Ramblings 008

Why I Find Turn Based Strategy Superior To RTS

My first introduction to turn-based war games was the first Battle Isle for Windows 3.1. Fabulous introduction to the genre. This was followed by Desert Commander for the NES. Then there was Nectaris, another overlooked masterpiece on the PS. But then RTS reared its ugly head. I valiantly tried to apply any semblance of strategy to Command and Conquer games but to no avail. Categorized chaos. Read some walkthroughs for most any RTS game and you'll get my perspective. "In the first 30 seconds you must start building 3 plants, a factory and an uber generator. The next three seconds ONLY build shock troopers and a snow sniper. Drag your tanks to the bridge by 1:15 or start the mission over." What the ****? Build build build resources gather gather build build game over.

First of all, Command & Conquer Generals is an obnoxious oxymoron of the highest caliber. Even as far back as the Han dynasty, military advisors and generals thought out their strategies over a period of time using intel from scouts and messengers providing enemy position, number, supply routes, etc... Decisions could take a week or so even after receiving the info. And in today's military, military strategists on either side would not make hasty decisions, relaying orders to their troops over a walkie talky. The level of strategy present in war video games divebombs in officer ranking equivalent from general to sergeant as soon as it becomes an RTS. And for god's sake, why must I research technology and build cities in the middle of these RTS missions, which are the equivalent of mere skirmishes? If I wanted to play Sim City I'd fire it up.

I understand RTS games have their merits, but to all the wargame buffs who've been around playing them for more than two decades, I ask you this - do you want to be a general or a sergeant? I know which rank I'd prefer.