🚀 go-pugleaf

that's completely acceptable to me, because it seems to be true, from
everything i remember about the beginnings of the survival horror
games.   good point riku

i remember survival horror games as being friday the 13th on the c64
predating alone in the dark and its wildass camera angles by many
years...

there was also halloween and texas chainsaw massacre for the atari
2600...... spaltterhouse in the arcades....

-stu

IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER "AirRaid"
<AirRa...@gmail.com> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR
SCREEN!!!!:
>
>you should know the roots of all RTS games: It's  really Herzog Zwei,
>made & developed by Tecno Soft in Japan. called Tecno Soft *or* Techno
>Soft in the U.S., sometimes with the space sometimes without ) in 1989,
> published by SEGA for the SEGA MegaDrive / Genesis console.    Herzog
>Zwei came out in Japan in 1989, and then early 1990 in the United
>States.

Jesus cares.

Jesus also knows that what actually solidified the genre into what it
essentially is today was Dune 2, while the first C&C was what largely
popularized it to the masses. History is written by the winners,
yaddayadda, etc.

-- 
The Melodramatic MuuMi

"I wuv fishes"
- Bob-The-Vasudan, Commander of the 11th Battlegroup


Official supporter of Vasudan Grand Admiral Bob:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/muumi/Bob.jpg
http://koti.mbnet.fi/muumi/BobPoster.jpg

ICQ: 26741225
E-Mail: muumiSPAM@MEmbnet.fiHERE!

Remove the nospam thingy for valid E-mail adress.

IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER "stu"
<yakum...@gmail.com> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR
SCREEN!!!!:
>i remember survival horror games as being friday the 13th on the c64
>predating alone in the dark and its wildass camera angles by many
>years...
>
>there was also halloween and texas chainsaw massacre for the atari
>2600...... spaltterhouse in the arcades....
>

Is this some shitty attempt at gauging replies, or is Google Groups
the new AOL of the Usenet?

-- 
The Melodramatic MuuMi

"I wuv fishes"
- Bob-The-Vasudan, Commander of the 11th Battlegroup


Official supporter of Vasudan Grand Admiral Bob:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/muumi/Bob.jpg
http://koti.mbnet.fi/muumi/BobPoster.jpg

ICQ: 26741225
E-Mail: muumiSPAM@MEmbnet.fiHERE!

Remove the nospam thingy for valid E-mail adress.

"stu" <yakum...@gmail.com> thought that a good way to threaten
somebody was to light a stick of dynamite, then call the guy and
hold the burning fuse up to the phone and say: 

> i remember survival horror games as being friday the 13th on the
> c64 predating alone in the dark and its wildass camera angles by
> many years...

The Friday the 13th game I remember on the Commodore 64 was just a 
simple top down wander through the woods with randomly placed items 
and no narrative. Hardly a precursor to Alone in the Dark.

As far as cinematic horror goes, the first I can recall is Project: 
Firestart for the C64. Limited ammo, numerous aliens, having to 
explore and exploit the environment, gruesome cutscenes (well, as 
gruesome as you can get with 16 colors). Excellent game, but I never 
managed to finish it.


-- 
Ajay Tanwar | ajta...@yahoo.com
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people 
in large groups." -Despair.com

>i remember survival horror games as being friday the 13th on the c64
> predating alone in the dark and its wildass camera angles by many
> years...

And "Forbidden Forest" for c64, one of the scariest games ever. 

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.]
On 2006-05-15, Vincenzo Beretta <rec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> i remember survival horror games as being friday the 13th on
>> the c64 predating alone in the dark and its wildass camera
>> angles by many years...
>
> And "Forbidden Forest" for c64, one of the scariest games ever. 

What we need is convincing evidence that the designers of Dune 2
were even aware of Herzog Zwei. Just because one came before the
other doesn't mean they weren't invented seperately.

-- 
Neil Cerutti

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

Um, how can you play an RTS without a mouse? Did this supposed RTS involve 
controlling multiple units simulatneously? If it didn't then I don't think 
it can even qualify as an RTS.

To tell the truth, there's very little strategy involved in RTS's. It would 
seem to me they are more tactical than strategic. At the most you're 
controlling maybe a thousand units on maps that are maybe 25 square miles in 
size, so the conflicts rarely involve forces larger than battalions.

-- 
Doug
"AirRaid" <AirRa...@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1147665409.104690.148660@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> everyone who played / plays RTS games, including Dune 2,  Command &
> Conquer series  Red Alert,  WarCraft series,  Starcraft series,  Total
> Annihilation, Warzone 2100,
> Jagged Alliance series,  Tiberian Sun,   Conflict Zone, Red Alert 2,
> Kohan,  Age of Empires series, Homeworld,  Warlords: Battlecry, LoTR:
> Battle For Middle Earth series,
> Star Wars: Empire at War, and countless others
>
> you should know the roots of all RTS games: It's  really Herzog Zwei,
> made & developed by Tecno Soft in Japan. called Tecno Soft *or* Techno
> Soft in the U.S., sometimes with the space sometimes without ) in 1989,
> published by SEGA for the SEGA MegaDrive / Genesis console.    Herzog
> Zwei came out in Japan in 1989, and then early 1990 in the United
> States.
>
> http://www.wolfgames.com/mdherzog.JPG
> http://www.discountgames.org/images/Herzog%20Zwei%20BS.jpg
>
>
> Herzog Zwei was a real-time strategy game with arcade/shmup elements.
> when i say shmup i don't mean first-person shooters (i,e, Doom, Quake)
> that everyone on the PC knows, i'm talking about overhead shmups like
> Xevious, Ikari Warriors, Thunder Force II (also by Technosoft /
> Tecnosoft), Aleste, Raiden, Truxton/Tetsujin, Granada, etc.
>
> Herzog Zwei, although it had these arcade/shooter/shmup elements, was
> very much a strategy game, and realtime.
>
> Herzog Zwei came out LONG before Command & Conquer, and even before
> Dune 2 / II.
> Most PC gamers only acknowledge Dune 2/II as the first RTS game. that
> simply is not true.  It was Herzog Zwei that started the whole RTS
> genre.   even though Herzog Zwei was not technically the first RTS game
> ever (Herzog by Tecnosoft came out before on the MSX computer in Japan
> in 1988, before the sequel, Herzog Zwei, and a game called 'Cytron
> Masters' was apparently the very first RTS game, back in the early
> 1980s on one of the Atari machines, i know nothing about it)   but
> Herzog Zwei is where everything launched from, because it was more
> widely available, modern enough / fast enough to make a massive
> impression on those developers (like Westwood) that would later take
> RTS to the PC with games like   Dune 2, C&C, Red Alert, and create a
> huge genre out of it.
>
> there are almost NO RTS games that match the frantic pace of Herzog
> Zwei and the almost totally unique aspect in that you ARE actually a
> unit yourself, a transformable mecha / fighter-cargo jet, not just some
> mouse cursor / pointer on the screen.
>
> there was a somewhat recent homebrew / shareware / freeware
> RTS/shoot'em up game made for the PC that was totally inspiried by
> Herzog Zwei.  it's called Rapid Aerial Deployment, and while it is not
> nearly as good as Herzog Zwei, the developer did their best to pay
> homage to the first significant RTS game, Herzog Zwei.
> -Rapid Aerial Deployment quite is playable.
>
> looking ahead, I am *so* looking forward to Supreme Commander on the
> PC.  it is the closest game I have ever, EVER seen to what I had always
> imagined a 3D polygonal, map zoomable  Herzog Zwei-like game could be
> like.   while Supreme Commander has little in commen with Herzog Zwei
> and more in commen with Total Annihilation because its the same main
> person in charge of development (AFAIK), and Supreme Commander is said
> to be the spiritual sequel / successor to Total Annihilation.
>
> Supreme Commander has to be, now, my most anticipated game for any
> platform, after watching both the teaser trailer and the gameplay
> demonstration.
>
> trailer -  http://www.tinyurl.com/zlr2m
> demonstration - http://www.tinyurl.com/om3tc
>
>
> i know this cross posted to several off-topic groups, but so be it,
> and, my spelling, grammer, etc is not exactly, great.  again, so be it.
>  i wanted to make this a permanent recognition of Herzog Zwei as the
> first RTS game of any real value, for all time.
>
> now, bring on Supreme Commander!
> 

"pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:8x4ag.76906$H71.63543@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Um, how can you play an RTS without a mouse? Did this supposed RTS involve 
> controlling multiple units simulatneously? If it didn't then I don't think 
> it can even qualify as an RTS.
>
> To tell the truth, there's very little strategy involved in RTS's. It 
> would seem to me they are more tactical than strategic. At the most you're 
> controlling maybe a thousand units on maps that are maybe 25 square miles 
> in size, so the conflicts rarely involve forces larger than battalions.

Blizzard identified this and forced you to be more strategic in War III. 
It is actually kind of annoying.  There are so many units I forget what they 
are all good for.

--
LTP

:) 

"MuuMiMan" <ihatespamandyoumustremov...@mbnet.fi> wrote 
in message news:247h625eqmt51rfdfm38647umhpjqp7kpl@4ax.com...
>>there was also halloween and texas chainsaw massacre for the atari
>>2600...... spaltterhouse in the arcades....
>>
>
> Is this some shitty attempt at gauging replies, or is Google Groups
> the new AOL of the Usenet?

Unlike AOL, Google doesn't like to be considered Evil.

I have tried to complain about their default reply option (with no quoting) 
but have found no way to give feedback

--
LTP

:) 

AirRaid wrote:
> everyone who played / plays RTS games.

RTSs suck.  TBSs were killed by RTSs, yet were far more fun, and far
more "S".  So now we can all hate Herzog Zwei, instead of Dune 2.  Yea!

> Starcraft series,  Total
> Annihilation

O.k. Those were o.k.

> Jagged Alliance series

IIRC Jagged Alliance was nither 'RT' or 'S'...

- Justisaur
Down with the 'RT's! All Hail Master of Magic, Best of the S's!

IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER "pigdos"
<N...@nowhere.com> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR SCREEN!!!!:
>
>To tell the truth, there's very little strategy involved in RTS's. It would 
>seem to me they are more tactical than strategic. At the most you're 
>controlling maybe a thousand units on maps that are maybe 25 square miles in 
>size, so the conflicts rarely involve forces larger than battalions.

Aaaand neext... Stay tuned for when Captain Obvious tells us what
color the sky is!


Well, yes, the genre's name is a misnomer, and scare many games
belonging to it are even only tactical in the broadest sense of the
term. If I had to guess, I'd say the term evolved out of the simple
need to differentiate between the traditional turn-based games, thus
the reason why it isn't perhaps the most accurate reflection of the
content. But eh, it's all nitpickping in the end, and if you'd start
labelling things now as Real Time Tactical games you'd only confuse
people as that's usually the term for the  "real time, but without any
economy" -niché of RTS games  - Stuff like Myth and Ground Control,
for example ;-P



...Also, why is AGSC the only alt. -group this was posted in? =P

-- 
The Melodramatic MuuMi

"I wuv fishes"
- Bob-The-Vasudan, Commander of the 11th Battlegroup


Official supporter of Vasudan Grand Admiral Bob:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/muumi/Bob.jpg
http://koti.mbnet.fi/muumi/BobPoster.jpg

ICQ: 26741225
E-Mail: muumiSPAM@MEmbnet.fiHERE!

Remove the nospam thingy for valid E-mail adress.

On Tue, 16 May 2006 00:43:01 +0300,
ihatespamandyoumustremov...@mbnet.fi (MuuMiMan)
wrote:
>Aaaand neext... Stay tuned for when Captain Obvious tells us what
>color the sky is!

Is captain Obvious cooler than Captain Oblivious?

>Well, yes, the genre's name is a misnomer, and scare many games
>belonging to it are even only tactical in the broadest sense of the
>term. If I had to guess, I'd say the term evolved out of the simple
>need to differentiate between the traditional turn-based games, thus
>the reason why it isn't perhaps the most accurate reflection of the
>content. But eh, it's all nitpickping in the end, and if you'd start
>labelling things now as Real Time Tactical games you'd only confuse
>people as that's usually the term for the  "real time, but without any
>economy" -niché

There's no é in niche. It'd be pronounced "knee shay" then :P (rather
than neesh)

> of RTS games  - Stuff like Myth and Ground Control,
>for example ;-P

Or... 

>...Also, why is AGSC the only alt. -group this was posted in? =P

We're special! :)
-- 
"No I'm saying that I'm a cow dung." - Stephen "Suupernuubie" Ung
"Eat a bag of hell." - Cyric The Mad
"Yes - I need red hot gay loving" - LTP

MSN:ktw...@hotmail.com (BUT DON'T SEND E-MAIL!) YIM: ktwilson AIM: YahooKyleW
Zealot the Crazy Lui
Grand 16-Star General and overall director of AGSC operations for the Pronoun Army(and webmaster)
http://pronounarmy.homestead.com/ http://thirty-five-mil.blogspot.com/
re-vamped sig 7D6h.4h.5h

well Herzog Zwei, the first major RTS game, was played with a console
control pad, not a mouse, and you could only control one unit at a
time, but that does not mean Herzog Zwei wasn't an RTS.

