Hmmm, I prefer turn-based strategy myself. I just don't like feeling that if I don't click fast enough then I'm doomed. That said, Sins doesn't really force me to freak out in a click-fest, which is one of the key reasons why I like it.

according to yarlens recent post, this should ease the pain for the click festers.
me myself love to have a click fest contest but then it would take away the concept of being able to enjoy the beuty of the game during in game plays.

by the time you know it the game is already over and you spent more time clicking and thinking rather than thinking while watching and potentially grasping what the game has to offer. in this case i'll be enjoying a whole lot of battle without the stress of a click fests.

RTS games like C&C, Starcraft or Supreme Commander don't allow me the time I need to make decisions

I prefer real time, because you dont have the time to think through those basic tactics on the battlefield.

If this was buy one game before being dropped off on a desert island I would choose a Turn-Based just because it would probably last longer. Otherwise its RTS all the way

RTS. It requires you to think fast and make tough decisions quickly. It just adds that extra element of who can think quicker into the mix. That is why chess matches are timed. If they had all the time they wanted to sit and think then it would be much harder to sneak things past your opponet and hide your strategies. Games would grind on and on.

  you didnt say tactics, you said strategy

and as for an example? HW2.

you're fully entitled to disagree

yup, exactly why I didnt say "no, your completely fucking wrong"

some of you need to play coh and find out what a real rts can be like again.

I like real time strategy more because you have more flexibility with what you're doing. I can commonly beat a enemy two to five times my size in real time but in turn based it always seems to be a numbers game... ie whoever has more units tends to win.


The thing with real time games also is that it's ALWAYS your move... you don't have to wait for them to do something. Also speed isn't always important... what is important is always doing something. Often players in real time games will stop to think about something which means they're effectively skipping turns. You can't stop... you don't need to be super fast usually... but stopping = death. That said, some games are all about speed... and I enjoy the hell out of that too. Ground Control 2 was all about speed. The game was famous for two huge armies clashing and not a single unit dying for like 20 seconds while all the weapons fire was absorbed by shield units or repaired faster then any unit could die... Both players had to react VERY quickly to maintain their army in that mess... units loosing too much health had to be brought off the front line for 5-10 seconds... repair units had to be constantly retasked... attacking units had to be retargeted constantly so htey weren't attacking something htat was either reversing or impossible to kill...


And then BANG! One side would make two or three mistakes in a row and ALL their units would die in under 3 seconds... All of them going from practically full health to NO health... POP. Damn that was fun. But you had to be more then fast to win that game, you had to be smart. No little kids did well in that game... all the better players were older... which is unusual of most RTS games where they're dominated by 10 year olds. 10 year olds are almost always the fastest... but are never as cunning.



I've never seen an RTS game that lets me do a strategy that few people can copy. TBS games are usually so slow that anyone can copy the move.


So, I'm not a fan of TBS games... unless they're board games or something...

and as for an example? HW2.

HW&HW2 are no strategy games. The only strategic element they have are the ships you build because they were transported into another battle.

One fight does NOT equal strategy. In fact even games that require tactics are rare. In HW you actually have to (well, it pays off) create formations and such, so it has tactics. In games like CnC and Warcraft that is of almost no importance. What matters is (MP) who has found a better building/training order and clicks faster. Than it's all over in one fight. Oh well, I guess one can count the use of special units and abilities (like healing, bonuses etc.) as tactics... But there is deifinitely NO strategy.

As I said, the only real strategy that happened in RT that I know of is MoO3. It has planetary management, empire building and one lost fight did by no means mean defeat.

Not sure what you mean by a game having strategy; clarify?

As far as I knew, neither Homeworld 1 or 2 fights were over after one engagement.

Well I think they were more thinking along the lines of the multiplayer aspect of the game, not the single player.

It is true that in HW a single engagement can be decisive but this is definitely not always the case.

HW is heavier on the tactics than on strategy but I think that is part of the appeal: it is exciting. But the strategy is also a vital component. No amount of good tactics can overcome the advantage granted by an opponent's far superior strategy that gives him a numerical and technological advantage. And by the same token, your tactical choices are limited by your strategy in terms of what kinds and how many ships you have available.

Sorry Space, but I just automatically disagree when you tell me that if a game has a linear storyline, than it's not strategy. God forbid, that when developers create a whole universe, in which they feel has the potential to become a series of games, they make the story linear to keep consistency! I feel that the storyline of a game is a component of, but does not define, a strategy game, but rather: the gameplay.

Likewise, Wedge pretty much sums it up for me. Your tactics are what defines the outcome of a single battle [in multiplayer], but what defines the battle in the first place is strategy. You actually never have to engage your enemies' fleets at all. You can wait to ambush their mothership when it is unprotected, capture their fleets (with proper tactics, of course), etc. I agree that rules of engagement are strictly based on tactics, but strategy dictates the type of engagement, in which Homeworld supports multiple instances of.