Whats happening to the RTS genre?

[Awor Szurkrarz]

So RTS genre is a decline of other strategy genres?

Yes. It is a weird genre-mix of "strategy games" that loses a lot of complexity/fun of these genres.

Generally, in "strategy" genres before RTS, you had skirmish games (like Laser Squad, X-Com and JA) where units are individual soldiers, tactical games (like Steel Panthers, Close Combat, Firefight and Armored Brigade) where units are vehicles/squads or whole platoons or companies, operational where you units are battalions or divisions, strategic where units are divisions/armies/corpses where you additionally get economic production and diplomacy and finally grand strategy games where you command whole nation-state/empire.

Skirmish/Tactical games are for military tactics and shooty shooty fun with with individual soldiers dying and vehicles blowing up and operational/strategic/grand strategy games are for complexity.

RTS is basically taking a strategic game with drastically decreased complexity (for example removing supplies and supply routes - supplies are important because when units become cut off they can't be resupplied, so they can run out of fuel and ammunition which adds another way to defeat units, units not losing efficiency as they lose HP because they lose soldiers and hardware, etc.), compressed time and space, with graphics of a skirmish/tactical game with individual soldiers/fire-teams/squads and vehicles but with the shooty shooty fun and military tactics of tactical/skirmish games being replaced with hit points attrition and extremely short ranged engagement (which is based on strategic games where units have unit strength and where range is short because the combat usually goes between neighbouring hexes which represent many miles of terrain unlike in Tactical games when on some maps (1-2km plain ones for example) tanks can duke it out from opposite ends of the map).

Generally the traditional wargames are more complex than RTS.

While skirmish/tactical games tend to be as complex as RTS when it comes to controls (as all the additional stuff that they have is balanced with additional production/research aspect of RTS), Operational/Strategic games are usually mind-bogglingly complex with tons of menus, buttons, etc.

On the other hand tactical games have much more complex mechanics than RTS - for example a tank in Command & Conquer is a brick and doesn't even have anti-infantry weapons - in a tactical game a tank has different armour protection from different directions a gun with multiple ammo types and multiple machine guns.
So, for example when a tank attacks a tank in Command & Conquer it just fires at it until it runs out of hitpoints where the damage is decreased by armour type.

In a tactical game, the tank chooses a proper weapon with proper ammo and shoots at the enemy tank. The shoot may hit or miss, depending on the training of the tank crew, quality of the gun, range, ammo type, etc.
If it hits, it may penetrate or not, depending on the part of the tank hit and range and angle of hit and ammo type.
The hit may be damaging (may kill/wound a crewman, damage a weapon or immobilize the tank), it may destroy the tank (with tank exploding or not and crew surviving or not) or may have no effect. The crew may panic and abandon the tank before it is destroyed. Tank commander will usually button up when under fire which decreases the vision of the tank.
So, there's much more stuff happening under the hood which adds much more possibilities of stuff happening in game and makes it more immersive.

So RTS genre is a decline of other strategy genres?

Yes. Though I would say 'strategy' is a misnomer; there were tactical games as well. Wargames is probably the easiest word to use.

Thankfully, for the past 8 or so years, there have been companies that still cater to the real wargamers such as Matrix games, Battlefront games, etc. I had hoped there would be a similar rise with CRPG's, but that has yet to be.

The main difference is that wargames have never received such a blow as traditional RPGs. You have practically the same people making wargames as in 80s. SSG actually still exists under the same name.
The only thing that we have lost is printed documentation and big boxes.

 

[chzr]

On the other hand tactical games have much more complex mechanics than RTS - for example a tank in Command & Conquer is a brick and doesn't even have anti-infantry weapons - in a tactical game a tank has different armour protection from different directions a gun with multiple ammo types and multiple machine guns.
So, for example when a tank attacks a tank in Command & Conquer it just fires at it until it runs out of hitpoints where the damage is decreased by armour type.

In a tactical game, the tank chooses a proper weapon with proper ammo and shoots at the enemy tank. The shoot may hit or miss, depending on the training of the tank crew, quality of the gun, range, ammo type, etc.
If it hits, it may penetrate or not, depending on the part of the tank hit and range and angle of hit and ammo type.
The hit may be damaging (may kill/wound a crewman, damage a weapon or immobilize the tank), it may destroy the tank (with tank exploding or not and crew surviving or not) or may have no effect. The crew may panic and abandon the tank before it is destroyed. Tank commander will usually button up when under fire which decreases the vision of the tank.
So, there's much more stuff happening under the hood which adds much more possibilities of stuff happening in game and makes it more immersive.

this is, however, not a problem of the genre itself rather than lack of devs that would try to make rts more complex. The example you wrote is exactly how tanks work in men of war.

rts just suffer from the same thing like shooters: retarded copy pasta games with no innovation, only trying to 'streamline' everything so 10 year kids with gamepad can start it and win without any effort. Still, that doesn't mean that complex shooters or rts can't exist.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

On the other hand tactical games have much more complex mechanics than RTS - for example a tank in Command & Conquer is a brick and doesn't even have anti-infantry weapons - in a tactical game a tank has different armour protection from different directions a gun with multiple ammo types and multiple machine guns.
So, for example when a tank attacks a tank in Command & Conquer it just fires at it until it runs out of hitpoints where the damage is decreased by armour type.

