Talk:Real-time strategy/Archive 1

message: The article was recently given a "B" rating on the assesment scale, this in a mass-edit to move all (most?) game genre articles into the quality roster. All added articles were given a status of "B", i.e. the assesment is a stub until concensus is reached. I changed the status to "GA" becase I consider the article to provide a quite complete treatment and exhaustive discussion of the subject. More editing is needed however, especially second half of article. Mikademus 10:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article status 

message: Some of the discussion below has revolved around which was the "first" RTS, the "first true" RTS etc. Some have expressed dismay over certain (personal favorite or perceived as particularly important) titles not having been treated or mentioned. Though of historical interest and certainly deserving the treatment it receives in the article I think that focusing on the historical/definitional aspects of RTS misses some important points, namely treating the games that have shaped the public awareness of the genre. I have therefore Changed the "brief history" header to just "History" and added a section on Westwood and Blizzard's games between 1992--1998, which I argue more than other (previous and contemporary) titles formed the popular definition of RTS games, and which all later RTS titles still are understood and measured against. Mikademus 09:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good so far. I'll holler if I see problems. ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 09:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section to history header 

message: :Because of the generally faster-paced nature (and the usually shallower learning curve), RTS games have exceeded the popularity of conventional turn based games. Many serious strategy gamers regard RTS games as "cheap imitations" of turn-based games because of the tendency of RTS games to devolve into "clickfests", in which the player who is faster with the mouse generally wins, because they can give orders to their units at a faster rate. Also, the faster pace masks the generally poor AI of the computer.
Above=disguised POV. The many professional players of StarCraft, for example, are unlikely to be pleased at being deemed non-serious... --Martin 23:34, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: (long overdue response): Agreed. I changed it to say "traditional" instead, maybe "turn-based strategy gamers" would be even better. Also, I clarified that "conventional turn based games" was probably referring to computer/video strategy games, not including board games. --Mrwojo 21:18, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV on popularity and skill 

message: It never ceases to amaze me how people think this or that genre of game began in  their time. In a nutshell: Herzog Zwei isn't even _close_ to the first real-time strategy game. The Ancient Art of War from Broderbund, released in 1984, is generally considered to be the first, although it is possible that there was an earlier title on the Intellivision or Colecovision consoles.
I would contest that Star Raiders, a cartridge game for the Atari 400/800 computers and the 2600 VCS, is probably the first one of the "real time" games.
Currently, Stonkers is listed as first (from 1983). I've had a shot of it and its plainly a RTS game. Any further info on Star Raiders and what year it was released? --Zagrebo 20:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blinkered historical perspective 

message: Another example of macro based games would be the Total Annihilation Series. They gave the idea of almost endless resources. Create as many units as your PC can handle :)
:As I understand the distinction is not really the number of units, but the control mechanism. Either you control individual units (soldiers, vehicles) by basically grabbing them by a selection box or you control groups (that are actually called units in real life - each containing many individual soldiers) by clicking on them. Total Annihilation (or the original C&C) had a lot of units, but still the number was unrealistically small (tens, at most hundreds, of soldiers in an army). Macro games (Total War series being the best and most prominent example have thousands and will have tens of thousands in the near future) units. --Paranoid 11:50, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not really the way the term is used in practice. "Macro" games are generally defined as having large numbers of units and on the economic side of the game being more developed and important compared to "Micro" games. TA is quite a macro-oriented game. In fact it might be better to replace the macro and micro sections with the description of the spectrum from very macro-oriented to very micro-oriented. I would actually considered R:TW to be a 100% micro oriented RTS because the economics all occurs in the turn-based part. Micro basically means "unit control" and macro basically means "economic production". --ShardPhoenix 08:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Macro" examples 

message: There was one 2D/3D graphics paragraph in the main body and another in the Graphics section, each overlapping the other in text, but citing different examples.  I took a crack at combining them under the Graphics section, and kept all games referenced in either paragraph.  See if you think the resulting paragraph is clear.  --Coll7 02:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 Graphics Paragraphs 