I will agree though, that RTS games are more tactical than strategic.

Herzog Zwei was different in that, you actually were one of the units
in battle. you carried your forces to where ever they needed to be.
you fought with them, not just commanded them.

there ARE actually many PC gamers / RTS gamers that know, realize and
accept that Herzog Zwei was the real starting point for all RTS games,
including Dune 2.  while Dune 2 was different, and while Westwood had
defined their own style of RTS game which many followed, I think even
Westwood has acknowledged that Herzog Zwei was the inspiration for
thier first RTS games, Dune 2 and C&C.

With Herzog Zwei, its 4 megabits of ROM and the limited processing
capabilities of the Sega MegaDrive - Genesis hardware, each side could
have a max of 50 units made, placed on the map.  100 units max between
the two sides. (red and blue).  even then, with 100 units (even 70-90)
there was slowdown.   the Genesis was only using a 7.6 Mhz 68000
processor and a very limited VDP (video display processor) that could
handle a limited number of objects on screen at once.  IBM PCs with
386s or 486s were far more powerful.

"stu" <yakum...@gmail.com> thought that a good way to threaten
somebody was to light a stick of dynamite, then call the guy and
hold the burning fuse up to the phone and say: 

> i remember survival horror games as being friday the 13th on the
> c64 predating alone in the dark and its wildass camera angles by
> many years...

The Friday the 13th game I remember on the Commodore 64 was just a 
simple top down wander through the woods with randomly placed items 
and no narrative. Hardly a precursor to Alone in the Dark.

As far as cinematic horror goes, the first I can recall is Project: 
Firestart for the C64. Limited ammo, numerous aliens, having to 
explore and exploit the environment, gruesome cutscenes (well, as 
gruesome as you can get with 16 colors). Excellent game, but I never 
managed to finish it.

-- 
Ajay Tanwar | ajta...@yahoo.com
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people 
in large groups." -Despair.com

"stu" <yakum...@gmail.com> thought that a good way to threaten
somebody was to light a stick of dynamite, then call the guy and
hold the burning fuse up to the phone and say: 

> i remember survival horror games as being friday the 13th on the
> c64 predating alone in the dark and its wildass camera angles by
> many years...
> 
> there was also halloween and texas chainsaw massacre for the atari
> 2600...... spaltterhouse in the arcades....

The Friday the 13th game I remember on the Commodore 64 was just a 
simple top down wander through the woods with randomly placed items 
and no narrative. Hardly a precursor to Alone in the Dark.

As far as cinematic horror goes, the first I can recall is Project: 
Firestart for the C64. Limited ammo, numerous aliens, having to 
explore and exploit the environment, gruesome cutscenes (well, as 
gruesome as you can get with 16 colors). Excellent game, but I never
managed to finish it.


-- 
Ajay Tanwar | ajta...@yahoo.com
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people 
in large groups." -Despair.com

"AirRaid" <AirRa...@gmail.com> 
???????:1147733941.073279.3410@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> I think even Westwood has acknowledged that Herzog Zwei was
> the inspiration for thier first RTS games, Dune 2 and C&C.

What happened to Dune (or Dune 1 if you insist)? How can a sequal be the 
first, skipping its own predecessor?

Must be some Tech-No-Logic-al thingie.

"pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> wrote: 

> 
> To tell the truth, there's very little strategy involved in RTS's.

It's there, extremely deep strategy, it just isn't realized. The
problem is the interface, some/most people enjoy arcade strategy.
But you can turn a typical RTS game into a strategy game by
automating the interface. 

> 
> It would seem to me they are more tactical than strategic. At the
> most you're controlling maybe a thousand units on maps that are
> maybe 25 square miles in size, so the conflicts rarely involve
> forces larger than battalions. 

You don't have to control a thousand units. 

On Tue, 16 May 2006 10:46:30 +0800, "Master Baiter"
<mas...@baiter.org> wrote:
>What happened to Dune (or Dune 1 if you insist)? How can a sequal be the 
>first, skipping its own predecessor?

Dune (1) was an adventure-ey ish game that was a completely different
style from Dune 2. It kinda sorta had elements of strategy in that you
had to manage spice resources and armies, but it was fairly
rudimentary. I really liked that game...

>Must be some Tech-No-Logic-al thingie.

Err, not exactly. :)
-- 
"No I'm saying that I'm a cow dung." - Stephen "Suupernuubie" Ung
"Eat a bag of hell." - Cyric The Mad
"Yes - I need red hot gay loving" - LTP

MSN:ktw...@hotmail.com (BUT DON'T SEND E-MAIL!) YIM: ktwilson AIM: YahooKyleW
Zealot the Crazy Lui
Grand 16-Star General and overall director of AGSC operations for the Pronoun Army(and webmaster)
http://pronounarmy.homestead.com/ http://thirty-five-mil.blogspot.com/
re-vamped sig 7D6h.4h.5h

Um, how can it be Real Time Strategy if you only control ONE unit at a time? 
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 RTS. How 
much strategy can you implement with ONE unit? Duh. Another aspect of 
strategy is controlling multiple units with different abilities, did Herzog 
Zwei have this feature?

-- 
Doug
"AirRaid" <AirRa...@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1147733941.073279.3410@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> well Herzog Zwei, the first major RTS game, was played with a console
> control pad, not a mouse, and you could only control one unit at a
> time, but that does not mean Herzog Zwei wasn't an RTS.
>
> I will agree though, that RTS games are more tactical than strategic.
>
> Herzog Zwei was different in that, you actually were one of the units
> in battle. you carried your forces to where ever they needed to be.
> you fought with them, not just commanded them.
>
> there ARE actually many PC gamers / RTS gamers that know, realize and
> accept that Herzog Zwei was the real starting point for all RTS games,
> including Dune 2.  while Dune 2 was different, and while Westwood had
> defined their own style of RTS game which many followed, I think even
> Westwood has acknowledged that Herzog Zwei was the inspiration for
> thier first RTS games, Dune 2 and C&C.
>
> With Herzog Zwei, its 4 megabits of ROM and the limited processing
> capabilities of the Sega MegaDrive - Genesis hardware, each side could
> have a max of 50 units made, placed on the map.  100 units max between
> the two sides. (red and blue).  even then, with 100 units (even 70-90)
> there was slowdown.   the Genesis was only using a 7.6 Mhz 68000
> processor and a very limited VDP (video display processor) that could
> handle a limited number of objects on screen at once.  IBM PCs with
> 386s or 486s were far more powerful.
> 

"pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> writes:

> Um, how can it be Real Time Strategy if you only control ONE unit at a
> time? 

