STRATEGY GAMES: SIMULATION or BASEBUILDING DUMBING DOWN?

[hellenes]

It all started with Dune...
Strategy was equalised to small scale gang fights and childish basebuilding/resource collection...
With small tiny buildings same hight that the soldiers that they "produced", and with nice little peasants that collected with bare hands minerals and magically transformed them into soldiers...
With no flanking, manouvering or any trace of TACTICAL combat simulation in the encounters wich involved dumped down oversimplification through the use of the hit points system...
Woth no MORALE, CHARGE PHYSICS or any kind of massive combat system...
This lead to the establishment of the HOLY GRAIL of "RTS" games stating that all the above constituted complex tactical and military thought reagrdless its HUGE dependancy on click speed, shortcut memorising and build order memorising.
Hundreds of hours of "skills" development were spent developing so called "tactical strategic thought" which was nothing more than repetitious memorising of shortcuts and reflex development,
the "RTS" games were leaning to the FPS field...
Mature grown ups (20-30 years old) were so instilled in the dumped down mass phsychology that were unable to see the childish and dumped down nature of "RTS" franchise percieveing it as the pinnacle of strategic thought meaning that they almost had ( and some still have) the impression that Alexander the Great, Caesar or Hannibal were commanding gangs of 50-40 soldiers, had built a base and were collecting resources...
In the year 2000 all changed, a small company from the UK came to revolutionise the whole Strategic gaming field by introducing mass scale combat and Geopolitical interaction which came to be the strategy game of the year at GS:
SHOGUN TOTAL WAR
It introduced:
1.flanking and combat manouvering
2.Height advatage
3.Missile physics
4.Massive scuad based warfare
5.Weather effect
And most important abolished the basebuilding in real time while delivering state managment at a decent level...
However the lack of courage from the part of developers in stepping in the Multiplayer field put that first game aside from the rest of the more Multiplayer oriented genre.
MEDIEVAL TOTAL WAR
While not making a huge leap to its predesser it built up on SHOGUN's formula by introducing a decent level of Siege warfare but the third installment was the one that would make a decent breakthrough through the Stalmate that the "RTS" genre was let in...
At the year 2004 after 4 years in production Creative Assembly proudly presented the secodn stage of REVOLUTION in strategic gaming:
ROME TOTAL WAR
The new engine introduced a huge amount of physics and an incredible level of IMMERSION:
1. Charge physics, a truly amazing representation of the mounted warfare from the trumpling of the infantry to the riders falling from the horse.
2. Siege warfare. An incredibly immersive represantation of the ancient world in full 3d and with full scale, wall scaling, battlement warfare...
3. Missile physics, arrows bouncing over shields, the REVOLUTIONARY testudo formation, and the angle of missle shots playing a very important role.
4. AND THE MOST IMPORTANT FULL SCALE 3D BATTLES FEATURING FULLY POLYGONAL 10000 SOLDIERS!!!
With all that said the Achilles' heel of Total War remained: Multiplayer was treated again as a bastard child, the fear from the part of the developers into investing in Multiplayer all lead for the series to be in the closet of Single Player games without having the recognision and the popularity that it deserved.
With all that said, its amazing how DESPERATLY developers attach themselves to a pattern without any innovative moves:
Age of Empires III releases and the hype and expectations are raised very high, however what we get is some WOO factor graphics enhachememnt with NO sign of innovation...
The "RTS" genre is in stalmate and without a innovative sparcle it will remain that way...

Hellenes

[Sjakihata]

There was a lot other 'RTS' games before stw, that had morale etc, shoggy wasnt the first

[Geoffrey S]

It is what you want, but not necessarily what a majority of players want. Just as there are highly realistic shooting games (Swat 4, for instance) as opposed to the regular shooting games (Doom 3), some players want immersion and tactical credibility in their strategy games such as HOI2 whereas others place more emphasis on the 'game' side of things. It's a matter of tastes and what you want from a game, but it's hardly fair or reasonable to consider types of games you personally don't enjoy as 'dumbed down'; that does the developers and players a disservice.

[Mongoose]

STW the first good strategy game? ROFL. do your research before you post a thread like this

[hellenes]

STW the first good strategy game? ROFL. do your research before you post a thread like this

ROFL
Name me one strategy game featuring melee warfare thats closer to real battlefield than STW...
Ill wait...