message: I can't beleive C&C isn't mentioned here.  While I can't think off the top of my head of any drastically new gameplay aspects it introduced, the genre is certainly defined by C&C just as much as it is by AoE and the Blizzard "-craft" games.  Speaking of which, I added Starcraft II (?) to the list of future games because, though Blizzard has said they have no immediate plans to make a Starcraft II, they intend to return to that world in the future (and nobody honestly beleives that by this they meant Ghost), and what's more, Starcraft II must be one of the most desired RTS games that may possibly come out.  If anybody disagrees with me, feel free to revert, I'm really not too passionate about it.  
But C&C deserves a mention on this page.  Zelmerszoetrop 22:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Command and Conquer 

message: === The Outforce ===
This game, by o3 games, had a fully 3D gamefield, but gameplay was 2 dimensional. This solved the problem of units getting in each others way because they could "stack" and move above or below one another. The POV of the field is rotatable 360 degrees, tiltable from directly overhead to about 70 degrees and can be zoomed out to almost the whole map and zoomed in until the smallest unit nearly fills the entire screen.
Anything on the field could be destroyed, even planets, if enough firepower was applied. (Time to destroy a planet was approximately 4 to 6 hours, and the explosion could destroy most of the field.) Apply enough firepower and no barrier could stand in a players way, but of course the new hole would also provide a path for the enemy.
The construction units can be directed to repair buildings or other units. They can also be set to guard buildings or other units. In guard mode, they'll automatically repair the building or unit and will speed up construction by buildings with that ability. Any number of construction units may be set to construct, repair or guard. Putting a dozen construction units on guard on one building will make constructing new ships very fast. 
Unit construction can be queued. Anything a building can construct may be queued in any order in any numbers. Want 5 small fighters followed by 2 large battleships followed by one construction unit? No problem. Want that pattern repeated to infinity, or until the player stops it? Can do! Each unit construction building may have a rally point set for the units to move to as they're released.
Construction units can also have their orders queued with what and where to build. Build 6 solar plants *here* then a fusion plant *there* followed by three laser turrets elsewhere then return to guard a construction building.
A unique feature of this game was the Towship, which could be used to move buildings, weapons turrets, radars and walls around. Different items had different mass so large buildings took more than one Towship to move. Careful manuvering could be used to "slingshot" weapons turrets and large bombs into enemy defenses.
Another feature of this game was unlimited group sizes. If you wanted to have 221 ships in a group, no problem. The way this game burnt through the units, a player _needed_ large groups to defeat a well protected base.
The multiplayer maps provided are not limited to the number of players shown. Up to the maximum number of players may be selected for any map. The game will locate the "extra" players somewhere, hopefully not right next door to an enemy player. This feature can be used to "shake up" the typical "one path" attack the AI tends to slip into.
The AI in The Outforce is fairly decent. Units have good pathfinding and rarely get stuck. The AI will often find and take advantage of holes a player leaves in defenses, especially in some of the campaign maps.
The unfortunate thing about an otherwise good game was o3 games turned over the rights to the publisher. In turn, the publisher pushed for an early release. The result was a game with only a campaign for the Terrans and all three races units varying only in graphics, effects and audio. However, it's still a good and different game for multiple human players.
There is a bug when playing VS an AI opponent. If the AI is at the "bottom" of the map, units can get stuck inside construction buildings that are built or get moved too close to that edge of the map. The unit stuck inside will attack enemy units that get close enough but unless it gets destroyed or something moves the building away from the edge, that building is out of action. Human players on the bottom edge are advised to not build too close to the edge or use towships to move buildings pushed against the edge by explosions or collisions. (Just part of the "legacy" of the game being hurried out by the publisher.)
=== Star Trek: Armada ===
This game brings nothing much new to the RTS genre, other than it's a Star Trek game. In my own experience, it's easy to defeat the maximum number of AI players on "hard" difficulty, using only three maximum size groups of capital ships. One to guard the base and the other two to roam around and blow stuff up until the AI completely gives up and stops doing anything. It doesn't matter if all the AI's are allied or not, they're a pushover because the AI never uses multiple unit groups in concerted attacks.
However, the campaigns are quite well designed and get very difficult in later maps.
For multiplayer, stick to human opponents once you've beaten the "best" the AI has to offer.
::Why are these here? --maru  (talk) Contribs 17:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game reviews? 

