Talk:Real-time tactics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Knight chess piece. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:SG
 SG Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
Strategy games To-do:


Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
CVG To-do:

Contents

[edit] Necessary?

Okay, I'm all for the judicious use of pedanticism, but come on now. I've never heard 'real-time tactics' used in any mainstream way. I know the difference between strategy and tactics, and I still use the popular term 'real-time strategy' to refer to tactical games—because regardless of technical correctness, that's the genre name. 'Real-time tactics' should exist as just a brief note on strict usage in the Real-time strategy article. -- Perey 07:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion. You're welcome to it. Many people take objection to RTTs being thrown together with RTSs - they do fundamentally differ in nature. Using your reductio, is any category other than perhaps "videogame" really necessary? I (and more with me) consider it a valid category, and it is used. Using "RTS" to classify RTT games is misleading and misnomeric. Mikademus 16:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not arguing from reductio, simply from actual, live usage. Real-time strategic and tactical games are grouped under the name 'real-time strategy'. And the two aspects are very strongly linked. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any RTS (by your definition) that's purely strategic (it would have to be something like Risk, and that's turn-based); and then this article goes and says RTTs can include strategic elements if they are 'not in the battle moments of the game'. I agree RTS is a misnomer, sometimes, but I fail to see how it's misleading. Surely nobody's ever bought a game they were told was an RTS and gone, 'Oh, no! This game has tactics!' -- Perey 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the terminological confusion of "tactics" and "strategy" has been the bane of classifying (mostely) wargames since the term "RTS" was first coined. I'm sorry if I'm preaching to the choire now, but RTS games are really most of the time simulations of a stylised production-economy, with some equally stylised battle-ish action placed on top. This could of course be called both "strategy" or "tactics", however the association connected to the games is one of "military strategy", which is unfortunate and very unrealistic. However, it is even more alien to claim that RTS games have anything to do with actual military tactics; they are simluations of something non-existing, forth-order simulacra simulating their own simplified, stylised, conceptually fictional universes. RTT games, on the other hand, generally tries to include or simulate the nitty-gritties (sp?) of real-life military tactics, perhaps with extras -like magic- thrown into the mix - no economics, no production, no stylised rendering of "battles". Here the "word" tactics" really apply, especially in the military sense, unlike in RTSs where using either "strategy" and "tactics", in the military sence, is highly questionable.
As for "RTT can include strategic element if not in the battle moment of the game", a good example if this is the "Total War" series. The battles are purely operational and tactical, and while the non-battle sequences in between are certainly strategic, they are equally certainly not RTS moments in the game. Thus, as a side-point, Total War should perhaps be classified as a RTT and a Strategic game, but assuredly not as a RTS game. The early Close Combat games containes no strategic elements at all, focusing solely on operational tactics. Sid Meier's Gettysburg consisted only of troop movements and battlefield tactics. Etc etc. Mikademus 09:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with most of your points, I really do. But the question is not, 'Is this more technically correct?' It's, 'Is this appropriate for Wikipedia?' It doesn't describe live usage, and is sounding more and more like original research as it develops. (I have never heard anything like 'older-historical' used to classify computer games; it sounds like a subgenre title you coined yourself.) -- Perey 02:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
(Many indentations later). Point taken. I will replase and rephrase the "sub-genre" expression. However, the "RTT" denomination is not new, not original by me, just somewhat uncommon, at least in popular use. This article is intended to document the genre and perhaps raise awareness of it to help people avoid miss-classifying things. Too many games are called RTS games, for instance god games are often called that. Even SimCity can be seen called RTS every so often. Mikademus 10:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The "Action Adventure" genre is distinguished from "Role-Playing Game" genre despite many similarities. You could say that the relationship between AA and RPG is similar to that between RTS and RTT. Probably the primary reason behind the argument that "RTT" isn't a legitimate genre is due to video game marketing and categorization in online stores and magazines (this contrasts with the distinction between AA and RPG which is often noted in marketing categories), but business marketing shouldn't be used as reasoning for incorrectly propagating a certain title for a genre.
One major distinction between "strategy" games and "tactical" games is the ownership of a base, resource management and collection, etc. (Contrast Age of Empires with Close Combat, for example). The most distinctive feature is the number of units that are controlled at once. Tactical games focus on a small number of units or a squad, anywhere from 2-20 units (approximately), while strategy games can encompass hundreds of units.
Examples of the above can be found in many games, such as Final Fantasy Tactics, Fallout Tactics, MechCommander and MechCommander 2, Close Combat, and others. You may also note that players who are fans of RTS games may not enjoy RTT games, and vice versa. Despite their similar appearance, there are distinct differences in their execution. And finally, Mikademus isn't the only Wiki user who is aware of the RTT genre. There are many other articles that reference the genre specifically and point out the distinction between RTT and RTS.
With various game studios and designers trying to create a unique gaming experience to make their product stand out from the crowd, there will always be deviations from the set genres, and even games that fall into multiple genres or show traits of several but don't seem to fit into any one genre. RTT and RTS, however, are distinct for the reasons outlined above. banzaimonkey 05:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simulations

