcastic bitch rolls their eyes in this day and age?

What's the furthest you've gotten posting on an imageboard competitively?

The overmap part of the game is indeed turn based. And that's GSG.
The battles are real-time but since you only command whatever troops you started with, it's RTT.

There is one already, RTS.

Research in GSG is often statistical improvements only and they are improved in a very passive way. You can only influence them in very superficial ways.
Crusader Kings has research looking like it's some in-depth mechanism that bleeds over regions, but you can't fund grants or researchers, you can't affect it at all with anything you can build or train and the best you can make is have a spy steal a few points back to your capital.

Europa Universalis does a better job at this, but they are also often just statistical increments and you get points in very passive ways as well that you can't influence very much either.

Compare that to 4X and how research is half the game there, how Civ can have metagames surrounding jungles, how Age of Wonders and derivates have tactics surrounding high research and even Endless Space features the option to get research from destroying enemy ships and 4X BTFO any GSG.

Fringe ones. So fringe indeed that you don't even mention a single one.

Because you don't juggle enconomy and construction in real-time or at the same time as your army and that's a big part of RTS.

Correct. And the battles in Total War belong to that category, not RTS.
But the building, exploring, scounting and the whole economy is turn based and happens on a separate map.
Ideally you could just auto-resolve every fight in Total War and still get the same GSG game. Or play skirmish and have only the RTT. You can't do that in an RTS.

Uhhh, obviously there is a big crossover. I think you should have just said they are seperate.

In a Starcraft clone, sure, but RTS just means real time strategy. :^)

Isn't that an oxymoron? Since you know … there aren't any RTS being made anymore. :^)

I completly learned a new hotkey system from the ground up. I shifted my keyboard and used the right side of it. It was pretty revolutonary and I practiced a lot with it and became adapted to it.

I watched a lot of Day9, other SC2 Tutorials and the pro scene, I watched a lot of tournaments. IIRC the big victory for Scarlett was the last one I really followed.

I played multiplayer, but honestly I practiced and researched builds more. Before that I played a lot of Shogun 2 Multiplayer and was in the top 1000 IIRC.
Before that, but time wise a bit seperated I was playing Warcraft 3 and made some really good memories.

I don't have the replay, but I still remember losing my entire base as the undead, but still winning with the frost wyrms I had remaining. It was casual though.

Does it hurt your eyes if you roll them, because you stare at the computer all day, user? :^)

GSG is not usually turn based though. GSG is often real time strategy. I hope you didn't make that argument and just connected those two statements randomely.

Then why are total war games listed under RTS in the steam store?

Okay, then we have nothing to argue about. Because I agree 100%.

You can do that in Conquest mode in Battle for Middle Earth 2, which is widely accepted as an RTS like any other.

Carefull. You're correct in everything else but there's a hole here. The army you start with in the RTT part is based on what you built in the GSG part so there's definetly some crossover. There's also the battles in RTT dictating the territories you hold in the GSG part.
It's a nitpicking point but if he wants, he can use this.

Let's not go that route either because Dawn of War 2 and 3 are a modern RTS and Grey Goo is fundamentally easier to play than most GSG.

Competitive gaming is a blight. Why would you use this as an argument? Why do you have to use dumb arguments to defend correct points of view?

It doesn't, there's "builds" in RTT as well depending on whatever strategy you want to try.

too late, famalam

most people had a "trying to git gud at sc2" period tbh

And FPS just means "First Person Shooter" so railshoters would be an FPS too by that definition or even Multiwinia because you can directly control the turrets.

Not knowing about a game doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_real-time_strategy_video_games
The last 3-4 years have been filled with new games and more are to come soon.
You can definitely argue about their quality, but not their existence.

No.
Half of the time, as happens with Total War games, it's turn based. The other half you can slow time or even stop it before issuing your commands and then seeing them unfold.
That half isn't turn-based, sure. But neither of those halfs is real-time either.

Because labels are stupid, cisgender mysoginistic pig.

But the Conquest mode isn't, it's the skirmish that's considered the RTS. And since Total War doesn't feature RTS in it's skirmish mode, only RTT, then it cannot be an RTS.

I think you mean the outcomes of the shit you do influence each other, user.

Also conquest mode still has base building and unit training, which I pointed out earlier but I guess if you just ignore points than you don't have to acknowledge you're wrong.

Esports are a blight, but people were playing competitive games before it existed and nobody hated it back then. Improving your skills to become a better player can't be cultured in an environment of 'the occasional skirmish with a friend vs bots'. I ventured into a starcraft 2 mod called heptacraft some months back and my god I was learning something every other game I played, or at least realized where I was making mistakes. It was a rewarding experience even when I failed. And it was because every time I did something wrong I came back with a new build or strategy to work around it, and I could hold my own even against players vastly better than me at management just because I knew what the fuck I was doing.
The point is if you don't try to git gud at an RTS how can you say you properly know what its like to play an RTS? It's like playing on easy and saying you've finished the game without appreciating the deeper mechanics that went into it.

The first campaign was closer to an RPG and the skirmish play was lackluster. Slow, dreary combat with no base building and upgrade paths, just tiers. You just manage units and heroes. It has more in common with RTT than RTS.

