STRATEGY GAMES: SIMULATION or BASEBUILDING DUMBING DOWN?

[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.