SimCity is a "simulation", not an RTS. Several games in the RTT genre, such as Close Combat, could be considered simulations, but that's another issue entirely. A person calling SimCity an RTS has their genres confused.  :P banzaimonkey 05:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Same goes for Full Spectrum Warrior, the fact that your controlling more than yourself makes it more than a standard FPS, yes, but it dosn't have the close association to RTS of RTT. The entry for Full Spectrum Warrior in this article explicitly describes it as a simulation and spends most of its time pointing out the differences it has to the rest of the genre. Yes the game is in real time, yes it involves tactics. The same can be said of any FPS or even Combat Flight Sim. It is marketed as a FPS with elements of tactical control of squads and should be treated as such. I'm removing it.Inane Imp 13:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Please compare FSW with the defenition of RTT provided by the article. As it stands, your argument is very limp: you claim it has more in similar with FPS games, and yet its only similarities are a vaugely first/third person camera, guns, and setting. Look past those wrappings and you'll see a classic RTT game. The differences are pointed out because those are what is relevant; the point of the section FSW is under is to communicate the variety found within the genre.
Futher, the fact that the game was marketed as you describe is not relevant. As the article explains elsewhere, many RTT games are classed in other, more recognisable genres when it comes to marketing and reviewing; it does not and should not affect the interpretation of the actual game, at least not at the level this article is concerned with. --Tom Edwards 15:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
A question on original research: if all reviews, media releases and documents describe a game in one genre (A) - despite a Wikipedian realising it has attributes of another - should not the game be included only in genre A because to place it in genre B would be due to a Wikipedian's original research (his/her intrepretation of the game)? It follows that marketing evidence is important because that is one manner in which the industry (for whatever reason) defines the genres, although it may not be the manner a user wishes to intrepret the game.Inane Imp 02:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add that classifying anything as "simulation" is principally worthless - "simulation" is the widest and vaguest superclass available in the genre jungle, and arguably all computer in any way based on some percievable reality are simulations of something. Another series of RTT games, the Take Command games, call themselves "real-time combat simulators", and another name for the genre sometimes stubled over is "military strategy". Given these alternative denominations, and that you as the player do not actually fire the soldiers' guns when in FSW's first-person mode but rather instruct where to aim, makes it a full-featured RTT game of modern squad combat, and in no way a FPS game. Mikademus 16:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to bow out gracelessly and accept the revert. As you've both pointed out any defence of my position relies on treating the current definition of RTT as false, a debate which will take a while.
To begin then: something to think about, X-COM: Interceptor, while primarily a Space Combat Sim, shares the RT strategic/RT tactical seperation evident in many RTT games. Given that the combat sequences are tactical in nature, would this not be a RTT game using the current definition?
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear, and its ilk, pose a similar problem. By the current definition: Rogue Spear is a tactical wargame that simulates the military tactical aspects of battles. It should therefore be classed as a RTT. What I'm trying to say is this: so far the classification debate has raged by defining RTTs against RTSs leaving it with a definition that excludes the current idea of RTSs (although upcoming games like Company of Heroes are problematic; see The State of the RTS where CoH is classed as a RTT) but allows almost anythihng which is real time and simulates the tactical aspects of battles.
My question is this: where is the distinction between RTTs and real time tactical games, and where (outside the Wikipedian community) has this been defined? Inane Imp 02:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for an interesting discussion! It has been a very long time since I played any of the X-Com (or "UFO" as they're also called) games. IIRC they were tactical turn-based stop-action games? You issued orders and clicked "commit" (or something) and the action unfolded. That would not be RTT in any way. As you yourself say, the Rainbow Six games (as well as Ghost Recon át al) are tactical shooters, and though very tactical and military are also very much, and quite undeniably, first-person shooters. However, you have become aware of that especially as of 2006 computer game genre classifications are becoming problematic: genres are straddled and redefined, games push at the confines of conventional categories. The RTS genre suffers even worse from this. FSW is very much such a game: However, that is isn't a first-person shooter or a tactical shooter is because you never control the solders in the first-hand mode, only issue orders. That it is a miliary simulation, or real-time combat simulator, is obvious from its focus on realism. However, had you actually controlled the soldiers then it would as undeniably have straddled the tactical shooters and RTT genres, and most certainly been categorised with the former genre.