Because you implement a strategy with that one unit?

Do you think that tennis players, boxers or snooker players dont have a
strategy when that play? Sure, they are more likely to be labelled as
sports sims, but there is still strategy when controlling a single
unit. Many times there are multiple units which you control one after
the other : this is, again, controlling only one unit at a time.

> 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

Duh, then by your definition Gauntlet was an RTS. Idiot.

-- 
Doug
"Walter Mitty" <mitt...@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:87hd3qx89j.fsf@news.europe.ch...
> "pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> writes:
>
>> Um, how can it be Real Time Strategy if you only control ONE unit at a
>> time?
>
> Because you implement a strategy with that one unit?
>

Forces of a thousand units or less aren't commanded by generals. There's not 
much strategizing to be done if your resources are a mere battalion and the 
area involved is a mere 25 square miles (or less). It's a tactical situation 
not a strategic one.

-- 
Doug
"John Doe" <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message 
news:Xns97C4DF0217AC80123456789@207.115.17.102...
> "pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> It would seem to me they are more tactical than strategic. At the
>> most you're controlling maybe a thousand units on maps that are
>> maybe 25 square miles in size, so the conflicts rarely involve
>> forces larger than battalions.
>
> You don't have to control a thousand units.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 

"pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> ׫����]����„:Oxsag.71693$_S7.50690@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Duh, then by your definition Gauntlet was an RTS. Idiot.
>

go and find the rom (go to ROM-Nation if you are too damp to locate one for 
yourself)and try it out with an emulator, just remember to delete the rom 
with in 24 hours if you don't want to be a pirate. You should try out the 
game before you call anybody idiot for something that you have totally no 
idea of, you stupid idiot.

> -- 
> Doug
> "Walter Mitty" <mitt...@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:87hd3qx89j.fsf@news.europe.ch...
>> "pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> Um, how can it be Real Time Strategy if you only control ONE unit at a
>>> time?
>>
>> Because you implement a strategy with that one unit?
>>
>
> 

"Walter Mitty" <mitt...@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:87hd3qx89j.fsf@news.europe.ch...
> "pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> writes:
>
> Because you implement a strategy with that one unit?
>
> Do you think that tennis players, boxers or snooker players dont have a
> strategy when that play? Sure, they are more likely to be labelled as
> sports sims, but there is still strategy when controlling a single
> unit. Many times there are multiple units which you control one after
> the other : this is, again, controlling only one unit at a time.
>
>> 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.

You have

- Operational level
- Management level
- Strategic level

Just like in any business.

Translate this to starcraft

Operation level = marine uses stimpack and shoots
Management level = Take those 2 expansions
Strategic level = Carrier-Arb-Obs combo with templar should do the finishing 
job, all the while pumping out fully upgraded goons as a decoy, defense, and 
cannon fodder. 

"pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> writes:

> Forces of a thousand units or less aren't commanded by generals.

Uh huh. And who told you this remarkable fact?

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.]
On 2006-05-17, riku <ri...@none.invalid.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2006 15:03:47 GMT, "pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>Um, how can it be Real Time Strategy if you only control ONE unit at a time? 
>>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 RTS. How 
>>much strategy can you implement with ONE unit? Duh. Another aspect of 
>>strategy is controlling multiple units with different abilities, did Herzog 
>>Zwei have this feature?
>
> Good point. What is a RTS anyway?
>
> If controlling one unit (at a time) is enough, why then is Herzog Zwei
> (1990) considered to be the FIRST RTS? Off the top of my head, two
> years earlier (1988) there was such great game as Carrier Command on
> Atari ST and Amiga home computers.
>
> http://www.mobygames.com/game/amiga/carrier-command
>
> You controlled a carrier and its units (flying vehicles,
> amphibious vehicles etc., one at a time) trying to conquer a
> set of islands before a similar, computer-controlled, enemy
> carrier could do the same. And here's the real kicker: the game
> had (gasp!) good-looking 3D polygon graphics! And very fast one
> too! Although they were flat shaded filled polygons, not
> texture filled, but what do you expect from 1985 home computers
> with no dedicated 3D hardware?
>
> I am quite sure there were similar games long before Carrier
> Command (without 3D graphics though).
>
> Herzog Zwei the first RTS? Pffffffffffffffffft! Not even close!
>
> Anyway, it is not very far fetched to say "RTS" refers to
> real-time tactical games where you are controlling several
> units (like Dune 2, Warcraft and C&C), just like "survival
> horror" label seems to be reserved for Resident Evil
> lookalikes, even though you could argue many other games are
> also "survival horror".

And none of this discussion changes my opinion that RTS games are
just a glorified twitch-click-fest.

The speed and accuracy with which you can control the game is far
more important than any strategy you can imagine in every one
I've tried.

-- 
Neil Cerutti
Any time Detroit scores more than 100 points and holds the other
team below 100 points they almost always win. --Doug Collins

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

IN TEH PALECE KNOWEN AS alt.games.starcraft, TEH FAGGORTER "Master
Baiter" <mas...@baiter.org> DUMPED HIS GHEYE SHIET ON MY COMPUTAR
SCREEN!!!!:
> just remember to delete the rom 
>with in 24 hours if you don't want to be a pirate

That is bullshit.

Downloading ROMs is just as illegal whether you delete them within 24
hours or 2 years. In fact, it most likely is illegal to download the
thing even if you own the original, because you're getting your new
"copy" of the original from an illicit source, and thus it does not
fall under the scope of limited copying/fair use, which it'd do if
you'd rip the ROM from the cartridge you own yourself. 
-- 
The Melodramatic MuuMi

"I wuv fishes"
- Bob-The-Vasudan, Commander of the 11th Battlegroup


Official supporter of Vasudan Grand Admiral Bob:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/muumi/Bob.jpg
http://koti.mbnet.fi/muumi/BobPoster.jpg

ICQ: 26741225
E-Mail: muumiSPAM@MEmbnet.fiHERE!

