posted 03-09-99 04:25 AM ET            

That's one big reason why those MOO2 features (relocation = auto-forwarding, unit design, faction differences) are in.

We fans were also keen on customisation.

Indeed maybe only Brian and his team know which of the new ideas are theirs, which are from the general community, and which are a blend of the two.

posted 03-14-99 03:50 AM ET         

Do not try to say that AoE has research. It has buildings, let see you try to research without those buildings. All current RTS revolve around the search mineral, build, strategy. Suffice to say, there is just not enough variety or elements of strategy gaming that make current RTS games RT STRATEGY. The only thing RTS have going for them is the REAL TIME. I have, as of yet, not found a new game that has TBS equivalent (or even close to) strategy. Usually, it's not what you do, but how fast you click in an RTS.

posted 03-14-99 12:11 PM ET            

I have played a few games of both kinds and I have to agree with those who say that the difference between victory and defeat in RTS is merely how fast you click and how much resources you're able to get. That is not strategy.

posted 03-14-99 12:31 PM ET            

Just some comments here. TBS and RTS are very different games, IMNSHO, and both have reasons for playing them. The problem here is that everyone is using RTS as a game category, when it generally doesn't involve strategy of any sort. Those games (Starcraft, TA) do involve tactics. There's a difference, to me at least. They are, however, different.

posted 03-15-99 02:11 AM ET         

I have been playing AoE and AoE:RoR since the day it came out and I have to say it is much funner then any TBS. I am also the biggest fan of TBS, that is all I ever played before RTS, like civ, civ2, MOO 1&2, Lords of the Realm 1&2, MoM and smac.

The thing RTS has going for it is requires QUICK thinking. You people that only play TBS would get your asses wooped any day by someone how plays RTS because they go through the same thought process in just seconds that you take hours and days to do. Most RTS games are also played against humans while TBS is played against the computer AI, which is nothing compared to humans. It is incredibly fun to match wits against another human in an all out realtime slug fest. And you trully know you are superior to the others when you consistently win. No TBS strategy game can make you sweat off 5 pounds in just 2 hours as a fast paced cut throught RTS game can. For me, I am a long time civ player and I have just gottan a score of 6500 (488%) on Thinker Iron Man in smac and I am ranked on of the best in AoE:RoR on the internet gaming zone for death match.

So all I have to say is that you should not say RTS has no strategy. IT DOES. I believe it requires a more intelligent and quicker thinking person to be succesfull in RTS against other humans then TBS (which is mostly against the computer).

If want to challange me, I will kick your ass in any AoE game or any Civ2 or smac game.

posted 03-15-99 08:19 AM ET            

No, it requires tactics, which is a different beast.

--"You people that only play TBS would get your asses wooped any day by someone how plays RTS because they go through the same thought process in just seconds that you take hours and days to do."

Actually, I've played rather a lot of RTS games (my personal favorite so far is TA, and I can't wait for TA: Kingdoms). I'm perfectly capable of playing them as well as I can a TBS game. You see, there's different thinking involved in both. One, the RTS, is tactical. The other, TBS, is strategic.

I'm not saying that one is easier than the other, they're just different. You can be an excellent tactician and a horrible strategist, or vice versa. Each type of game has its challenges, and both can be fun to play.
But RTS games do not -- despite the genre name -- involve strategy. Strategy is the overall planning and conduct of large-scale warfare; tactics is how you use available means to achieve an end.
My dictionary specificly defines tactis as "The technique or science of securing the objectives designated by strategy, esp. the art of deplyoing and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in coordinated maneuvers against an enemy."
In a RTS game, you are concerned with one battle, that's it. You have a limited objective (kill all the zerg, escort Kerrigan to such-and-so a place, whatever), and you are not concerned with a whole theater of operation. You have to think much differently on the two levels, so please stop trying to say they're the same except RTS are in "real-time". Strategy games concer the battle planning, which is why they tend to be turn based. You're not sitting in a tank waiting for the order to move. RTS games concern individual battles, which require tactics, and so work better in a RT mode to put the pressure on.
Please stop confusing the two. I hate it when these constantly get confuse. It's not that hard to tell them apart.

posted 03-15-99 07:33 PM ET         

I have also spouted the same lines about the nobility of TBS vs the brute force/reaction time RTS (even denigrating RTS to its ultimate coarse kindred, the lowly First Person Shooter).

But, I guess I have to come to the defense of RTS when it comes to the compartmentalization along Strategy and Tactics. I don't agree that there is a clean, one-to-one mapping between TBS/RTS and S&T. It really depends on the game. There are lots of examples of Tactics in TBS (Civ2 has plenty of 'tactics' that have nothing to do with your strategy); conversely, RTS can have plenty of strategy (most notably the Tank Rush).

Strategy is indeed the grand plan, but says nothing about the scale of the confrontation. Us geeks can think of it as the 'design'. Tactics are the 'implementation'. E.g. the strategy is to get plastered; the tactics are Guiness.

MOO2 was superior, IMHO, because it emphasized the strategy. Not too much micromanagement, but plenty of variability in the strategies. Having many possibly paths to victory, without too many Dominant Strategies, is the essence of a true classic.

I think the main difference between a GOOD TBS versus a GOOD RTS is the difference between a crossword puzzle and bridge. Many people enjoy both, for they see that variety is the spice of life.

posted 03-16-99 02:19 AM ET            

a bunch of fancy words to say that it seems that this RTS incorporates both tactical and strategic elements.

posted 03-17-99 01:09 PM ET            

TBS is a little different-- while you still have to shake hands with the program, not doing so will not seriously cripple you. In TBS you are capable of surveying your domain, however many nodes i may be.

posted 03-17-99 02:33 PM ET            

I know of two superior RTS's. Bungie's Myth and Firaxis' Gettysburg. In each of these games there is no resource management. You are given a set number of troops and reinforcements and you must make do with what you have.

If you want some intelligent real time strategy and some serious tactics, check out these winners.