The problem with some genres are with their names rather than their contents of definitions. "Real-time strategy" is the most prominent example: so vague and wide that virtually anything can be and often are classified as a RTS, in spite of the genre really being quite narrow and of well-defined contents. Real-time tactics, obviously named in contrast to RTS, almost by Hegelian antithesis, shares some of the same problem. If the genres initially had been called "real-time production-based wargame" and "real-time realistic tactical military simulation" then we wouldn't have these problems; and if "simulation" wasn't sometimes used as a genre the confusion might abate further.
PS. The IGN link above does not work. Could you provide it again? DS. Mikademus 07:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
First, here is the link again: The State of the RTS (also edited the one above to be correct).
Second, XCOM Interceptor, unlike the rest of the series, was real time tactical as well. I included it as a facetsious example to highlight the necessity of a lower limit on the definiton. The game is a space combat simulation (you fly, and shoot, a spacecraft as part of a flight in real time; hence - if we define tactics as the controlling of different units to achieve battlefield results - its tactical nature). It seems the lower end of the RTT definition you, and other wikipedians, have defined is if the player actually fires the weapon then the game is no longer an RTT. A definition I agree with (my initial disagreement with FSW was an error of fact - I thought you did fire the weapons).
However, the second part of my question stills stands: has any reputable source made such a distinction? If so can it please be linked and this attribute of the definition be added. If this is not the case (ie nobody except Wikipedian's have made this distinction), then does any literature describe FSW (or a game like it) as an RTT? If not then the description of FSW (despite the fact we in this discussion now agree it is in fact an RTT) as an RTT is based on a/or many Wikipedian's intrepretations of primary source material (the game). This would then be original research and does not belong on Wikipedian. If, however, literature is extant that describes FSW (or a game like it) as an RTT then, since there is an absence of literature describing games such as Rogue Spear as an RTT and there is only one pertient difference (that the player actually fires the weapons) it is possible to derive the definition we have already reached without resorting to original research: the definition in this case would already have been created by example, we (the Wikipedian's) are simply ennunciating this definition.
If anybody is not thoroughly confused by what I've just said I commend them. I'm sorry for the format but I was working through the situation in my mind, and my mind is obtuse.
In a nutshell: creating a definition that includes FSW as an RTT when FSW (or a game like it) has never been described as a RTT is original work. If however, FSW (or a game like it) has been described as a RTT then ennunciating this definition is ennunciating somebody elses ideas. Inane Imp 09:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
As both Mikademus have suggested on different parts of this page, we are indeed looking at a continuum stretching from stylised RTS through to stylised FPS. Rainbox Six is one of the games that sits in the middle of the band. I said below that defining them would become an issue one day...I didn't think it would be so soon! :-p
I don't think that it is original research when you are looking at something purely factual (if it was, most of Wikipedia would be invalid). There isn't any interpretation going on here: FSW adheres to the given defenition, and on top of that there is an understood reason why it wasn't defined as RTT in the first place.--Tom Edwards 13:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
My issue is that once the definition was, effectively, 'any RTS in which production of units does not occur during battle'. This has then (logically) been expanded to include FSW; however, this expansion of the definition seemed to have only taken place under Wikipedian auspices. My argument is that this expansion of the definition, unless driven by external documents, is radical intrepretation by Wikipedians. Taking known facts (you do not fire a gun in FSW) and giving them meaning (this means it is a RTT) is intrepretaion unless somebody else has made that intellectual leap before, then we're merely applying somebody elses definition. (In this case my distinction between original and not-original research is the difference between creating a new definition (by adding a new and different example) and applying an old definition (by adding a new example of the same attributes).
That being said, the debate is now academic: I have just found | this a review by IGN desbribing FSW as "a strategy game, not a shooter. Don't think that you'll be going in and shooting the gun off yourself. This is strictly tactical, no action." Pending support, I'd suggest adding this quote to help describe the lower end of the sepctrum for RTTs. I am adding this reference to the FSW section anyway.
And thankyou everybody for a stimulating discussion, its allowed me to develope my views: I'm a little glad I didn't search for the reference until now. Inane Imp 01:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you looking at the Characteristics section when you summarise the defenition? Someone still needs to update the 'strapline' bit at the top. Either way, I must disagree with your example. While not directly controlling your units isn't enough on its own, it is one of the characteristics - that is fact. --Tom Edwards 17:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source?