Remove the nospam thingy for valid E-mail adress.

riku <ri...@none.invalid.com> writes:

> On 17 May 2006 15:09:25 +0200, Neil Cerutti <lead...@email.com>
> wrote:
>
>>And none of this discussion changes my opinion that RTS games are
>>just a glorified twitch-click-fest.
>>
>>The speed and accuracy with which you can control the game is far
>>more important than any strategy you can imagine in every one
>>I've tried.
>
> Unless, of course, you slow down the game speed (and pause the game if
> you need time-out for decision making in very hectic situations), in
> which case speed and accuracy with your mouse hand is not an issue

in which case you are a cheat and might as well play a turn based game.

> anymore. Naturally, this may not work with online RTS games, but then
> turn-based strategy games are probably not that suitable for online
> gaming in the first place. Well, maybe for play-by-mail mode.

Why arent they? They are eminently suited for online play. In fact more
so than real time ones since lag is rarely an issue.

On 2006-05-17, riku <ri...@none.invalid.com> wrote:
> On 17 May 2006 15:09:25 +0200, Neil Cerutti <lead...@email.com>
> wrote:
>
>>And none of this discussion changes my opinion that RTS games
>>are just a glorified twitch-click-fest.
>>
>>The speed and accuracy with which you can control the game is
>>far more important than any strategy you can imagine in every
>>one I've tried.
>
> Unless, of course, you slow down the game speed (and pause the
> game if you need time-out for decision making in very hectic
> situations), in which case speed and accuracy with your mouse
> hand is not an issue anymore. Naturally, this may not work with
> online RTS games, but then turn-based strategy games are
> probably not that suitable for online gaming in the first
> place. Well, maybe for play-by-mail mode.

I need to unfortunately back-pedal a bit on my original
statement, thanks for the prodding.  The speed of the earliest
RTS's was slow enough that I didn't usually feel spread too thin.

Dune 2, Warcraft, and the first Age of Empires moved at a slow
pace by default. It often felt like a strategy game.

But Age of Empires II, and Starcraft, the "modern" RTS's I've
spent the most time with, put my ability to "drive" them front
and center, in different ways.

Starcraft is just plain hard to control once battle begins. Most
unit behave in really annoying ways and must be babysat
constantly to function optimally.

Age of Empires II forces me to do and remember 20 things all at
once.

> Ps. Neil. Why did you try to re-direct followups to your reply
> to RPG group only? Is this about RPGs? Didn't you want to see
> replies to your message? If you think this is crossposted to
> too many groups, you are free to reply to only one suitable
> group, if you wish. Unless you are so afraid people will not
> see your reply?

Sorry, that was a knee-jerk reaction to a cross-posted
discussion, and I didn't pick a very good follow-up.

-- 
Neil Cerutti
For those of you who have children and don't know it, we have a
nursery downstairs. --Church Bulletin Blooper 

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

Not to add fuel on the fire, but I seem to recall back in the early
1980's playing several Intellivision games which are technically RTSs.
I forget the names (was Sea Battle one of them?) but I know there was a
naval game and a space-battle game where you deployed squadrons of
ships to intercept attacking forces. You could let the battles handle
themselves, or directly control them, but if you were fighting one, the
other forces were still moving, and would fight while you were focusing
on another.

"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. 

Another idiot is born. Did you have to practice to become an idiot or did it 
just come naturally? By your collectively idiotic definitions any FPS would 
qualify as an RTS. Strategy, definition: "the science and art of employing 
the political, economic, psychological, and military FORCES of a nation of 
group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace 
or war." Note the plural use of the noun FORCES. You can't implement 
strategy with one unit retard.
-- 
Doug
"Frans" <phasysn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:126logcf9bus59c@corp.supernews.com...
> "Walter Mitty" <mitt...@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:87hd3qx89j.fsf@news.europe.ch...
>> "pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> writes:
>>
>> Because you implement a strategy with that one unit?
>>
>> Do you think that tennis players, boxers or snooker players dont have a
>> strategy when that play? Sure, they are more likely to be labelled as
>> sports sims, but there is still strategy when controlling a single
>> unit. Many times there are multiple units which you control one after
>> the other : this is, again, controlling only one unit at a time.
>>
>>> 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.
>
> You have
>
> - Operational level
> - Management level
> - Strategic level
>
> Just like in any business.
>
> Translate this to starcraft
>
> Operation level = marine uses stimpack and shoots
> Management level = Take those 2 expansions
> Strategic level = Carrier-Arb-Obs combo with templar should do the 
> finishing job, all the while pumping out fully upgraded goons as a decoy, 
> defense, and cannon fodder.
>
> 

"pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> writes:

> Another idiot is born. Did you have to practice to become an idiot or did it 
> just come naturally? By your collectively idiotic definitions any FPS
> would 

But not another top posting one.

> qualify as an RTS. Strategy, definition: "the science and art of employing 
> the political, economic, psychological, and military FORCES of a nation of 
> group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace 
> or war." Note the plural use of the noun FORCES. You can't implement 
> strategy with one unit retard.

Take one to know one Doug. And yes you can : because the strategy could
be to retreat, attack, dig in, move left. move right, fire long range,
fire short range, charge ones cells etc. You really are on a hiding to
nothing here. While it is more frequently the case that an RTS involves
multiple units of force, it is also perfectly feasible to only
manipulate one - as is, of course, the case anyway when the other units
are lost.

Personally I think the use of the word "retard" shows a deep lack of
moral fibre.

"pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:7L%bg.13172$fb2.11106@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> Another idiot is born. Did you have to practice to become an idiot or did 
> it just come naturally? By your collectively idiotic definitions any FPS 
> would qualify as an RTS.

It would most definately not, since FPS would be the genre-defining term. 
Although, you might see BF2 as an FPS-RTS. :D

Oh, and your mother is gay, your father has a wart on his dick, and your 
sister fucks chinese men with small penises for money. 

Look up the definition of the word strategy. By your idiotic definition, 
Jazz Jackrabbit, Doom, Gauntlet and Super Mario Brothers would all be 
real-time strategy games. Did your mother have any children that lived?

-- 
Doug
"Walter Mitty" <mitt...@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:87y7wvwfb4.fsf@news.europe.ch...
> "pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> writes:
>
>
> Take one to know one Doug. And yes you can : because the strategy could
> be to retreat, attack, dig in, move left. move right, fire long range,
> fire short range, charge ones cells etc. You really are on a hiding to
> nothing here. While it is more frequently the case that an RTS involves
> multiple units of force, it is also perfectly feasible to only
> manipulate one - as is, of course, the case anyway when the other units
> are lost.
>
> Personally I think the use of the word "retard" shows a deep lack of
> moral fibre.
> 

Maybe you should look up the definition of the word strategy. Strategy can 
have absolutely nothing to do with tactics.