Hellenes

[Mongoose]

ahh, except you didn't say "Melee" in the first post. And you said "first", not best. There were several good sid meiers games before STW that were real time amd had the effects you talked about. You can't say that STW was the fisrt RTS that involved tactics.


I agree with the your over all point though: Most RTS games are dumbed down compared to total war. Also, shogun was better then the games that came before it, but it still wan't the first.

[lugh]

Shadow of the Horned Rat was simialar combat wise anyway. Considering it was based on a tactical board game it only makes sense.

[Navaros]

I disagree with OP's assertion that Total War games have more strategy and tactics whereas according to him, Dune-style games do not.

Coming from the Dune-style game to M: TW, I actually am of the opinion that TW has less strategy involved than Dune-style games due to things like you getting slapped in the face for applying micro skills in TW. ie: In TW you get: "Your unit is now routing right off the map never to be seen again because it is dienheartened by 'constant retreat'". Exscuse me, I was using micro skills wisely, not 'disenheartening my unit'. I know the hardcore TW fans will come in and say "each key click is a shout from your General". That may well be, but that is aside from my point in that it lessens the availability of certain kinds of strategy and tactics as well as capping the skill level of players who are pros in them at a very low level; thus immorally putting lesser-skilled players on an even playing field that they are unworthy to be on.

Base building does indeed have it's benefits in some games too. Although I agree that using the status quo BO and rushing is a huge drawback to most RTS games.

It also seems the OP is over-simplifying the analysis of HP-based combat, by refusing to take into account different armor and weapon types that come into play. Not to mention "Rate of Fire", weapon range, and other considerations like that.

What I'm saying is that which type of game is better is a matter of preference; hence a definitive statement like that "TW is the Holy Grail of RTS" can not be made.

I agree that RTS games these days are not making any progress, and that companies criminally undervalue their multiplayer fans.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

TW != RTS.

It transcends that genre.

Even after the catastrophe that is Rome: Total War.

As a side note, hellenes, the phrase you want is "dumbing down," not "dumping down," I believe.

[hellenes]

I disagree with OP's assertion that Total War games have more strategy and tactics whereas according to him, Dune-style games do not.

Coming from the Dune-style game to M: TW, I actually am of the opinion that TW has less strategy involved than Dune-style games due to things like you getting slapped in the face for applying micro skills in TW. ie: In TW you get: "Your unit is now routing right off the map never to be seen again because it is dienheartened by 'constant retreat'". Exscuse me, I was using micro skills wisely, not 'disenheartening my unit'. I know the hardcore TW fans will come in and say "each key click is a shout from your General". That may well be, but that is aside from my point in that it lessens the availability of certain kinds of strategy and tactics as well as capping the skill level of players who are pros in them at a very low level; thus immorally putting lesser-skilled players on an even playing field that they are unworthy to be on.

Base building does indeed have it's benefits in some games too. Although I agree that using the status quo BO and rushing is a huge drawback to most RTS games.

It also seems the OP is over-simplifying the analysis of HP-based combat, by refusing to take into account different armor and weapon types that come into play. Not to mention "Rate of Fire", weapon range, and other considerations like that.

What I'm saying is that which type of game is better is a matter of preference; hence a definitive statement like that "TW is the Holy Grail of RTS" can not be made.

I agree that RTS games these days are not making any progress, and that companies criminally undervalue their multiplayer fans.

For the "Dumping down" sorry for a fast typo its just I cant edit the title Hope that a mod helps...
As I said in my OP "RTS" is overly simplified and raised artificially and through mass clic phsychology to the overcomplicated sophisticated tactical genre that it isnt...
Micro micro... The supposed "skill" of the clickfest that dominates most online "RTS"es...
An extract from my older post at the TWC:
"Resource collection, hmmm right whats the mania about it? Did any ancient/modern general bothered with economics or where the moneys coming from? Isnt it very nice and fun to have your little peasants gather some gold/wood/anything? If youre 12 or have been imposed a 12 years old's design... Why the TAXATION, the TROOP ACTUAL UPKEEP and trade economics are absent? Wait the genre is designed for 12 years olds...that explains all.