W-what about D-Dark Messiah? :DD

You can definitely argue about their quality, but not their existence.
Yeah, but you guys (hardcore RTS fans) don't play them anymore. You rather still play you own games.

That's why Grey Goo isn't succesful.

The battles are. What kind of drugs are you on, user?

What happened to:

Correct. And the battles in Total War belong to that category, not RTS.
But the building, exploring, scounting and the whole economy is turn based and happens on a separate map.
Ideally you could just auto-resolve every fight in Total War and still get the same GSG game. Or play skirmish and have only the RTT. You can't do that in an RTS.

user?

kek

I am still right tho.

Influence? They are directly connected to each other. The units you build on the campaign are directly used on the battelfield. It's completly interconnected. Of course they are not used simultaneously or else it would be a "pure" RTS in the strict definition, you guys want to vehemently exist, is the only valid definition of Real Time Strategy.

Yes, but it shouldn't have. It makes everything to fucking easy and the entire mode is pointless. It's insanely disgusting and a huge design oversight, because you are able to conquer basically anything with just the virtue of having a worker.

It's like in Advance Wars getting Hitachi on a map without any bases. He can just build new units on cities during his super power, which breaks the entire point of only having to rely on a limited number of troops without reinforcements. It's just broken game design, which makes that part of Conquest an abomination that needs to be purged by fire and flame.

When you enter battle, you stop using the management skills required to run your empire and pick up an unrelated set of skills for army control. When you leave battle you drop your army control skills and go back to management.
How is this hard to understand?

Total War isn't an RTS, it's a TBS campaign with RTT battles. GSGs are just complicated TBS games with a focus on management over warfare. The distinctions matter because the games scratch different itches.

Minimizing casualities and strategic thought beyond the tactical layer is important in battle. That's why you also have options like withdrawing.

Literally the only difference between the total War system and standard strict definition of RTS is that the strategical layer is simulated on an actual seperate strategical layer.

I don't know why you are so hung up on "completly seperate game part".

t. I have never player any GSG

They are very often not turnbased. Victoria 2, EU4, Hearts of Iron 3, Crusader Kings 2 are all GSG and they are all NOT turn based.

Jesus christ.

Then every single game is turn based, because every microsecond is basically a miniturn.

Don't you dare make this argument, user, I am warning you right now. Don't make this argument or I am going to freak out.

It's an action-RPG in first person, not and FPS, what about it?

Grey Goo wasn't sucessfull because it had terrible performance issues for a lot of people and didn't brought enough to the table to justify itself.
It was a remaster of Earth 2160 that executed some things right, like the aliens, but in the end it wasn't anything spectacular.

The battles that you can also stop, slow and speed up. I'll trade you my drugs for your time-machine.

You're not an I have no idea why you keep arguing like this.
Total War has no RTS part to it. It's GSG + RTT, the separation of both to different sections of the game and making the GSG turn based especially completely removes it from the RTS category.

Meanwhile, BFME2 has skirmish that works as a standard RTS and it's GSG can shift to the RTS as well.

US GUYS AMIRITE XD

I disagree. It brings another dimension of gameplay to the table, giving you a starting advantage in the RTS part if you excel at the GSG part and enables you to start most fights with several heroes, whose experience carry over.
It's a good feature on it's own and if you just want the fights without anything external, there's still skirmish. Although it's a bit weird to hear that from someone defending Total War.

No, you are not. The enemy ususally rushes your base with their initial troops and your worker will be cut short before he finishes anything. Often I'll have to sacrifice the initial fortress for resource buildings and training troops to survive the initial wave.
And I haven't played it in a long time but I don't think workers were a unit you could take with you.

I will make that argument.

Those games are not Real-Time because time doesn't go in a linear fashion and things don't have to compete for your attention.
You can pause it at anytime and apply whatever orders you think necessary, then resume it.

It does not feature "turns" but the end result is the same, you have all the time you need to make a decision and you merely watch it unfold afterwards.
In fact, since your income in those games comes every fraction of time (months or years depending on the game), your economy is very much turn based.
Your army doesn't appear to be turn-based but if an army moves at 100 km per month and a journey is 300 km, that means they'll take 3 months to reach their destination, which according to the economic model, means they are going to take 3 "turns" to reach their destination.

Reading through this thread is going to be staring into the abyss again. What will the manifestations of the eternal form of the retard try to poison my mind with this time? Sage, because I have no avenue to machine gun you into a mass grave.

The problem is with unimaginative players who only want to pad their KDR win to loss ratio. Of course it's bad if a game allows early rushes that are hard to defend against, but allowing a high risk high reward strategy isn't an inherently bad idea. It's how it works in games like StarCraft overall is bad.

There's no roleplaying in DMMM. "Action-RPG" is a really bad crutch term anyway.

It is. It reduces the game to a much more simple and brain dead version of it since when a rush happens, the game ends soon after.

It's like having an FPS where deathmatch goes to 30 kills but every player is also given a gun with a single bullet that nets 30 points if it scores and removes all of his ammo for the rest of the match.
It's giving a stupid choice that directly harms the game because as long as it's likely to win you games, it will turn RTS into the spamfests and deathballs fans hate.

You're roleplaying as Seraph and making decisions on how to go about your quest. There's a choice near the end with what girl you keep that massively changes the endgame and even in the end you have more choices available.
It's a mediocre RPG there, but it's still one.