Um, BF2 is nothing but tactics, it in no way meets the definition of 
strategy.

-- 
Doug
"Frans" <phasysn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:127355l2dri811b@corp.supernews.com...
> "pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
> news:7L%bg.13172$fb2.11106@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>> Another idiot is born. Did you have to practice to become an idiot or did 
>> it just come naturally? By your collectively idiotic definitions any FPS 
>> would qualify as an RTS.
>
> It would most definately not, since FPS would be the genre-defining term. 
> Although, you might see BF2 as an FPS-RTS. :D
>
> Oh, and your mother is gay, your father has a wart on his dick, and your 
> sister fucks chinese men with small penises for money.
> 

"pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:Wnpcg.21034$Lm5.16165@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> Look up the definition of the word strategy. By your idiotic definition, 
> Jazz Jackrabbit, Doom, Gauntlet and Super Mario Brothers would all be 
> real-time strategy games. Did your mother have any children that lived?

You seem to be obsessed with Jazz Jackrabbit. Does the word "Jack" have 
anything to do with that?
"Jack" and "Gauntlet".... What an odd combination. 

"pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:Iqpcg.21039$Lm5.4656@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> Maybe you should look up the definition of the word strategy. Strategy can 
> have absolutely nothing to do with tactics.
>
> Um, BF2 is nothing but tactics, it in no way meets the definition of 
> strategy.

So you do not deny that your mother is gay? 

"pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> writes:

> Maybe you should look up the definition of the word strategy. Strategy can 
> have absolutely nothing to do with tactics.

"can" leaves you wide open to yet another "do you have a strategy in
using top posting tectics which piss off so many other posters"?

Keep at it Doug : you're gettiing better.

>
> Um, BF2 is nothing but tactics, it in no way meets the definition of 
> strategy.
>
> -- 
> Doug
> "Frans" <phasysn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:127355l2dri811b@corp.supernews.com...
>> "pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
>> news:7L%bg.13172$fb2.11106@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>> Another idiot is born. Did you have to practice to become an idiot or did 
>>> it just come naturally? By your collectively idiotic definitions any FPS 
>>> would qualify as an RTS.
>>
>> It would most definately not, since FPS would be the genre-defining term. 
>> Although, you might see BF2 as an FPS-RTS. :D
>>
>> Oh, and your mother is gay, your father has a wart on his dick, and your 
>> sister fucks chinese men with small penises for money.
>> 
>
>

-- 

For the mentally challenged I'll give at least one example of strategy. When 
the Imperial Japanese Navy decided to attack both the Aleutian islands and 
Midway it was a strategic decision, not a tactical one. Tactics can only be 
discussed after such strategic decisions have been made (if you don't know 
where you're going to fight how can you make tactical decisions on how to do 
it). The tactics of how to carry out this strategic decision were left up to 
the admirals who commanded the various task forces or task groups because 
they would actually BE there. Nimitz didn't second guess the tactical 
decisions of Halsey, but Halsey didn't dictate the strategy the entire US 
Navy would pursue in the Pacific either. Other strategic decisions might be 
to bomb war production facilities as opposed to concentration camps --  
either could have been done, but it isn't a tactical decision.

-- 
Doug
"Walter Mitty" <mitt...@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:87ejylvax7.fsf@news.europe.ch...
> "pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> writes:
>
>> Maybe you should look up the definition of the word strategy. Strategy 
>> can
>> have absolutely nothing to do with tactics.
>
> "can" leaves you wide open to yet another "do you have a strategy in
> using top posting tectics which piss off so many other posters"?
>
> Keep at it Doug : you're gettiing better.
>
>>
>> Um, BF2 is nothing but tactics, it in no way meets the definition of
>> strategy.
>>
>> -- 
>> Doug

"pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:JQ1dg.32871$4L1.26390@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> For <snip>

As if anybody reads this lame ass crap. :D 

pigdos wrote:
> For the mentally challenged I'll give at least one example of strategy. When 
> the Imperial Japanese Navy decided to attack both the Aleutian islands and 
> Midway it was a strategic decision, not a tactical one. Tactics can only be 
> discussed after such strategic decisions have been made (if you don't know 
> where you're going to fight how can you make tactical decisions on how to do 
> it). The tactics of how to carry out this strategic decision were left up to 
> the admirals who commanded the various task forces or task groups because 
> they would actually BE there. Nimitz didn't second guess the tactical 
> decisions of Halsey, but Halsey didn't dictate the strategy the entire US 
> Navy would pursue in the Pacific either. Other strategic decisions might be 
> to bomb war production facilities as opposed to concentration camps --  
> either could have been done, but it isn't a tactical decision.
> 
Ok, where does the difference between strategy and tactics stop? While I 
agree that it was a strategic move, the carrier fleet still had to 
decide the strategy on how they were going to take the Islands.

If we look at dictionary.com it gives the definition of tactic as 
(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tactic):
n : a plan for attaining a particular goal [syn: maneuver, manoeuvre]

and Strategy gives (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=strategy):
A plan of action resulting from strategy or intended to accomplish a 
specific goal. See Synonyms at plan.

To me this states that the words mean pretty much the same thing (aka 
they are synonyms), so RTT pretty much means RTS (and RTS pretty much 
means RTT).

--
Marsh Lion

Ah, you're a bitter little man! There, there, want a popsicle?

-- 
Doug
"Frans" <phasysn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1279b3r6j56mv93@corp.supernews.com...
> "pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
> news:JQ1dg.32871$4L1.26390@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>> For <snip>
>
> As if anybody reads this lame ass crap. :D
>
> 

If you look up the definition of strategy: "the science and art of employing 
the political, economic, psychological and military forces of a nation or 
nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war." 
Therefore you could develop a strategy that had nothing to do with 
battlefield tactics at all. Economic sanctions against a country or nation 
could be said to be implementing  a strategy but never a tactic (since it 
has nothing do with combat).

It could be said that Yamamoto's strategy at Midway was to draw the US 
Pacific fleet into a decisive battle in which superior Japanese naval assets 
would prevail. A decision like this is made at the highest levels of 
command, the people who would develop the tactics to carry out this strategy 
at the lower levels wouldn't even know of the decision until after it was 
made. If you don't know where you're going to attack how can you develop 
tactics? The Japanese naval command had several strategies on where to 
attack next (after the Coral Sea). Some wanted to take out Australia, some 
wanted to hold on to what they had, but to decide where to attack with the 
combined fleet next wasn't a tactical decision.