Hit points bar: Well its the rigid line between the TW (and some other wargames) and the RT"S" crowd. Simplified and utterly needed because of the overfocus on scirmish/gang fights of 20-50 INDIVIDUALS (my next point) looks IMO quite funny since we all know that people dont have green liquid in them (except maybe orcs?)...

Gang wars: Yep the scale of warfare is so extreme that its like looking on a globe with 50cm diameter and trying to find your home village of 200 residents. Now one may say that well 1 soldier represents 1000 but the question that arises is: why in TW series they achieved 1 soldier to represent just 10? Yes you control 20 UNITS but each soldier's experiense, and stats are calculated on indiviual basis and in that time the armies operated in units not just some UNORGANISED mob (in some cases they did but they werent armies-->Horde formation) and the scale in TW is dictated by hardware demands more than by developing it. While the gang wars RT"S"es put all their effort on woo graphics.

Morale: The garlic of the RT"S" vampires. All try to avoid it at all cost or compromise in a way (WH40k's excuse of a morale system the soldiers just losing some fighting abilities NOT fleening automatically). Why they do that? Is that strategy? AoEIII doesnt have it while we all know that morale was the BASIS of all warfare (spartan anyone?) and disciplined armies conquered the world.

Basebuilding: There are two exptremely simplified parts of the whole army creation: The scale. When the barracks that a soldier was supposed to be training in are the same height as he is its clearly shows the pattern and the target audience of such games (compare this
to this
The whole notion of building at the same scale and time scale as the "battles" unfold. We all know that the building construction takes MONTHS (if not years) and that the battles take minutes and hours, now its clear how this was simplified but if youre far from reality you cannot recreate strategic thought."
The bottom line is if one sees a good basebuilding "RTS" online player playing the game and a good TW online player (in a balanced battle) the difference is clear...

Hellenes

[lars573]

Hellenes you are trying to compare apples (RTS games) and oranges (TW). You can't make a fair comparison. TW is essenially a turn based stratedy game with real time battles. Now granted the big name developers of RTS games are doing nothing to advance the genre (EA, blizzard, microsoft) but the mid level and small RTS developers are trying to make original RTS games. Like 40k Dawn of war (the most oringinal RTS game in years), LOTR battle for middle earth, and Cossacks 2. Now all of these games have at least a basic morale system (and in the case of Cossacks a near TW level morale system) and much less resource collection. In all of them the resource collection involves capture and/or build something=cash. All use units that are more than one guy. But none of them are going to be TW, they all have elements lifted from TW and used to make their game stand out. But since TW is a TBS/RTS hybrid you have to actively ape it's style to have a game anyhting like it.

[hellenes]

Hellenes you are trying to compare apples (RTS games) and oranges (TW). You can't make a fair comparison. TW is essenially a turn based stratedy game with real time battles. Now granted the big name developers of RTS games are doing nothing to advance the genre (EA, blizzard, microsoft) but the mid level and small RTS developers are trying to make original RTS games. Like 40k Dawn of war (the most oringinal RTS game in years), LOTR battle for middle earth, and Cossacks 2. Now all of these games have at least a basic morale system (and in the case of Cossacks a near TW level morale system) and much less resource collection. In all of them the resource collection involves capture and/or build something=cash. All use units that are more than one guy. But none of them are going to be TW, they all have elements lifted from TW and used to make their game stand out. But since TW is a TBS/RTS hybrid you have to actively ape it's style to have a game anyhting like it.

Im not comparing anything Im merely stating the stalmate and the dumbed down nature of the whole "RTS" industry that FEARS innovation and change.
LOTR BFME was the greatest dissapoitment for me and many others, contrary to EA's hype FAKE pictures it didnt resemble even at 1% the scale of the movies, it didnt have even the camera to view the SKY!!! Its so called "emotion" system was morale as much as Im Santa...units just animated "fear" for a second and then BLINDLY obeyed and fought. That together with the tragic fact that they tried to make massive melee game on a tanks and gunwarfare engine (C&C Generals) showed how desperatly they grabbed on the same old formula.
40k Dawn of War is a decent gunpowder warfare game that is bound by the inability of scale due to the nature of modern warfare, however in doing what it does it achieved a decent level of immersion and tactics.
My point is that in Napoleonic and back era the Total War series are the only that can come close to simulate the scale of warfare and I hope that other developers (Pyro Imperial Glory) copy and enhanche that so the TW become the new Dune...

