Copy pasting from Wikipedia's article on Real Time Tactics:
"Real-time tactics or RTT[1] is a subgenre of tactical wargames played in real-time simulating the considerations and circumstances of operational warfare and military tactics. It is differentiated from real-time strategy gameplay by the lack of resource micromanagement and base or unit building, as well as the greater importance of individual units[1][2] and a focus on complex battlefield tactics.
...
Comparison with real-time strategy
In general terms, military strategy refers to the use of a broad arsenal of weapons including diplomatic, informational, military, and economic resources, whereas military tactics is more concerned with short-term goals such as winning an individual battle.[12] In the context of strategy video games, however, the difference often comes down to the more limited criteria of either a presence or absence of base building and unit production.[citation needed]
Real-time strategy games have been criticized for an overabundance of tactical considerations when compared to the amount of strategic gameplay found in such games.[citation needed] According to Chris Taylor, lead designer of Supreme Commander, "[My first attempt at visualizing RTSs in a fresh and interesting new way] 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."[13] Taylor then went on to say that his own game featured added elements of a broader strategic level.[13]
In an article for Gamespy, Mark Walker said that developers need to begin looking outside the genre for new ideas in order for strategy games to continue to be successful in the future.[12]
In an article for Gamasutra, Nathan Toronto criticizes real-time strategy games for too often having only one valid means of victory—attrition—comparing them unfavorably to real-time tactics games. According to Toronto, players' awareness that their only way to win is militarily makes them unlikely to respond to gestures of diplomacy; the result being that the winner of a real-time strategy game is too often the best tactician rather than the best strategist.[14] Troy Goodfellow counters this by saying that the problem is not that real-time strategy games are lacking in strategic elements (he calls attrition a form of strategy); rather, it is that they too often rely upon the same strategy: produce faster than you consume. He also says that building and managing armies is the conventional definition of real-time strategy, and that it is unfair to make comparisons with other genres when they break convention.[15]
I rented (I'm thinking about buying it now, if my computer can run it) Full Spectrum Warrior for 2-3 days when I was a teenager, and fell in love with it. The few hours I played of that game shaped how I played FPSs. I consider where my team mates are, where the enemy are (I imagine them in "collumns"), then I simply attempt to hit the enemy "collumns" from the side or back.
I'm not a good tactician atall. I suck balls at Rome: Total War online (my wireless isn't good enough to play it at my home PC, only at my university when I go back there at fall).
However, I absolutely love tactics and hate strategy. I hate strategy, or at least video game strategy, the same way I don't like a lot of RPGs (especially Japanese). They're just not intuitive, they're not relatable to the real world, they're not common sense, etc. The strategies always feel unique and specific to the game. I need to become specialize and know X game's nuances in order to master them, rather than simply having good common sense.
A game like Total War and Full Spectrum warrior are intuitive to me. Don't get caught out in the open in a bad spot, try to out maneuver the enemy, etc.
In FPSs and TPSs it feels the same. Don't get outnumbered, stay to your cover, try to avoid face to face confrontation, etc.
====================================================
I feel that the best thing is for a game to do is to seperate the Strategy aspect from the Tactical aspect like Total War does. You do diplomacy to avoid wars, start wars, etc. You build your economy to fund your military and invest in technology. You maneuver your army to stay away from enemies, to get a good fighting ground, etc.
However, once you're in the battle itself, you only worry about the battle, not production, not economy, notdiplomacy, etc. Once you are in a battle, you are simply a warrior.
The perfect blend of strategy and tactics should reflect the Second Punic War. You have Hannibal who managed to win victories with brilliant tactics, and prolong the war as long as he could with logisitcs and strategy. But ultimately, Hannibal couldn't win when his strategy was compromised by the polticians back at home. You need to have good strategy accompanying good tactics.
... yeah so that's my disorganized rant. What do you guys prefer? Tactics or Strategy?