message: This game brings nothing much new to the RTS genre, other than it's a Star Trek game. In my own experience, it's easy to defeat the maximum number of AI players on "hard" difficulty, using only three maximum size groups of capital ships. One to guard the base and the other two to roam around and blow stuff up until the AI completely gives up and stops doing anything. It doesn't matter if all the AI's are allied or not, they're a pushover because the AI never uses multiple unit groups in concerted attacks.
However, the campaigns are quite well designed and get very difficult in later maps.
For multiplayer, stick to human opponents once you've beaten the "best" the AI has to offer.
::Why are these here? --maru  (talk) Contribs 17:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Star Trek: Armada]] 

message: Higher quality screenshots should be posted here in the main article. We have too many blurry JPG's, that i believe are less desirable and informative, especially about the in-game quality. I took the liberty to upload a hi-q, hi-res screenshot for command and conquer generals for a start. is such a high resolution appropriate? Omega Said 11:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to say. Theoretically, I don't think so, because of fair use considerations. --maru  (talk) contribs 17:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: For best results on lo-res pics, take a hi-res screenshot, reduce its dimensions by half, convert to PNG if necessary and upload that. For source, make sure to put  in the description, state the name of the game, and state that you yourself took the screenshot (if you did, obviously).  Nifboy 23:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modded a screenshot: high-res + high-Q 

message: "Cavedog Entertainment's acclaimed Total Annihilation from 1997 distils the selling positions of Command&Conquer but beyond sleeker gameplay and more intense action offers no innovations."
TA was one of the first rtses to use 3d graphics, and physics. it also introduced the fluid resource system, which is not very common even in modern rts games. there are also radar, sonar, and jamming, as well as a projectile system based on 3d coordinates rather than probability. correct me if I am wrong
:Although lacking in 3D trajectories, CNC games have never (or very rarely) used probability for hits. Red Alert 1 also had all three of radar, sonar, and jamming (although I don't think anyone ever really used the latter two). I think you're right on the 3D graphics and physics though.65.188.254.26 05:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The radar mechanic in the CNC games worked completely differently from TA, as did the jamming, because of the lack of a normal fog of war in CNC.  Also, the Terrain in TA was fully 3d.  Every position had a height which affected the units on and around it, in everything from vision to range. Apwvt 01:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The innovations of TA 

message: How is the Total War series not real-time strategy? If they're not RTS games, then what are they? bob rulz 09:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Total War series

message: I'm considering starting an acticle on Hero units in RTS games, but I need a little assistance.  
Namely, I'm trying to decide on a proper name.  Such as Hero Unit, or something more like Hero (Real-time-strategy).  
Also, I would need some pictures of Hero Units, preferably alongside some more mundane infantry.  Especially from Total Annihilation, Warcraft III, Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War, and The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth.  Any other hero units, of course, would also be appreciated.  SAMAS 15:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hero Units 

message: A series of recent revisions, especially copyediting, have helped improve sections of the article, sometimes significantly. However, the articke was also sprinkled with enough  and  templates to make it all but unreadable. I removed all these (and made some additional edits), but the underlying point the editor(s?) made with the templates remains valid. Therefore I would like to ask all editors to do your best to find and provide sources for the article contents. Also, if you find sections especially warranting warnings about lacking references, please use the  template to mark this. Mikademus 08:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, however, why do you reply to this comment? Furthermore, just saying so does unfortunately not do much good if you do not supply a reference. -- Sirius81 | Talk 15:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Populous: The Beginning is a problematic title; it is a RTS game, but it also is part of the God game Populous series, straddling two genres. I think some sources would be necessary to bring it into the discussion without stoking potential flames. Mikademus 18:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent revisions 

message: Under "gameplay" there's been added a "units" subheader. It is extensive but superfluous to the article and smells of original research. However, since a lot of work seems to have been put into it and it might be turned into something worthwhile, I didn't excise it, instead inviting comments from other editors. My suggestion is to snip if from the article and paste it into an article of its own (with a brief link from this one). Mikademus 18:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: Hey, The future should have lot of information on the RTS such has deformable terrain, Physics in Company of Heroes, Massive units in supreme commander. They are many points to add in future what it has to offer and i dont know what is so intresting in command and conquer because they is nothing in the games they are still using the same old engine which has nothing much to offer such has physics and so on. It is just EA games want money from the customers and good old Command & conquer which is created by westwood and destroyed by EA. --SkyWalker 06:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Few things to add.