This article has no sources of gaming magazines or other industry sources where the term "real-time tactics" is used. Ground Control, MechCommander, and Shogun were all marketed as "real time strategy." I've most often heard the term "tactics" in relation to squad-based (usually turn based) tactical games, like the X-Com series, which none of these games fall undeer. I think someone is trying to be pedantic and create a genre here, unless I can see some source where this genre has been mentioned by a notable game critic.


Also, the screenshots are excessive and go beyond the limits of fair use.


Night Gyr 03:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


I'll agree that some of the games cited as RTT are questionably or outright incorrectly classified, but the genre is not. MechCommander, Ground Control, and Close Combat (and perhaps other titles with which I'm not familiar) are distinctly tactically-based games. Ad hominem is unnecessary.
"...unless I can see some source where this genre has been mentioned by a notable game critic."
"Notable", of course, is subjective, but if Chris Taylor isn't enough for you, I don't know who would be.
"The first was my realizing that although we call this genre "Real-Time Strategy," it should have been called "Real-Time Tactics" with a dash of strategy thrown in." GameSpy
If you want more examples of "Real-Time Tactics" in use, Google can show you some.
As I mentioned previously, propagating an erroneous genre classification that is used by games retailers or similar entities for the sake of marketing purposes belies the actual classification of a particular game. As you can see on this page, Fallout Tactics is erroneously categorized as a strategy game for marketing purposes. Referring to squad-based tactical RPG as a "strategy" game is gross misclassification.
banzaimonkey 07:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, it's not Wikipedia's place to correct genre classifications that one or more editors consider erroneous – the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If the supermajority of primary sources (e.g, publisher promotional material) and notable third party sources (e.g., publications and retailers) use a particular genre classification, that is the classification we should use. --Muchness 08:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
In the interview you refer to, Chris Taylor is talking about games like Total Annihilation, which use the collect resources-build units-battle model that is conventionally thought of as RTS and commenting on the lack of real strategy in the genre. He's not separating out "real-time tactics" as a different label with new criteria. I googled before I posted my comment, and couldn't find a single use as a genre label by any game magazine or major website. Use quotes, because the terms are often used near each other, but rarely as a phrase. The only game I found referred to as real time tactics is Commandos 3, which fits the tactical label because it's a squad-level game. Night Gyr 16:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The RTT genre or term is not conjured form thin air, its been around for over a decade, albeit not as widespread as for instance RTS. I remember it being used heavily in Black Cactus' discussion forum under the development of their game Warrior Kings. Thus, game developers know of and use the term. The debate against this article, above, has a passionate and personal air to it. Mikademus 17:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a source that we can verify, or only your own recollection to go on? Night Gyr 17:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That site is of course gone with Black Cactus, though I might have a copy of a relevant thread stored. Though you sound like the kind of person that would accuse me of forgery. Now, don't act so confrontational and we might all get along better. Anyway, here are a few quick google links for you (just grabbed the top ones):

