|Part of a series on|
|Strategy video games|
Real-time tactics (RTT) 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 classic resource micromanagement and base or unit building, as well as the greater importance of individual units and a focus on complex battlefield tactics.
Typical real-time strategy titles encourage the player to focus on logistics and production as much as or more than combat, whereas real-time tactics games commonly do not feature resource-gathering, production, base-building or economic management, instead focusing on tactical and operational aspects of warfare such as unit formations or the exploitation of terrain for tactical advantage. Real-time tactical gameplay is also characterized by the expectation of players to complete their tasks using only the combat forces provided to them, and usually by the provision of a realistic (or at least believable) representation of military tactics and operations.
This contrasts with other current strategy game genres. For instance, in large-scale turn-based strategy games battles are generally abstracted and the gameplay close to that of related board games. Real-time strategy games de-emphasize realism and focus on the collection and conversion of resources into production capacities which manufacture combat units thereafter used in generally highly stylized confrontations. In contrast, real-time tactics games' military tactical and realistic focus and comparatively short risk/reward cycle usually provide a distinctly more immediate, intense and accessible experience of battlefield tactics and mêlée than strategy games of other genres.
As suggested by the genre's name, also fundamental to real-time tactics is real-time gameplay. The genre has its roots in tactical and miniature wargaming, where battle scenarios are recreated using miniatures or even simple paper chits. These board and table-top games were out of necessity turn-based. Only with computer support was turn-based play and strategy successfully transposed into real-time. Turn-based strategy and turn-based tactics were obvious first candidates for computer implementation; but as computer implementation eventually allowed for ever more complex rule sets, some games became less timeslice-focused and more continuous until eventually "real-time" play was achieved.
While some publications do refer to "RTT" as a distinct subgenre of real-time strategy or strategy, not all publications do so. Further, precise terminology is inconsistent. Nonetheless, efforts have been made to distinguish RTT games from RTSs. For instance, GameSpy described Axis & Allies (the 2004 video game) as a "true RTS", but with a high level of military realism with such features as battlefield command organization and supply lines. A developer for Close Combat said their game never aspired to be an RTS in the "classic sense", but was rather a "real time tactical simulation", lacking such features as resource collection. A developer of Nexus: The Jupiter Incident remarked on his game being called a "tactical fleet simulator" rather than a "traditional RTS", citing its focus on tactical gameplay and fixed units at the start of each mission.
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. 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.
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. 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." Taylor then went on to say that his own game featured added elements of a broader strategic level.
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.
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. 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.
Further information: Chronology of real-time tactics video games
Wargaming with items or figurines representing soldiers or units for training or entertainment has been common for as long as organised conflicts. Chess, for example, is based on essentialised battlefield movements of medieval unit types and, beyond its entertainment value, is intended to instill in players a rudimentary sense of tactical considerations. Today, miniature wargaming, where players mount armies of miniature figurines to battle each other, has become popular (e.g., Warhammer Fantasy Battle and Warhammer 40000). Though similar to conventional modern board wargames (e.g. Axis & Allies), in the sense of simulating war and being turn-based, the rules for miniature wargames tend to lean heavily towards the minutiae of military combat rather than anything at a strategic scale.
Though popular as table-top games, tactical wargames were relatively late in coming to computers, largely due to game mechanics calling for large numbers of units and individual soldiers, as well as advanced rules that would have required hardware capacities and interface designs beyond the capabilities of older hardware and software. Since most established rule sets were for turn-based table-top games, the conceptual leap to translate these categories to real time was also a problem that needed to be overcome.
Avalon Hill's 1982 release Legionaire for the Atari 8-bit was a real-time wargame of Romans versus Barbarians with game play reminiscent of the current real-time tactics template, called by one review a "real-time simulation of tactical combat". Likewise, Free Fall Associates' 1983 title Archon can be considered an early real-time tactics game, built upon Chess but including real-time battle sequences. Archon was highly influential, and, for instance, Silicon Knights, Inc.'s 1994 game Dark Legions was virtually identical to it, adding only to Archon's concept that the player, as in many table-top wargames, purchases his army before committing to battle. Drakkhen (1989) was noteworthy for combining the genre with RPG gameplay. Drakkhen allowed the player to micromanage four specialized fantasy units in a 3D battlefield during each random encounter. Another predecessor was Bits of Magic's Centurion: Defender of Rome (published for the PC by Electronic Arts in 1990), in which, similar to the recent Rome: Total War game, the game took place on a strategic map interspersed by battle sequences. However, though the battles were in real-time they were of small scope and player interaction was limited to deciding the initial troop disposition. Lords of the Realm, released in 1994 by Impressions Games, introduced real-time control of these real-time battles.