Would you say the decision by the allies to invade Europe through Normandy 
as opposed to through Norway/Sweden was a tactical decision? I would say 
this strategic decision determined the tactics not the other way around.

-- 
Doug
"Marsh_lion" <marsh...@SPAMparadise.net.nz> wrote in message 
news:44769e3c$1@clear.net.nz...
> pigdos wrote:
>> For the mentally challenged I'll give at least one example of strategy. 
>> When the Imperial Japanese Navy decided to attack both the Aleutian 
>> islands and Midway it was a strategic decision, not a tactical one. 
>> Tactics can only be discussed after such strategic decisions have been 
>> made (if you don't know where you're going to fight how can you make 
>> tactical decisions on how to do it). The tactics of how to carry out this 
>> strategic decision were left up to the admirals who commanded the various 
>> task forces or task groups because they would actually BE there. Nimitz 
>> didn't second guess the tactical decisions of Halsey, but Halsey didn't 
>> dictate the strategy the entire US Navy would pursue in the Pacific 
>> either. Other strategic decisions might be to bomb war production 
>> facilities as opposed to concentration camps --  either could have been 
>> done, but it isn't a tactical decision.
>>
> Ok, where does the difference between strategy and tactics stop? While I 
> agree that it was a strategic move, the carrier fleet still had to decide 
> the strategy on how they were going to take the Islands.
>
> If we look at dictionary.com it gives the definition of tactic as 
> (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tactic):
> n : a plan for attaining a particular goal [syn: maneuver, manoeuvre]
>
> and Strategy gives (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=strategy):
> A plan of action resulting from strategy or intended to accomplish a 
> specific goal. See Synonyms at plan.
>
> To me this states that the words mean pretty much the same thing (aka they 
> are synonyms), so RTT pretty much means RTS (and RTS pretty much means 
> RTT).
>
> --
> Marsh Lion 

"pigdos" <N...@nowhere.com> wrote in message 
news:_q6eg.34506$4L1.5703@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> Ah, you're a bitter little man! There, there, want a popsicle?

I'll have a bitter lemon, and your mother with 500 tubes of anal lube. 

pigdos wrote:
> If you look up the definition of strategy: "the science and art of employing 
> the political, economic, psychological and military forces of a nation or 
> nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war." 
> Therefore you could develop a strategy that had nothing to do with 
> battlefield tactics at all. Economic sanctions against a country or nation 
> could be said to be implementing  a strategy but never a tactic (since it 
> has nothing do with combat).
> 
> It could be said that Yamamoto's strategy at Midway was to draw the US 
> Pacific fleet into a decisive battle in which superior Japanese naval assets 
> would prevail. A decision like this is made at the highest levels of 
> command, the people who would develop the tactics to carry out this strategy 
> at the lower levels wouldn't even know of the decision until after it was 
> made. If you don't know where you're going to attack how can you develop 
> tactics? The Japanese naval command had several strategies on where to 
> attack next (after the Coral Sea). Some wanted to take out Australia, some 
> wanted to hold on to what they had, but to decide where to attack with the 
> combined fleet next wasn't a tactical decision.
> 
> Would you say the decision by the allies to invade Europe through Normandy 
> as opposed to through Norway/Sweden was a tactical decision? I would say 
> this strategic decision determined the tactics not the other way around.
> 
This still doesn't cause me to think that strategy != tactics. IMO, your 
statements make sense weather you say it was a tactical move, or a 
strategic move. While I agree that the word tactics is preferred in 
smaller situations (in a battle as opposed to a war), you can certainly 
say that a tactical move is a strategic move (and visa versa).
--
Marsh Lion
Programmer extrondinare

In what sense could you say that economic sanctions against a country are 
tactics? By any definition they are not (since they don't involve combat in 
any way), yet such a policy can be called a strategy. Sorry about the 
cross-posting to irrelevant newsgroups (like .RPG).

Marsh, what is your programming language of choice? C? C++? Java? What do 
you think of C#?

-- 
Doug
"Marsh_lion" <marsh...@SPAMparadise.net.nz> wrote in message 
news:447abd20$1@clear.net.nz...
> pigdos wrote:
>> If you look up the definition of strategy: "the science and art of 
>> employing the political, economic, psychological and military forces of a 
>> nation or nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in 
>> peace or war." Therefore you could develop a strategy that had nothing to 
>> do with battlefield tactics at all. Economic sanctions against a country 
>> or nation could be said to be implementing  a strategy but never a tactic 
>> (since it has nothing do with combat).
>>
>> It could be said that Yamamoto's strategy at Midway was to draw the US 
>> Pacific fleet into a decisive battle in which superior Japanese naval 
>> assets would prevail. A decision like this is made at the highest levels 
>> of command, the people who would develop the tactics to carry out this 
>> strategy at the lower levels wouldn't even know of the decision until 
>> after it was made. If you don't know where you're going to attack how can 
>> you develop tactics? The Japanese naval command had several strategies on 
>> where to attack next (after the Coral Sea). Some wanted to take out 
>> Australia, some wanted to hold on to what they had, but to decide where 
>> to attack with the combined fleet next wasn't a tactical decision.
>>
>> Would you say the decision by the allies to invade Europe through 
>> Normandy as opposed to through Norway/Sweden was a tactical decision? I 
>> would say this strategic decision determined the tactics not the other 
>> way around.
>>
> This still doesn't cause me to think that strategy != tactics. IMO, your 
> statements make sense weather you say it was a tactical move, or a 
> strategic move. While I agree that the word tactics is preferred in 
> smaller situations (in a battle as opposed to a war), you can certainly 
> say that a tactical move is a strategic move (and visa versa).
> --
> Marsh Lion
> Programmer extrondinare 

In article <44769e3c$1...@clear.net.nz>, marsh...@SPAMparadise.net.nz 
says...
> pigdos wrote:
> > For the mentally challenged I'll give at least one example of strategy. When 
> > the Imperial Japanese Navy decided to attack both the Aleutian islands and 
> > Midway it was a strategic decision, not a tactical one. Tactics can only be 
> > discussed after such strategic decisions have been made (if you don't know 
> > where you're going to fight how can you make tactical decisions on how to do 
> > it). The tactics of how to carry out this strategic decision were left up to 
> > the admirals who commanded the various task forces or task groups because 
> > they would actually BE there. Nimitz didn't second guess the tactical 
> > decisions of Halsey, but Halsey didn't dictate the strategy the entire US 
> > Navy would pursue in the Pacific either. Other strategic decisions might be 
> > to bomb war production facilities as opposed to concentration camps --  
> > either could have been done, but it isn't a tactical decision.
> > 
> Ok, where does the difference between strategy and tactics stop? While I 
> agree that it was a strategic move, the carrier fleet still had to 
> decide the strategy on how they were going to take the Islands.