  • An article from 2004 on totalgamein.net called "Tactics Rule" where the author argues why RTT is a genre of its own (google cache since original source returns database error): [1]
  • XGR game review of an RTT game: [2]
  • Strategy Planet article talking about RTS/RTT games: [3]
  • Amazon review of a book about RTS game programming where the author is described as experienced in developing RTS and RTT games: [4]
  • A post at Enemy Territory discussing a game similar to RPG and RTT game features: [5]
  • An IGN article about definint RTS games explicitly excluding Rome: Total War as an RTS game and by describing RTT as an "emerging genre" (2nd page) represents even the inertia-ridden conservative press' acknowledgement of RTT as a term and genre: [6]

Really, it takes no effort exploring this, just read some RTS fora an you'll easily see that the term is deeply established and in live use as a distinction between two genres and to separate fundamentally different gameplay foci. For instance, here -->[7]<-- is a thread from GameReplay.org's site where fans debate whether the new World in Conflict game from Massive Entertainment is a RTS, RTT or a "Real Time Action" game. Even Massive Entertainment themseslves use the term "RTT"...

You would appear in a better light if you did your own research rather than just whine about what seems to be your personal grudge and expect other people to do your work. Removed "original research" tag. Mikademus 09:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm hardly whining, I'm just out to make sure that Wikipedia bases its information on what's actually in use rather than any personal biases of its editors. As posted before, I did my own research, and saw most of your hits come up on google. Three are forum threads (which I don't consider reliable, since they're not any sort of expert or authority). One is a passing mention without definition, one is a fansite written by a gamer, not a mainstream critic, and only one of those, the IGN column, actually has any weight.
I'm bothered by this article because even if the terms of the genre are clearly defined (which I haven't seen) for us to apply the label to games which their own makers didn't constitutes original research on our part. If a movie studio releases a comedy, and we feel the need to categorize it as a "screwball sex comedy" without reliance on a critic's opinion about the movie, we're doing our own research and projecting our own opinions to be the truth.
In my case, my personal definition of "tactical" means something entirely different from "you can't build shit" in a game, but this article claims its definition as gospel without citing a source, then applies it to a number of games that their publishers didn't apply it to themselves. Since that position's in dispute, the statements need support, and until we have the word of a critic to support it on all the games that the company didn't call RTT themselves, the tag is going back on. Night Gyr 17:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
You're mightily pompous, you know... Just to clarify that I'm not a gung-ho vanity editor, for the benefit of other readers I'd like to establish some personal credentials, though you (Night Gyr) probably couldn't care less, I've been playing video games since the late 70's and been involved in game development for close to 20 years. Now, with that out of the way; put simply, the term has been in wide --including internally among game developers-- if not popular use for around ten years in the same way as what would properly be called tragicomedies are generally called comedies for reasons of popular simplicity and marketing (which is a less than perfect example but will have to do since I'm dead tired; hopefully you'll try to get the point rather than pound on the obvious but misleading "subgenre" opening). It is not gamers nor developers who missapply terms but rather marketing, who use terms for mass marketability rather than accuracy, something often followed by the game press which most often lives in close symbiosis with "official" marketing. And correspondingly indenpendent media (web pages) tend to use categorical systems better reflecting actual contents and gamers' terminology. Interestingly, there is a long dissatisfaction with the oversimplified vanilla mass-genre system commonly found in the "traditional" press, which you seem to think about, and f.i. the magazine PC Gamer (at least in Sweden) generally nowadays refrain from using "RTS" in favour of simply "strategy" due to (1) the incorrectness of (over-)classifying many games as "RTS" while (2) avoiding to fall into genre multiplication hell. This has nothing -or everything, depending on definition- to do with the "verificability not truth" Wikiprinciple: the term exists, is recognised, and has been for a long time. In fact, as such, it is both verifyable and "true". F.i one of the articles above was from 2003, another from 2004. Wikipedia does not only document some selected individuals' definitions (where you place yourself as one with power to direct the definition of the ones with power to define) or we would need Bill Gate's seal of approval on the Microsoft article, but documents established terminology, concepts, subcultures, etc. You're pounding on the "established" bit, and seems to claim that established means that Electronic Arts use the term. Using Electronic Arts as the example is like Microsoft a marketing machine that angles to the mass market by terming for a common though traditional but erronious denominator, and since when has Wikipedia only covered the least common denominator? Wikipedia is the world's most complete encyclopedia, not the world's most market-reflecting. Further, if you believe the only difference between any strategy game and RTS games in particular and RTT games is that "you can't build shit" then it is your personal cognition, or lack of experience with actual games and gamer communities, that directs your disgruntledness and that myopia makes you simply disqualified from commenting on this article. Further, assuming the autocratic power to determine the suitability of tags over the consensus of the participants is presumtuous and very bad form. The tag should stay removed, at least pending further discussion and consensus, since a basic history has been established and at least some sources have been provided. Now try to be a good wikipedian and please wait for more opinions and consensus here before assuming too much again. Mikademus 21:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding {{not verified}} template