Hellenes

[lars573]

It won't be by design but it will probably in the end. Simply put RTS games getting more like a TW game is inevitable. Even the great and influencial AOE is using 5 man squads in it's thrid instalment. Reason is that the old CnC/Dune2 formula has been beaten to a pulp and any new idea is going to be a derivative of what CA though up 7 years ago.


Also BFME wasn't a dissapointment for me. I'm always expecting a developer to promise a BMW and deliver a Mini.

[hellenes]

It won't be by design but it will probably in the end. Simply put RTS games getting more like a TW game is inevitable. Even the great and influencial AOE is using 5 man squads in it's thrid instalment. Reason is that the old CnC/Dune2 formula has been beaten to a pulp and any new idea is going to be a derivative of what CA though up 7 years ago.


Also BFME wasn't a dissapointment for me. I'm always expecting a developer to promise a BMW and deliver a Mini.

I hope too but it wont happen too soon as long as CA treats Multiplayer as a bastard child...
AoE III as far as Im aware can group units and I believe it did it in the previus installment too the units have no flanks though and are produced as single man...So sad that Ensemble didnt dare to innovate...

Hellenes

[lars573]

Well speaking in terms of percentages people who try to play any kind of RTS game online are neither large enough to matter nor very vocal. Sure the hardest of hardcore fans of a stratedgy game always crow for more and better multiplayer, but hardcore players are a small miniority with little influence. I just wish they would learn that.

So sad that Ensemble didnt dare to innovate...

They couldn't afford to innovate in the game play. Just moving out of swords and bows combat lost them enough players as it is. People really don't like change mush, no matter how much they bitch for it. I mean look at RTW....

[Slyspy]

I would like to point out that TW games are not RTS games anyway. The strategy part is turnbased, only the tactical part is realtime. In your traditional RTS only the base-building is actually RTS. I do agree with Hellenes though, I find that kind of game extremely boring and childish. Buts thats just my opinion of course.

PS
I thought that Dune 2 was the first. Dune was an RPG IIRC. Which I probably don't.

[TinCow]

IMO the best tactical/strategy games are the Close Combat series. They blow away everything else, even the TW series, in their modeling of morale and reaction of troops during combat. Too bad the AI in the Close Combat games is even worse than in TW. :P

[ShadesWolf]

My ideal game would be Civ with a mixture of Total war battles.

[Navaros]

The bottom line is if one sees a good basebuilding "RTS" online player playing the game and a good TW online player (in a balanced battle) the difference is clear...

What difference is that, exactly? That the TWer is a smarter player? Is that your implication? Because that would not necessarily be the case.

I saw a very smart man, Mike "Pinball" Clemens, being asked a similar question. He's a very famous former CFL football player and now he's the coach or something of the Toronto Argonauts. He was asked: "if an NFL team played vs. a CFL team, who would win?"

His answer was something like: "It depends on who's game they are playing (because they are very different games, although both are football). If they are playing with NFL rules, then the NFL team would win. If they are playing with CFL rules, then the CFL team would win."

Like in this football example, the RTS principle is the same in TW and non-TW RTS games. Both types reward smart thinking and tactics, just not the same kind.

[hellenes]

What difference is that, exactly? That the TWer is a smarter player? Is that your implication? Because that would not necessarily be the case.

I saw a very smart man, Mike "Pinball" Clemens, being asked a similar question. He's a very famous former CFL football player and now he's the coach or something of the Toronto Argonauts. He was asked: "if an NFL team played vs. a CFL team, who would win?"

His answer was something like: "It depends on who's game they are playing (because they are very different games, although both are football). If they are playing with NFL rules, then the NFL team would win. If they are playing with CFL rules, then the CFL team would win."

Like in this football example, the RTS principle is the same in TW and non-TW RTS games. Both types reward smart thinking and tactics, just not the same kind.

