To explain, this GIF shows 1 session between 2 A.I. players. Whoever kills off the opponent wins.
Production Units: Smallest unit (Level 1) that can split to create more production units, or merge to become Attack Units (Level 2 and up).
Attack Units: Cannot split to produce, and can only merge to become bigger Attack Units.
Merging: Only units of the same Levels can merge to increase their level.
I am in conflict whether to label this game as a real-time strategy or real-time tactics, as I wanted to create a real-time strategy game based on units, but the end results seems to lean towards real-time tactics. Reasons are as follows:
Why it is a Real-Time Strategy game:
It has âUnitsâ as resource management
It has Tech Upgrades (by merging to increase unit attribute points [Health, Attack, Speed, etc.]).
Main purpose is to allow users to create a balanced RTS unit.
Simplifies all aspects of RTS down to Time, which the players invest in.
Why it is a Real-Time Tactics game:
It focuses only on units.
It doesnât have base building.
It doesnât have resource gathering locations.
It has Veterancy. (Pyramid scheme where Level X requires 2 Level X-1 units to create)
This. The term is quit common in board games. Chess is the most wide spread example, but there are plenty of others.
The term is used whenever the mechanics donât really line up with the thing being simulated. The way the bishop moves in Chess. The way battles are triggered in Nuroshima Hex. The way the spider moves in Hive.
All games are abstract in some form. But games described as abstract donât even try to have any real world link.
Thinking on how the software I built is more closer to real-time tactics, is there a video game genre for âreal-time abstract tacticsâ game? Or just âreal-time abstract strategyâ, since real-time tactics is a subgenre of real-time strategy?
Or I should rewrite my paper to just explain what a real-time tactics is for the introduction to the thesis?
Does it really matter? There is no solid dividing line between the two genres. At best you can say strategy emphasize resource gathering, but itâs not as though tactics games are devoid of forms of it either. Any distinction is based only on what the focuses are, but not from any lack or inclusion of a mechanic. There are no distinctions worth splitting hairs over.
Tactics: your units are individual dudes
Strategy: your units are groups of dudes or other abstractions (usually groups of dudes)
Although honestly, the only people who care are hard core strategy gamers. Most people just dump both into âstrategyâ. The biggest dividing line between strategy and action is the time scale of your decisions and the speed of the decision/feedback loop.
Tactics: Working on the small scale and dealing with the moment to moment challenges.
Strategy: Working on a large scale and dealing with the long term challenges.
Almost all games have tactical elements and strategic elements. What is small scale and what is large scale is very game dependent. The tactical layer of Civ is about the same level as the strategic layer in Warcraft. The tactical layer in Warcraft is about the same level as the strategic layer in Halo.
Yes, unfortunately. Because my evaluation is determined by the very definition of real-time âsomethingâ. (Replace something with either strategy or tactics).
But this distinction will only be applied to the game (GIF shown above in first post). If I have that distinction nailed down, things should be smooth sailing for me.
You understand the basics of why genres exist? They are a way of grouping similar games together, mainly for marketing purposes. Chances are a fan of one game in a genre will like other games in the same genre. Its much easier to market a game if you label it with a genre or two.
This is why genres get really messy. They arenât academic constructs with nice clean lines. They generally canât be nailed down with hard and fast rules. There are always exceptions and crossovers and odd balls.
A game is in a genre because people make a convincing case for it to be there. As long as you can make an argument for you decision, then you are good to go.
Either you have the most anal retentive professors I have ever heard of, or you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Will your game change at all if you decide on one? How would it be judged differently if itâs labeled either one?
If nothing else RTS is the actual genre. Tactics is a sub-genre of RTS.
I think this is pretty accurate. Itâs just worth keeping in mind that often scale is really just a matter of names and graphics.
If your âunitâ is a division then itâs strategy, if your âunitâ is jim the rifleman then tactics.
You can really have the same game on the same size map with very similar moves and results, but one will be considered a tactical game and the other strategic. The actual planning/strategy process differences are usually less meaningful than the window dressing, which tends to dictate other gameplay:
Tactical games will usually have more RPG elements, each character becomes unique.
Strategy games your units are usually pretty static, theyâre really defined by their unit type.
This means that often strategy games the pieces are more disposable, a means to reach your goal. Tactical games usually involve more detail on the characters and each changes. Tactical games have more narrative, strategy games have more scale.
I really prefer the game play in strategy games (I grew up playing chess and I like sacrificing pieces), but I really like the narrative in tactical games.
Iâll have to choose either this, 2 genres, or real-time abstract strategy.
Problem is the software doesnât fit in tactics (where all units are not unique) and strategy (thereâs only 1 type of unit in the entire software). I guess Iâm going to go with @RockoDyne and say that Iâm just going to roll a dice and go with that then. Maybe Iâm reading my professorâs comments wrong?
