Information about Real Time Strategy

A real-time strategy (RTS) video game is one that is distinctly not turn-based. The phrase real-time is used to distinguish such games within the broader genre of strategic wargames, which has a longer history both inside and outside of video gaming. Other gameplay mechanics implied by RTS include resource gathering, base building, technological development, and abstract unit control.^[1] Generally, the player is given a top-down perspective of the battlefield, though some 3D RTS games allow total freedom of camera movement. Additionally, the in-game user interface is much like a computer desktop: the player can manipulate controls and in-game units with techniques such as clicking and dragging. Each player in an RTS may interact with the game independently of other players, so that no player has to wait for someone else to finish a turn. This lends the genre well to multiplayer gaming, especially in online play, compared to turn-based games.

City-building games, economic simulators, grand strategy games, and games of the real-time tactics variety are generally not considered to be “real-time strategy”, though their gameplay involves some overlapping concepts.^[2]

History

Precursors and early genesis

The genre that is recognized today as "real-time strategy" emerged as a result of an extended period of evolution and refinement. Games that are today sometimes perceived as ancestors of the real-time strategy genre were never marketed or designed as such at the original date of publication. As a result, designating "early real-time strategy" titles is problematic because such games are being held up to modern standards. The genre initially evolved separately in the UK and North America, afterward gradually merging into a unified worldwide tradition.

In the UK, the genre's beginning can be traced to Stonkers by John Gibson, published in 1983 by Imagine Software for the ZX Spectrum, and Nether Earth published on ZX Spectrum in 1987. In North America, the first game retrospectively classified as real-time strategy by many sources^[3][3] is The Ancient Art of War (1984), designed by Evryware's Dave and Barry Murry, followed by the sequel The Ancient Art of War at Sea in 1987, though Dani Bunten Berry's (of M.U.L.E fame) Cytron Masters (1982), developed by Ozark Softscape and released by SSI, also have been considered the earliest game of the genre.^[4][5]

Some writers list Intellivision's Utopia by Don Daglow (1982) as the first real-time strategy game.^[6] In Utopia two players build resources and carry out combat by proxy. It does not contain the direct-manipulation tactical combat now common. Another early example from the same year is Legionnaire on the Atari 8-bit family, written by Chris Crawford for Avalon Hill. This was effectively the opposite of Utopia, in that it offered a complete real-time tactical combat system with variable terrain and mutual-help concepts, but lacked any resource collection and economy/production concepts. As a result, this game might be better considered an early forerunner of the RTT (real-time tactics) genre.

Herzog Zwei for the Sega Genesis in 1989 is the earliest example of a game with a feature set that falls under the contemporary definition of modern RTS.^[7][8]. In Herzog Zwei, though you only control one unit, the manner of control foreshadowed the point-and-click mechanic of later games. Also, control and destruction of bases was an important aspect of the game, as were the economic/production aspects of those bases.

Notable as well are early games like Mega Lo Mania by Sensible Software (1991) and Supremacy (also called Overlord - 1990). Although these two lacked direct control of military units, they both offered considerable control of resource management and economy systems. In addition, Mega Lo Mania has advanced technology trees that determine offensive and defensive prowess. However, it was with the release of Dune II from Westwood Studios[1992] that real-time strategy became recognized as a distinct genre of video games^[1].

1992 – 1998: seminal titles

Although real-time strategy games have an extensive history, some titles have served to define the popular perception of the genre and expectations of real-time strategy titles more than others^[1], in particular the games released between 1992 and 1998 by Blizzard Entertainment and Westwood Studios.

Westwood's Dune II: The Building of a Dynasty (1992) introduced all the core concepts and mechanics of modern real-time strategy games that are still used today^[9], such as using the mouse to move units, and gathering resources^[2], and as such served as prototype for later real-time strategy games. Its success encouraged the development of such games as (1994) and Command & Conquer (1995)^[1]--which, in turn, became influential in their own right.^[2] Command & Conquer became the first popular RTS game to utilize competitive multiplayer. Command & Conquer, as well as , became the most popular early competitive RTS games. These 2 games came into competition with after its release in late 1995.

Total Annihilation, released by Cavedog Entertainment in 1997, introduced 3d units and focused on huge battles that emphasized macromanagement over micromanagement. It thus featured a streamlined interface that would influence many RTS games in later years. In 1998, Blizzard Entertainment released the game StarCraft. It became one of the most popular RTS games in history. It was the first major RTS title to feature 3 distinct races. The game's inclusion of the Battle.net matchmaking and ranking system popularized competitive multiplayer for RTS games. Collectively, all of these games defined the genre, providing the de facto benchmark against which new real-time strategy games are measured.

