Tactics=/=Strategy? O.o

I count Total War as RTS.
Considering you spend half the time in battles.

I haven't ever played a RTS. I'm just passing through. But why are strategy games like Advance Wars and Valkyria Chronicles considered Strategy RPG's with more emphasis on the RPG and less emphasis on the Strategy? I'd figure they'd have more to do with this genre than the other. Oh well. I'm gone. Carry on.

Strategy is long term planning. Tactics is short term decisioning. When you initiate a battle in Total War, each side is lined up (just like in the Amiga/Nes game "North & South". The majority of important decisions made in in "Total War" are made during the turn based phase of the game.

oh hell... between Age of Empires, the good ol' classic, and my still current fave Warcraft III rain of chaos and frozen throne....

dunno, AoE for the good ol' times, but warcraft III rain and frozen for the awesome custom stuff and RPG-Hybrid gameplay.

Real-Time Strategy Age of Empires, StarCraft, Warcraft, Dune, C&C etc.

Turn-Based Strategy Total War, Sid Meier's Civilization,

Real-Time Tactics Total War, Cossacks 2

Turn-Based Tactics Final Fantasy Tactics, X-Com UFO Defense, Steel Panthers: World at War!

These are all established genres.

IDK, it's a combination. For example, I can decide to pitch battles by simply marching halfway into the enemy territory, ravaging its lands. I do that because I want to fight on the place I have my army on (a hill, a bridge).

I can also decide to ambush enemies by luring them with a decoy army, while another larger army hides in the forest along the road, and boom.

Battles can last a very long time, and I find it more strategic and exciting to fight with what you're given (Your army, your reinforcments, and possibly your allies) as every loss counts. The calvary fight is crucial, and even more tense when you see you're losing it and you begin sending back up units to assist, finally your general.

It seems to be that you simply equate RTS=On field building (Starcraft, Halo RTS, etc), which I find to be bullshit. I don't think getting rid of the ability to poop out units from a building during the battle lessens the strategy or basic gameplay. The core gameplay is in the battlelines, formations, maneuvering, etc.

It doesn't simplify the game at all, but in fact, makes it harder. It's the perfect combination of real time and turn based. Your turn based actions have a large impact on the real time, and vice versa. You can't just decide to poop out units as you see fit, but decide how to allocate your troops (which brings in questions of borders, enemies, allies, etc).

Look, basicly I feel that Total War captures the feeling of war better. When you're ambushed with a halfbaked army, you really feel the pinch. When you lose that crucial unit, you feel the pinch. When you're starting to run out of units and money, you feel the pinch. When you're in a battle, you're focusing on defending your flanks, not about mining resources.

So baisicly fuck all of you who haven't voted for Total War, nyah nyah nyah >.<

/rant

(German Phalanx O.o)

There's emphasis on both. Neither are RTS because they aren't real time, though.

I liked Myth too, which stof brought up. Although the OP's definition has it as Real-time tactics. Who would've known they would have gone to create Halo, of all things?

... Not enough Blizzard love here! Poo.

.

Akvad, I read from your profile that you're 18 years old. Leave this issue to all of us who played games back in the 80's and 90's biatch!