The references provided in the article do not adequately substantiate all of the claims in the article. There is no argument that this is an established genre (even Bungie's official Myth website uses the term); however, I'm concerned about passages like the following, which asserts an interpretation/POV without providing supporting references:

Real-time tactics games are often misnomerically denominated as "real-time strategy" (RTS) games. This is due to the prevalence of RTS titles and a popular predisposition to categorize virtually anything militarily angled from a bird's eye view as a "RTS" game (in fact, this goes for many other genres, too; SimCity, for instance, can be seen referred to as RTS, etc., due to the top-down camera angle), as well as due to the widespread confusion of the terms "tactical" and "strategic."

I've also removed a reference because as a forum post it did not meet WP's verifiability standards. --Muchness 23:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Restored the totalgaming.net post/article, but moved it to "see also" rather than references. I agree that claiming it as a reference is giving it too high a status. However, the article was fully independent and absolutely not self-published, no-one here is acting in any way but that of good wikipedians! As for tags, the current one is a more suitable one, the "own research" was little short of an outright ad hominem attack. Mikademus 10:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

How is a comment on the article an ad hominem attack? You stated that I was pompous, I said nothing about you as a person. I'm only commenting on the material in the article, not on any editor. As another note, personal credentials mean nothing on wikipedia, since the standards here are for articles to be based on verifiable sources that other users can check to ensure the accuracy of the material. Columns and articles constitutes sources, but "expert opinions" of editors themselves do not, and fall under WP:NOR. Night Gyr 03:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the forum post again; the See also appendix is intended for links to Wikipedia articles, and the link does not meet WP:RS and WP:EL guidelines so moving it to a refs or external links section is not appropriate. --Muchness 12:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots

Are all the screenshots really necessary? If so, we really need a new Myth II shot. It's being used as an example of a fantasy-based game, but the shot seems to show a Civil War mod. Ace of Sevens 23:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I rearranged the page, now there is only one representative example image per section, and an additional gallery section at the end of the article. Looks sleeker and better to me. Mikademus 08:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed a civil war mod. Go to www.getmyth.com - I know hosts personally and those pics are fine for you to use

(The Elfoid 21:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

Someone keeps adding these back and it's turned into a bit of an edit war. I don't see how a bunch of screenshots enhance a reader's understanding of the genre, which is the topic of the article. Ace of Sevens 22:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, one revert is not an edit war. I'm loath to quote wikipolicies since I'm against wikilawyering, but this article is nowhere near edit war territory. Anyway, the gallery doesn't detract from the article body, and is handy for the readers who do like illustrations. It also has descriptive value in itself since info about the RTT game style can be cleaned from them. Since removing them is a bold edit it'd be better if you discussed it on the talk page before, or took it to here in a less confrontational way after. Mikademus 22:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I did discuss it above. How is this fair use, though? Ace of Sevens 23:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The discussion above you refer to was about a previous situation where many screenshots were sprinkled through each section and led to a rehaul of the article, i.e. it applied to a different, earlier layout and situation. Further, this article has been a source of discussion at several fora I frequent and the present form is generally appreciated. Mikademus 23:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Under WP:FUC, it's not enough that the images not detract from the article. They must contribute significantly. Here, they certainly don't. They also don't fall under the clause that says to use as few copyrighted images as possible. Ace of Sevens 05:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the gallery should be removed. It violates Fair use. CG 10:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Historical settings