I wish you had seen a REALLY good starcraft/aoe player playing...
The click speed and the shortcut build order memorising is outstanding...
I havent seen anyone memorising anything in TW series, while in battle.
Balance is an Issue but with a balanced game you see TACTICS on a very decent level something you cant see on a speed dependant and gang fighting genre as "RTS"...

Hellenes

[The Stranger]

AoE III is like RTW after a serie of succesful "innovative" games they produce the last of wich people expect the most and they just take out all the cool old parts replace it by cheap childish [rubbish] just to improve the playability for young kids and noobs leaving the vets in the shadow

what annoys me the most of AoE III

the fact that you can only make 2 teams
the smaller maps

BUT RTW IS WAY WORSE

to make it short its TOO EASY TOO FOR 5 YEAR OLD GAMER ORIENTATED

[AntiochusIII]

A rant thread?

Hmm....

Not really, just people expressing opinions in different levels of maturity.

It all started with Dune...

Dune 2.

AoE III is like RTW after a serie of succesful "innovative" games they produce the last of wich people expect the most and they just take out all the cool old parts replace it by cheap childish [rubbish] just to improve the playability for young kids and noobs leaving the vets in the shadow

what annoys me the most of AoE III

the fact that you can only make 2 teams
the smaller maps

BUT RTW IS WAY WORSE

to make it short its TOO EASY TOO FOR 5 YEAR OLD GAMER ORIENTATED

Do you have BI?

It's hard for me.

Then again, I suck at even RTS. Ha! I mean, I just got beaten by the A.I. in Warcraft III again last night!

It is true that AOE III doesn't appeal to me in the least. If I want guns I'd go for Cossacks (a very high potential there, IMO) or its successor. I want swords, dammit, gimme back my swords! It's just that there are such huge difference in tactics between melee and ranged fighting. In fact, I might even refuse to buy another Total War if the next game is in the gun-dominated period...

So this statement is rather true:

Just moving out of swords and bows combat lost them enough players as it is.

Mature grown ups (20-30 years old) were so instilled in the dumped down mass phsychology that were unable to see the childish and dumped down nature of "RTS" franchise percieveing it as the pinnacle of strategic thought meaning that they almost had ( and some still have) the impression that Alexander the Great, Caesar or Hannibal were commanding gangs of 50-40 soldiers, had built a base and were collecting resources...

There are different tastes at gaming. And I have yet to see an AOE player proclaiming themselves as the new Alexander the Great for beating the A.I. single-handedly. Besides, games are, good sir, games. We play for fun. You are disturbed by the simplification of it all; fine, you do not play those kind of games, then, and perhaps send a friendly "compliment" letter or two to Creative Assembly for creating the games you love if you wish to be a little more active. Shall we remove the entire Elder Scrolls series due to it being not in history at all? Shall we, the gods forbid, boycott Civilization due to its simplification of history? After all, ONE unit there represent entire armies of the world.

One might argue that the big battles of history are just tactically managed large-scale glorified gang wars.

My ideal game would be Civ with a mixture of Total war battles.

Not for me. I don't like the scope offered in Civilization to be played out in battles; in other words, I don't want my redcoats to be faced by enemy panzers, or such. Also, Civ is rather well-balanced as it is, but the battles in the TW form would be repetitive and boring due to the small amount of units available in each era. And going more complex would cost Civ of its taste. But we all have different opinions...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, TW isn't even RTS. It's Turn-based Strategy+Real-time Tactical Battles. See the difference?

And TW has its flaws, and I don't mean design flaws, but "flaws" in the foundation concept: such as the lack of immersing storyline (well, it's create-your-own-history game, isn't it?), of likable characters (Prince Arthas of Lordaeron comes to mind. Oh, isn't he cool? He's even cooler on the Dark Side.), of micromanagement (which RTS is all about) and such. But I guess flaws isn't the right word, more like the + and - of each genre.

Why, the RTS genre isn't as stagnant as it seems to be. There's always a massive amount of junks that are forgotten overtime in this highly popular genre. Also, the recent AOE III isn't as great as it should've been doesn't mean the entire genre is dying. Far from it. Cossacks II tries a lot of things, but the Cossacks series is always rather unique. In fact, games don't even have to be THAT innovative to be great. See Warcraft III and its expansion. They are one of the best single player campaigns I've ever played in my life. And the multiplayer is enjoyable enough against real players. What does Warcraft III add to the genre? Some new shiny graphics, the hero system, 4 factions of extreme difference (but still well-balanced), and that's probably it.