Refinement and transition to 3D

The real-time strategy genre has been relatively stable since 1995 and additions to the genre's concept in newer games tend to be introducing more units, larger maps, 3D terrain and similar, rather than innovations to the game concept with new games generally focus on refining aspects of successful predecessors. As the paragon example of gameplay refinement, Cavedog Entertainment's acclaimed Total Annihilation from 1997 distilled the core mechanics of Command & Conquer, and introduced the first 3D units in real-time strategy games. In 1997, Microsoft tried to combine elements of Civilization with the real-time strategy concept in Age of Empires by introducing ages of technologies. This combination was refined further by Stainless Steel Studios' Empire Earth in 2001. GSC Gameworld's series took the genre in a different direction, bringing population caps into the tens of thousands.

(1998) and Homeworld (1999) were the first completely 3D real-time strategy titles. Homeworld was notable in that it featured a 3d environment in space, therefore allowing movement in every direction, a feature which its semi-sequel, Homeworld Cataclysm (2000) continued to build upon adding features such as waypoints. Homeworld 2, released in 2003, streamlined movement in the 360° 3d environment. They were followed by a short period of interest in experimental strategy games such as Allegiance (2000). Warcraft III (2002) is probably the most successful early 3D RTS. It is only in approximately 2002 that 3D real-time strategy became the standard, with both Warcraft III and Ensemble Studio's Age of Mythology (2002) being built on a full 3D game engine. introduced classic wargame elements, such as line of supply to the genre.

Relatively few genres have emerged from or in competition with real-time strategy games, although Real-time tactics, a superficially similar genre, emerged around 1995 and in 1998 Activision attempted to combine the real-time strategy and first-person shooter genres in Battlezone and Rage Games Limited attempted this also, with the Hostile Waters (2002) games.

In 2007, , a highly anticipated sequel to the popular Command & Conquer franchise was released. Supreme Commander, considered the spiritual sequel to the popular Total Annihilation was also released in 2007.

Specialization and evolution

Some games have moved toward an increased focus on tactics, with titles such as (2004), (2006), and Company of Heroes (2006) replacing the traditional resource gathering model, where designated resource gathering units collect the resources used for producing further units or buildings, with a strategic control-point system, where control over strategic points progressively yields construction/reinforcement points. Dawn of War and Company of Heroes also replaces individual units with "squads".

Others are moving away from the traditional real-time strategy game model with the addition of other genre elements. An example is Sins of a Solar Empire, currently under development by Ironclad Games, which mixes elements of grand-scale stellar empire building games like Master of Orion with real-time strategy elements, but pushing the conflict gameplay closer to a real-time tactics model.

Gameplay

In a typical real-time strategy game, the screen is divided into a map area displaying a bird's-eye overhead representation of the game terrain, units, and buildings, and an interface overlay containing command and production controls and often a "radar" or "minimap" overview of the entire map. The primary interface is the mouse which is generally accompanied by keyboard shortcuts, with which commands are given and the map is scrolled. Gameplay generally consists of the player being positioned in the map with a minimal production base capable of creating the basic units and buildings that are needed to start playing and eventually create increasingly powerful units and buildings, or a small force, the core of which is generally a unit capable of establishing the initial production base. Thereafter, the game is typically a race of resource gathering, technology research and unit production to claim territory, suppress and defeat the opposition through force or attrition.

Criticism of gameplay

Because of the generally faster-paced nature (and in some cases a smaller learning curve), real-time strategy games have surpassed the popularity of turn-based strategy computer games. In the past, a common criticism was to regard real-time strategy games as "cheap imitations" of turn-based strategy games, arguing that real-time strategy games had a tendency to devolve into "clickfests"^[10][10], in which the player who was faster with the mouse generally won, because they could give orders to their units at a faster rate. The common retort is that micromanagement involves not just fast clicking but also the ability to make sound tactical decisions under time pressure.^[10] (Of course, this does take the gameplay out of the realm of strategic decision-making.)

The "clickfest" argument is also often voiced alongside a "button babysitting" criticism, which pointed out that a great deal of game time — especially in earlier titles — is spent either waiting and watching for the next time a production button could be clicked, or rapidly alternating between different units and buildings, clicking their respective button. In essence, the point of RTS gameplay is often to play against the interface, not against the opponent.