As those of you watching this page will have noticed, it's currently undergoing a hefty refit. One of the changes I'm considering is merging the Ancient and Medieval historical settings, Napoleonic settings and World War II settings into a single 'Historical settings' subheading. While the three are certainly distinct in terms of chronology, at a genre level they are very similar to one another. Any thoughts on this? --Tom Edwards 12:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the ancient and medieval merger is fine. However, the game styles of Napoleonic and WW2 games tend to be dramatically different, so they would probably be better served remaining as distinct headers, but with a bit more in-depth gameplay discussion. The existing Napoleonic games (SM:Gb, SM:An, Bull Run, Imperial Glory, etc) tend to focus much on regminetal cohesion, classical square-block representations of regiments, etc, while WW2 games like Close Combat or Sudden Strike have a less abstracted interface and smaller scales. Mikademus 14:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That's worth noting, but it isn't enough in my mind to justify seperate headings. This is supposed to be a high-level overview, so we need to keep things simple, and they are all simulating historic tactical conditions, despite the different scales. I just don't feel that it's a worthy distinction to make in this article.
Also, on your recent edit: it's now too specific in the first Characteristic heading. Futuristic RTTs (especially MechCommander) aren't realistic at all, and as the genre becomes more popular there will inevitably be more and more RTW-alikes. I've removed that bit (and replaced your f.i., whatever that stands for: e.g. is the more widely-recognised term). --Tom Edwards 15:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm making a few other changes. I've removed the reference to the Warhammer games in Characteristics, as Myth is enough. I've also de-specified your edit to the end of the first para to refer to gameplay mechanics rather than something epoch-specific. On acronyms, I feel that RTS is sensible so long as we clearly define it first. It's certainly silly to type it out every single time! :-) --Tom Edwards 16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you can do a good merger that will not deminish any of the categories discussed then by all means. About themilitary realism, well, I'd consider Ground Control as well as Mech Commander quite realistic, only speculatively so. Though we can't call neither fantastical nor sci-fi RTT's realistic per se (combat magic and particle projection cannons are rather rare in contemporary warfare) all RTT games are quite realistic given their settings, unlike RTS games where all pretense of any realism at all has been dropped. Mikademus 17:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The merge is complete. The only problem I ran into was the list of examples - it's too long now. You seem to know more about historical RTT than me...care to trim it down? :-) I'm trying to avoid stuff that doesn't or didn't push the genre forward with its release. --Tom Edwards 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you should really stop ripping on RTSes. Your biases are showing through. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing in the article that isn't grounded in fact. I'd suggest playing some RTTs and seeing for yourself. --Tom Edwards 09:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Please don't move my comment like that. It was a response to another comment, not a response to the article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy)
Oh, sorry. I'm sure you can understand the mistake. :-) --Tom Edwards 07:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the RTS comparisons into less focusing on RTS games in particular and more to strategy games in general. I tried to improve the NPOV significantly. This article is not to be an instance of the RTT>RTS/RTS>RTT debate. I elaborated on historical games and filled out important information omitted in the merger. To sidestep the issue with long lists I lifted out the lists in their entirety and placed them under a new header where I reinserted many (I hope all) of the excised exemplars. There are some games that lack year of release in the lists and I hope you can help provide these and sort the titles into the list. I hope these changes will be satisfactory to all parties. Mikademus 08:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

When discussing archetypes, how can one not mention command and conquer and warcraft? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.125.211.140 (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
C&C and Warcraft are real-time strategy games (not real-time tactics games) and discussed thoroughly under that article. Mikademus 22:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting fact

There used to be a fan-made Java front-end (called "Empire vs. Republic") for the RTS Homeworld that added a strategic layer to the game, whereby players could compete for domination over a playing field spanning an entire galaxy. Additionally, all resourcing operations were disabled in the real-time battle portions of the game so that players could focus on tactical engagements. By this definition, I think this "mod" would fit your ddefinition of a real-time tactics game. SharkD 04:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some more games

Here are some more games that might fit your genre: UFO: Afterlight, UFO: Aftermath, UFO: Aftershock, Brigade E5: Jagged Union, JAZZ: Hired Guns. SharkD 04:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/a/Talk%7EReal-time_tactics_1085.html"