In a tactical game, the tank chooses a proper weapon with proper ammo and shoots at the enemy tank. The shoot may hit or miss, depending on the training of the tank crew, quality of the gun, range, ammo type, etc.
If it hits, it may penetrate or not, depending on the part of the tank hit and range and angle of hit and ammo type.
The hit may be damaging (may kill/wound a crewman, damage a weapon or immobilize the tank), it may destroy the tank (with tank exploding or not and crew surviving or not) or may have no effect. The crew may panic and abandon the tank before it is destroyed. Tank commander will usually button up when under fire which decreases the vision of the tank.
So, there's much more stuff happening under the hood which adds much more possibilities of stuff happening in game and makes it more immersive.

this is, however, not a problem of the genre itself rather than lack of devs that would try to make rts more complex. The example you wrote is exactly how tanks work in men of war.

Men of War isn't a RTS. From what I see, it's a hybrid of a tactical Real Time Simulation (realistic real time tactical game like Close Combat or Armored Brigade)/RTT (RTS without base building like Dawn of War II).

rts just suffer from the same thing like shooters: retarded copy pasta games with no innovation, only trying to 'streamline' everything so 10 year kids with gamepad can start it and win without any effort. Still, that doesn't mean that complex shooters or rts can't exist.

It's still going to be a gimmick genre because of where it's originating from, though. One way to make a sensible complex RTS could be going back to a moderately complex strategy game, making units look like animated vehicles/people but still keeping names like a panzer division, etc. with similar capabilities, and making a pretty animated map and a time counter that has minutes as days. You could build armies and send them to execute some battle plans with AI doing micro stuff or something like that.

 

[Mangoose]

I may have to unignore Awor based on his last two posts.

 

[Destroid]

Company of Heroes features most of those things you mention Awor.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Company of Heroes features most of those things you mention Awor.

Company of Heroes is another hybrid, though. It looks like they liked Saving Private Ryan and tried to create a tactical wargame starting with a RTS/RTT hybrid (DoW) and modifying it, instead of starting out with an actual tactical real time simulation like Close Combat and building on that design. Both DoW and CoH use literal squads with various squad weapon configuration, so combat happens on tactical level. Not to mention that in CoH is about a company.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Well... You'd be hard pressed to find an RTS that isn't about combat on a tactical level. Practically all of them are, in spite of the name.

 

[Dark Matter]

So RTS games are inferior because they have simpler mechanics? How do you feel about Chess?

 

[MetalCraze]

My point was that Skyway is full of shit.

No your point was repeating my point.

My point was that PC strategy games have moved from shit like that a long time ago, while console crap still can't invent anything comfortable for a gamepad so they have to dumb down shit in RTS

Well... You'd be hard pressed to find an RTS that isn't about combat on a tactical level. Practically all of them are, in spite of the name.

Building more units that the enemy and spamming him with them like in 95% of RTS is not a tactical level.

 

[Admiral jimbob]

So RTS games are inferior because they have simpler mechanics? How do you feel about Chess?

Chess is old and stuffy, and was vastly improved by the next-gen iteration Chess Without Turns.

 

[a budda]

i don't know much of that genre, loved dune 2 back in the day, then c&c and that was about that... starcraft was about all i thought they might show us here and moved on, had fun with the first coh, not that much with the 2nd and 3rd was pure crap
oh yeah, stronghold, does anyone know what are they going to do to the 3rd?

 

[Topher]

So RTS games are inferior because they have simpler mechanics? How do you feel about Chess?

Chess is old and stuffy, and was vastly improved by the next-gen iteration Chess Without Turns.

Wow, that might just be the stupidest thing that I have ever seen.

*I've also noticed that many people seem to incorrectly assume that the early RTS games moves the Strategy genre out of turn-based and into real-time. Fact is that there were many strategic games, like the Close Combat series, that functioned very well in RT and there are many that continue to do so.

 

[Zed]

They're doing Stronghold 3.

SCII is good I think but there's like no other game at the moment.
Especially not singleplayer.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

So RTS games are inferior because they have simpler mechanics? How do you feel about Chess?

I feel that Chess is much more successful at streamlining mechanics than any RTS ever was .

Well... You'd be hard pressed to find an RTS that isn't about combat on a tactical level. Practically all of them are, in spite of the name.