Oh, hellenes, you might want to look into the original Cossacks. The fighting scale there might be more suited to you if you still wish to poke a finger on the genre. One unit can fight, but formations include from small (30+) squads to huge lines (170+) for each formation "box." And battle lines are made up of much more than one "box." Resource collection is also less about rushing the gold mines, because all resources are permanent. Consider them strategic locations.

[Husar]

I think I can agree with most of what Antiochus said. Especially Cossacks was my only favorite by the time it was released, though the AI is not THAT good(I think they made it worse with patches, while adressing other serious issues). Well, Cossacks 2 was a disappointment to me, lots of clicking, rushing and mass slaughter of formations. I can also recommend American Conquest, which is kind of between Cossacks and Cossacks 2(same developer as well), it was lots of fun when I played it online and formations were used by almost everybody.

[hellenes]

AoE III is like RTW after a serie of succesful "innovative" games they produce the last of wich people expect the most and they just take out all the cool old parts replace it by cheap childish [rubbish] just to improve the playability for young kids and noobs leaving the vets in the shadow

what annoys me the most of AoE III

the fact that you can only make 2 teams
the smaller maps

BUT RTW IS WAY WORSE

to make it short its TOO EASY TOO FOR 5 YEAR OLD GAMER ORIENTATED

RTW is closer to ancient battlefield that ANY game out there or any game that existed...
The EASY is due to the (as I stated in my OP) treatment of MP as bastard child by the CA...
They dont want to invest in the MP field because they percieve the challenge level of RTW as adequate...
Antiochus
The skill requirement of a game online or offline shows how deep it is, I said before and I stand by my statement that basebuilding REAL time "strategy" games are SO dependant on the CLICK speed that they step into the FPS reflex demands field, and so dependant on memorising that they end up just a series of memory tests and speed tests...
Also my point on the oversimplification was that this outrageously dumbed down attempt to come ever near a battlefield (like a medieval battlefield in AoEII) is analysed and studied so scrutinously and throughrouly that gives the impression of some serious thought involved in a simulation game, is a basebuilding "RTS" game so deep as the hardcore MASTERS percieve it to be?
The presence of little peasant gathering resources, the gang fights with the dumbed down hit points bar over them and the total absence of flanking/manouvering/moral/fatigue/height parameters all in a tiny toy scale universe dont look so deep and (I dare to say mature) to me...
But the marketing department toghether with mass pshychology and the natural resistance of people to change all have lead to a desparate clining to the past...

Hellenes

[Geoffrey S]

I wish you had seen a REALLY good starcraft/aoe player playing...
The click speed and the shortcut build order memorising is outstanding...
I havent seen anyone memorising anything in TW series, while in battle.
Balance is an Issue but with a balanced game you see TACTICS on a very decent level something you cant see on a speed dependant and gang fighting genre as "RTS"...

I've seen heavy cavalry/horse archer spamming.

[hellenes]

I've seen heavy cavalry/horse archer spamming.

Thats my POINT...
Starcraft has a decent level of balance but its the whole dune2 clone thing that plagues it and attaches it to the whole memrising fast click thing...
RTW has serious antimultiplayer developers who dont care so much about balance and its reflected in the game...however there is NO GENRE mechanical pattern...with 5 cav max and a decent tweaking RTW leaves NO place for repetitive patterns and boring memorising because the variables are NOT so speed dependable thats why in basebuilding "RTS"es the "AI" looks so better than the RTW "AI" its because of speed...
Try this mod:
http://www.stratcommandcenter.com/fo...showtopic=9939
RTW needs just attention and stats tweaking not philosophy change...

Hellenes

[The Wizard]

Besides all points made... was RTW realistic? In any kind of way? No.

[hellenes]

Besides all points made... was RTW realistic? In any kind of way? No.