Just because there is no bright line doesn't mean there is no 
distinction.  Yes, you can say that stratergy is what you get when you 
take an overall view of a lot of tactics, and there can be more than 
two levels in a hierarchy, in which the strategy of one level becomes 
the tactics of the next higher level.

Typically in games, however, the levels change character as you move up 
and down the hierarchy, and you can group them into broadly 
'strategic' or 'tactical'.  In Chess, for example, you count material 
and positional heuristics at the strategic level, whereas at the 
tactical level you calculate sequences of moves.  In HOMM, there's a 
distinction between moving your heroes around collecting resources and 
avoiding or hunting the enemy, and fighting a battle against an enemy 
hero.  There are two separate AIs for this, and everyone knows which is 
strategic and which is tactical.

> To me this states that the words mean pretty much the same thing (aka 
> they are synonyms), so RTT pretty much means RTS (and RTS pretty much 
> means RTT).

I would say RTT would be the correct name for typical RTS games (some 
would suggest RSI!).  Not because there's a bright line - sure, you do 
some strategic things like deciding whether to build a base - but 
because the tactics dominates and the strategy isn't very complex and 
doesn't consume much time.  The fact is that the turn-based games, more 
often or not, have a strong high-level strategic component - and the 
RTS games, by and large, don't.

There is another kind of 'RTS' game which is not really a strategy or a 
tactical game but a puzzle disguised as one, i.e. you make several 
attempts to work out the correct plan to defeat a level, but you 
couldn't expect even a brilliant player to have a chance of defeating 
it first time when new to the scenario, except by pure luck.

- Gerry Quinn

Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <44769e3c$1...@clear.net.nz>, marsh...@SPAMparadise.net.nz 
> says...
>> pigdos wrote:
>>> For the mentally challenged I'll give at least one example of strategy. When 
>>> the Imperial Japanese Navy decided to attack both the Aleutian islands and 
>>> Midway it was a strategic decision, not a tactical one. Tactics can only be 
>>> discussed after such strategic decisions have been made (if you don't know 
>>> where you're going to fight how can you make tactical decisions on how to do 
>>> it). The tactics of how to carry out this strategic decision were left up to 
>>> the admirals who commanded the various task forces or task groups because 
>>> they would actually BE there. Nimitz didn't second guess the tactical 
>>> decisions of Halsey, but Halsey didn't dictate the strategy the entire US 
>>> Navy would pursue in the Pacific either. Other strategic decisions might be 
>>> to bomb war production facilities as opposed to concentration camps --  
>>> either could have been done, but it isn't a tactical decision.
>>>
>> Ok, where does the difference between strategy and tactics stop? While I 
>> agree that it was a strategic move, the carrier fleet still had to 
>> decide the strategy on how they were going to take the Islands.
> 
> Just because there is no bright line doesn't mean there is no 
> distinction.  Yes, you can say that stratergy is what you get when you 
> take an overall view of a lot of tactics, and there can be more than 
> two levels in a hierarchy, in which the strategy of one level becomes 
> the tactics of the next higher level.
> 
So you are saying here that there is some overlap?

> Typically in games, however, the levels change character as you move up 
> and down the hierarchy, and you can group them into broadly 
> 'strategic' or 'tactical'.  In Chess, for example, you count material 
> and positional heuristics at the strategic level, whereas at the 
> tactical level you calculate sequences of moves.  In HOMM, there's a 
> distinction between moving your heroes around collecting resources and 
> avoiding or hunting the enemy, and fighting a battle against an enemy 
> hero.  There are two separate AIs for this, and everyone knows which is 
> strategic and which is tactical.
> 
Saying "everyone knows" is exceedingly dangerous in any situation, but 
back to the discussion at hand.

While I can't say that I've played HOMM (nor even know the basics about 
it), going by your description, I can assume it's something like 
Warcraft III (and hence my basis for the following statements). Is it a 
strategy or a tactic, to only fight in battles you can win (again I make 
the point that I believe they are one in the same)? Is it a strategy or 
a tactic to take as many of the opponents pieces (in chess) as you can? 
Certainly for those examples (and all that I can think of), state (to me 
atleast) that you can use tactics and strategy interchangably.

>> To me this states that the words mean pretty much the same thing (aka 
>> they are synonyms), so RTT pretty much means RTS (and RTS pretty much 
>> means RTT).
> 
> I would say RTT would be the correct name for typical RTS games (some 
> would suggest RSI!).  Not because there's a bright line - sure, you do 
> some strategic things like deciding whether to build a base - but 
> because the tactics dominates and the strategy isn't very complex and 
> doesn't consume much time.  The fact is that the turn-based games, more 
> often or not, have a strong high-level strategic component - and the 
> RTS games, by and large, don't.
> 
Again I fail to see the difference here (but agree with the comment 
about RSI, although I think a FPS would be more likely to cause it). In 
turn based games (I've played the like of the original Civilization and 
Call to Power II) you can use a lot of similar strategies (or tactics if 
you will), with the exception of diplomacy, to those in RTS games (and 
I've played the likes of Age of Empires, Starcraft & Warcraft III). One 
thing I use (and can be applied to both turn based and RTS games), is 
creating lots of minor battles, away from a players main base (or city), 
and then attack their main base directly, before their troops have a 
chance to get back. I guess the main thing I should point out here is 
that strategy is more commonly used on a large scale than tactics (a war 
over a battle), although they are interchangeable.

> There is another kind of 'RTS' game which is not really a strategy or a 
> tactical game but a puzzle disguised as one, i.e. you make several 
> attempts to work out the correct plan to defeat a level, but you 
> couldn't expect even a brilliant player to have a chance of defeating 
> it first time when new to the scenario, except by pure luck.

It goes without saying there that the more you know about your enemy (if 
you take your average mission in a RTS campaign, after doing it a few 
times you get to know the terrain and where the enemy starts - terrain 
(at least unknown) is an enemy), the more likely you are to win.

--
Marsh Lion