If they are about combat on tactical level, they aren't RTS but RTT that kept some of the RTS gimmicks. RTS are about strategy. About gaining access to resources, collecting resources, building a production base, protecting it and building armies. Different strategies mean different base development paths and different units produced and used in different ways. There are tactics too, but the same could be said about TB strategic games where you still command every individual division.

Also, this:

Well... You'd be hard pressed to find an RTS that isn't about combat on a tactical level. Practically all of them are, in spite of the name.

Building more units that the enemy and spamming him with them like in 95% of RTS is not a tactical level.

*I've also noticed that many people seem to incorrectly assume that the early RTS games moves the Strategy genre out of turn-based and into real-time. Fact is that there were many strategic games, like the Close Combat series, that functioned very well in RT and there are many that continue to do so.

Real time simulations (realistic RT wargames like Close Combat and Airborne Assault) existed long before RTS.

 

[Archibald]

Actually RTS can't exist on consoles in the same form as they do on PC. So you need to dumb them down when you are going XBawks360. Remember Dune2 on Genesis? Where to move a group of units you needed to make them follow each other which was a chore.

And then PC got all that group-by-number shit.

Good examples of console dumbing down - C&C3 and BFME

So what? C&C 4 is PC exclusive and still dumped down crap. Developers making derp games are morons, not some arbitary "but consoles suck, baww" bullshit excuse that people throw around.

 

[commie]

RTS genre has been dead since around 2006

I really loved RTS back in the day when there still was something new in the genre but now I dislike them. They became what console shooters are today. Same shit all over again.

Build base - gather resources - build units - destroy enemy base. Every single fucking one of them.

Now I don't say that EA and Relic dumbing down the shit out of them is a good thing (and I don't mean the removal of the base which is a welcome thing, I mean things like stupid corridors from point A to point B with popamole in DoW2) but I will certainly want some fresh and creative breath in the genre.

I mean if CoH didn't have half of the missions featuring base building it would've been a great game. Or at least good and fun like Outfron series (which you westerners know as Soldiers: Heroes of WW2 -> Faces of War -> Men of War)

Why do you fucking lie? Every thing in RTS these days is tactical RTS without base building for the most part. Everything is a Men of War/DOW 2/CoH style of game. Base building is old hat. I actually would prefer to go back and get me some decent base building actiun like in the late 90's. Back then I hoped for Men of War type of games with limited units etc. but there can be too much of the same shit, and I'd like to see more traditional RTS games though of course they could make the AI better.

Actually what is so great about Men of War games? It's basically run from one scripted encounter to another, each part a little puzzle where you sit and work out the best way to proceed to the next part.

You're such a fucking hypocrite that you rage about CoD and scripts, when this type of RTS that you advocate is basically a series of scripted puzzles.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Building more units that the enemy and spamming him with them like in 95% of RTS is not a tactical level.

Which units to build are part of macro, so I suppose that is more of a strategical element rather than a tactical one, yeah. Exceptions for games like CoH, where you build so few units that even that is tactical.

If they are about combat on tactical level, they aren't RTS but RTT that kept some of the RTS gimmicks.

Then there are scarcely any RTS'es produced ever. I doubt even dune 2 would be considered an RTS under such a definition.

You might say that the name RTS is not a very good name, but the undeniable fact is that most of the games that fall under the label of RTS first and foremost have small-scale tactical warfare where two or three units alone can completely turn the tide of battle.

 

[Captain Shrek]

A better question would be how the hell that gimmick genre has survived for over a decade?

We all drink too much some days.

In any case:

@OP:

Yup. I sympathize. There has indeed been a distinct lack of good RTS. Total war is a Hybrid. So I guess it doesn't really count as RTS. But I feel that what Rise of Nations did, changed RTS quite a bit. The world map concept taken from Risk was a VERY good idea. Most people went a little further and removed the base building entirely from RT, transferring it to the TB part.

 

[grdja]

Market for hexagons and 15 different turn phases was tiny even back in 1995. Without RTSes all and any strategy and tactics games would have disappeared more than a decade ago.

 

[Destroid]

Yup. I sympathize. There has indeed been a distinct lack of good RTS. Total war is a Hybrid. So I guess it doesn't really count as RTS. But I feel that what Rise of Nations did, changed RTS quite a bit. The world map concept taken from Risk was a VERY good idea. Most people went a little further and removed the base building entirely from RT, transferring it to the TB part.

Man, RoN was a great multiplayer RTS, add it to the list of titles that declined hard on the sequel because RoL was shit in comparison.

 

[BLOBERT]

BROS INTELLIVISION RUINED TACTITCAL STRATEGY GAMES ON THE PC AND THEN HUMPED ITS MOM

BROS UTOPIA DOESNT GET THE CRED IT DESERVES