🚀 go-pugleaf

"riku" <ri...@none.invalid.com> wrote in message 
news:318m62l74jl2ftnqln429rirbp8htlo5oo@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 10:42:59 +0200, "Frans"
> <phasysn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> "pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I think we can still say Westwood developed the first RTS just because
>>>> they
>>>> were the first to allow you to control multiple units (thus 
>>>> contributing
>>>> to
>>>> the STRATEGY aspect of RTS). By your reasoning, Gauntlet was an
>>
>>Walter hits the nail on the head. The term "strategy" doesn't say 
>>"thousands
>>of units" or "huge scope", it merely states that this kind of game 
>>requires
>>DECISION MAKING ON STRATEGIC LEVEL.
>
> No need to be so pedantic. First of all, RTS games are usually
> tactical games, not really strategy games, thus it is meaningless to
> try to define the term very closely in this context.

Every strategy comes down to applying tactics. Instead of the term
"management" in my previous post I could have (and probably should
have) used the term "tactical".

Operational -> Tactical -> Strategical

You need tactics to apply your strategy, and you need operations to apply
your tactics. This is, on a ridiculously small level, also true for Tic Tac 
Toe.

> Second, genre names usually refer to similar games as those games
> where the term was first used. For example, "survival horror" refers
> to Resident Evil lookalikes (including Alone in the Dark which
> appeared before RE), even though you could argue that e.g. Forbidden
> Forest on Commodore 64 was also a survival horror game (it had a
> horror theme, and you tried to survive in it).

The question is if strategy is used to determine the outcome of an RTS
game. My answer is, yes it does. I usually form some strategy to try
to beat my opponent. First thing you need to know is what your opponents
race is, so you can adjust your strategy to that. Then you go ahead and 
build
your army and do whatever you want to do, see if it works or not, and if 
not,
try to get the hell out of their with minimal losses and meanwhile rethink 
your
strategy.

> Anyway, RTS was first used on games like Dune 2, C&C and Warcraft, so
> the term is commonly used on games similar to them. Also, I already
> pointed out Carrier Command appeared two years before Herzog Zwei, and
> I am quite sure even it is not really the first "strategy/tactical
> game played in real time".

Carrier Command isn't multiplayer, is it? I have seen that game a few times, 
but
I never really got into playing it. From what I seem to remember, is that it 
wasn't
really "real time" all the time. IIRC, there were turnbased phases in it, 
but I could
be wrong.