A third common criticism is that real-time gameplay often degenerates into "rushes" where the players take turns throwing swarms of units at each other. For example, the original Command & Conquer gave birth to the now-common "tank rush" tactic, where the game outcome is often decided very early on by one player gaining an initial advantage in resources and producing large amounts of a "tank" unit --an initially relatively powerful but still quite cheap unit-- which is thrown at the opposition before they have had time to establish defences or production. Although this strategy has been criticized for encouraging overwhelming force over strategy and tactics, defenders of the strategy argue that they're simply taking advantage of the strategies utilized, and some argue that it's a realistic representation of warfare. One of the most infamous versions of a rush is the Zergling rush from the real-time strategy game Starcraft; in fact, the term "zerging" has become synonymous with rushing.^[1]

A fourth criticism revolves around the focus on building units during the middle of a battle. This feature of RTS games seems to have been inherited from the extremely popular turn-based strategy game Civilization (in fact, it seems the genre was invented so that gamers could play "Civ" but without having to wait for the turns). In classic board strategy games in which units are built, the process is often one of proactive planning and decision-making - classic strategic thinking - but in the RTS realm, there is not this sense of strategic thinking at all; instead it is more of a reactive, flippant process.

A fifth criticism of the RTS genre is that units are often considered disposable, which further amplifies the trivial nature of the genre's gameplay. Units are often "thrown" at opponents. In classic strategy boardgames, units must be marshalled and preserved, as indeed forces are in real battles. The RTS genre thus, in many respects, "infantilizes" the strategic decision-making process.

A sixth criticism of the RTS genre is the importance of skill over strategy in real-time strategy games. The manual dexterity and ability to multitask and divide one's attention is often considered the most important aspect to succeeding at the RTS genre. "A player controls hundreds of units, dozens of buildings and many different events that are all happening simultaneously. There is only one player, and he can only pay attention to one thing at a time. Expert players can quickly flip between many different tasks, while casual gamers have more problems with this.", Troy Dunniway.^[11]

In response to these criticisms, features which reduce the importance of fast mousework have emerged, enabling the player to focus more on overall strategy. For example, "queuing" allows a player to put in an order for multiple units at once from a single building, as opposed to requiring a player to return to that building to order each unit separately.^[1] The ability to set waypoints allows a player to give multiple movement commands to a unit at once.^[1] Most games also give each unit strengths and weaknesses, discouraging players from easily defeating an opponent with simple "rush" or "swarm" tactics in favour of more balanced armies.

Turn-based strategy vs real-time strategy

Proponents of the turn-based system sometimes argue that the turn-based system is superior to real-time systems citing a number of reasons:

• Players are able to plan their moves to a greater degree given the extra time available to them.^[10]
• Games are more fair due to a lack of reliance upon player reflexes.^[13]
• Game designers are able to offer more tactical options to the player.^[13]
• It is more realistic to control multiple units intelligently using this system.^[10]
• It is easier to keep track of what the enemy is doing since you can see every move as it happens.^[13]

Proponents of the real-time system respond to this by saying that thinking quickly is part of the strategy^[10], and that sitting around and waiting for turns to end is boring^[10]. They also argue that real-time systems add to players' sense of immersion^[13] and provide an additional element of challenge.^[10][13] Finally, they argue that real-time systems are more realistic; turn-based systems originally existed out of necessity due to hardware restrictions, not due to any added elements of realism.^[14]

Micromanagement vs. Macromanagement

Main articles: Micromanagement (computer gaming) and Macromanagement (computer gaming)

Micromanagement refers to attention from the player to manage and maintain the status of his units and resources. This creates a more tactical atmosphere that constantly needs the interaction of the player. On the other end of the spectrum, macromanagement focuses more on economic production and large-scale strategic maneuvering instead of commanding individual units.

Graphics

Total Annihilation (1997) was the first true real-time strategy game to utilize 3D units and terrain. Homeworld and Warzone 2100 (both released in 1999), pioneered the use of fully 3D environments in real-time strategy titles. In the case of Homeworld, the game is set in space, offering a true 3D environment in which all units can move vertically in addition to the horizontal plane. However, the switch to full 3D was very gradual and most real-time strategy titles, including the first sequels to Command & Conquer, initially used isometric 3D graphics made by pre-rendered 3D tiles. Only in later years did these games begin to use true 3D graphics, making it possible to rotate the view of the battlefield in real-time.

Recently, real-time strategy games have begun to incorporate physics engines, such as Havok, in order to increase realism experienced in gameplay. The first real-time strategy game to use a physics engine was Ensemble Studio's Age of Empires III, released on October 18, 2005,^[15] which used the Havok Game Dynamics SDK to power its real-time physics. Company of Heroes, released on September 14, 2006, was the first real-time strategy game that used real-time physics as a part of gameplay, including fully-destructible environments as well.

See also

• List of strategy video games
• Real-time tactics

References