Well:
1. squad based units featuring a close representation of ancient units.
2. Cavalry physics charging trampling men, falling off the horse etc.
3. Arrows bouncing off the shields, highest lethality if shot from the left (no shield) and back...
4. A VERY impressive testudo formation
5. Chariot physics of destruction wheels getting separated etc.
6. Elephant charges and physics.
7. Horse Archers shooting on the move catabrian circle, a leap in coding since its NEVER done in any game at such scale.
8. The only fact of FULLY polygonal 38000 men on the field.
9. Phalanx formation featuring PIKES that really exist in the enviroment and not mere number calculations (like ordinary spears).
If we put the engine at comparison to reality its not accurate...but if we compare it to other games...you get the picture.
Its not that RTW is running the realism marathon alone, even if it doesnt make it to the perfect end its still falls fAR ahead to its competitors...(if there are any)...

Hellenes

[Navaros]

Thats my POINT...
Starcraft has a decent level of balance but its the whole dune2 clone thing that plagues it and attaches it to the whole memrising fast click thing...

Calling something a Dune 2 clone is a compliment, not an insult. Dune 2 is a great game, as have been all 3 Dune RTS games.

Fast clicking is a legitimate skill that should be respected. Granted, if a game is based entirely on that, then it would not be a good game. However, in any good RTS game in which fast clicking is rewarded, it's a lot more complicated than just fast clicking. One has to choose what to click first and what exactly to do with that unit (ie: use a special ability, retreat, attack a specific enemy unit, move into a better tactical position, charge in as a suicide meatshield etc. etc.). The ability to decide these things quickly, and for multiple different units in the matter of a few seconds certainly requires much tactical thought.

The ability to execute these commands fast via fast clicks demonstrates a unison between mind and body. In a real life battle, if you don't swing your sword/shoot your gun/throw your grenade fast, then your enemy is going to kill you precisely because he did do his part faster than you. Therefore fast clicking is also a realistic reflection of real-life combat.

[The Wizard]

Well...

1. Horrendously overpowered cavalry. Could charge straight through pike formations while taking them frontally. Besides that, incorrect proportional distribution of cav power (equites equal to hetairoi due to charge bonus mistake).
2. Completely inaccurate pike units. No two-handed grip, and little in the way of realistic pike combat (i.e. concentration on staying rather than killing power).
3. Completely inaccurate hoplites. Not only anachronistic but simply inaccurately depicted.
4. Sieging was also horrendously inaccurate. I mean, torsion catapults with the capability to break walls? What? Rams were the breakers of walls back in the day; catapults and the like were for sweeping the battlements of defenders.
5. Little in the way of terrain. Where were my uphill struggles in the streaming rain with nothing but a couple of chivalric sergeants and hobilars to fight with? Instead I got 'militia hoplites' (bare-chested; go figure) to fight with on perpetually flat territory, even passing supposed mountains.
6. Elephtans were realistic how? In reality they were scaring, not killing, machines. In RTW's little dream, they tramped through everything, also killing it. No, I don't care that perhaps the percentage of wounded were higher in a battle, because it still doesn't mean jack [snip], I'll have lost to nothing anyways, a few healed suckers won't help anything.
7. Chariots were realistic; how? Anachronistic as so many things in the game; that is more than obvious. Horribly over-effective as well.
8. These animations of yours, how were these realistic? Oh, yeah, it was swell to see some men flying around in a cav charge, but when a horse dies, does his rider become infantry? When a rider dies, do you see riderless horses? Is the chariot destruction animation a real-time rendering which is always different, or always the same? That's right. Nothing but graphical scripts. Old news.
9. The monstrosity called 'Egypt'. I don't think I have to elaborate on that one.
10. The screw-over that was the tactical system. Cavalry in a role they never possessed, elephants idem dito, chariots once again idem dito, all infantry running at impossible speeds -- same goes for cav -- and I can go on for a while like this.

Suffice to say, RTW was not realistic in any way. It claimed to be, but it wasn't. Sorry, but I don't really get thrilled by a 'realistic tactical experience of the Ancient Age' which is neither realistic, nor tactical.

And this is just the tactical side of things; the strategic map was a great premise, like the tactical part, but was hampered by the same dumb inaccuracies as well as an AI directly imported from MTW, which could not cope with the new environment.

Ah, RTW. So much promise -- so little work.