Around 1995, computer hardware and developer support systems had developed enough to facilitate the requirements of large-scale real-time tactical games. It was in 1995 that the regimentally focused wargame Warhammer: Shadow of the Horned Rat was released, groundbreaking not only in that it focused purely on the operational aspects of combat (with all aspects pertaining: regimental manoeuvring and formations, support tactics, terrain, etc.), nor only in that it was entirely real-time, but also that it introduced zoomable and rotatable 3D terrain. In 1997 Firaxis Games' released Sid Meier's Gettysburg!, a detailed and faithful recreation of some of the most significant battles of the American Civil War that introduced large scale tactical battlefield command using 3D.
Released in 1996 by Atomic Games, the Close Combat series is a simulation of squad- and platoon-type World War II combat tactics which introduced a higher degree of operational realism than seen before. Combat Mission went even further in this regard. Further, as Warhammer: Shadow of the Horned Rat was a translation of the Warhammer Fantasy Battle table-top system, so was 1998's FASA Studios' MechCommander a translation of the BattleTech boardgame into a 2D computer game format.
In 1997, Bungie released Myth: The Fallen Lords, which introduced radically larger battlefields than ever before and included a realistic (at the time) physics engine. In 2000, Creative Assembly created Shogun: Total War, taking map sizes to even greater levels, as well as introducing historical and tactical realism until then unheard of in real-time computer games. Ground Control was also released in 2000, gaining much attention for its luscious visuals but earning developers Massive Entertainment few sales. In 2007, World in Conflict was also released by Massive Entertainment.
The 2000s (decade) saw a number of tactical simulations developed in Eastern Europe. Examples include real-time tactics titles such as those belonging to the Blitzkrieg, Sudden Strike and UFO (not to be confused with UFO: Enemy Unknown by MicroProse) series; as well as stand-alone titles like Nexus: The Jupiter Incident, Joint Task Force, and Codename: Panzers.
Real-time tactics games with historical or contemporary settings generally try to recreate the tactical environment of their selected period, the most common eras and situations being the World War II, Napoleonic warfare or ancient warfare. Numerically they make up the bulk of the genre.
While the degree of realism is uniform, the scale of command and precise mechanics differ radically according to the period setting in keeping with the tactics of that period. So for instance, titles set in the Napoleonic Wars are often played at a company or battalion level, with players controlling groups of sometimes hundreds of soldiers as a single unit, whereas recreations of modern conflicts (such as the Iraq War) tend to offer control down to squad or even individual level.
While most fantasy titles bear some resemblance to a historical period (usually medieval), they also incorporate fictional creatures, areas, and/or magic, and are limited by few historical constraints.
The leading High Fantasy real-time tactics games belong to the Warhammer Fantasy Battle series.
Games set in the future and combining elements of science fiction obviously are not constrained by historical accuracy or even the limitations of current technology and physics. Developers thus have a freer hand in determining a game's backstory and setting. Games that are set in outer space can also add a third, vertical movement axis, thereby freeing up new tactical dimensions.
While A&A will be a true RTS, rather than the real-time tactical gameplay along the lines of Blitzkrieg or Sudden Strike, the game should rely on a lot of actual military doctrine, including battlefield command organization and supply lines.
The overall tone emphasized realism, and modeled the emotional state of the units under your command, including panic, desertion, and surrender. Close Combat was never an RTS in the classic sense since resource gathering and other typical factors played no part in the game. Close Combat was far more of a tactical simulation and would be better described as a RTTS (Real Time Tactical Simulation).
Nexus is not a traditional RTS. It has no resource collection, the player cannot build units and there is no research tree. Nexus' focus is on the tactical elements of the gameplay. So you are given a number of ships at the start of a mission with which you will have to achieve your objectives. Nexus is often called a 'Tactical Fleet Simulator'.
The 1980s were arguably the heyday of the turn-based game. Computers then were powerful enough to produce quality turn-based games that were fairly deep and complex, but those same computers didn't have the power to run those games in real-time. Oh, we had our action games and even somewhat complex flight sims, but major strategy games and RPGs? How could a computer handle all that, plus the interface necessary? Nevermind the players who would be overloaded with information. No - that was out of the question... at the time. ... [M]any a hardcore war-gamer ... hang on tenaciously to their turn-based, highly detailed and completely micromanaged turn-based classics. ... These war-games don't translate well to a real-time format