Basebuilding is only one part of strategic gameplay. There's also resource collection, holding choke points, choosing to ignore or attack enemies and much more (and these can be accomplished without building bases).

But basebuilding is a significant part of strategic gameplay when it is present in games (just not all of it).

I would be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't like base building but likes elements of strategy like resource collection, holding choke points and choosing to ignore or attack enemies. Base building shares a lot of the decision making and thought processes involved in the above things you mentioned like optimization and on-the-fly analysis.

Two words: Europa Universalis. Now THAT is actual strategy.

Seriously, all you guys need to get out there and play more games than just Starcraft, C&C and Dawn of War 2, your views on the RTS genre as a whole are badly out of shape.

I find it funny that the Myth and Homeworld series' were brought up as examples of strategy/tactics with no base building, but no one throws out an example of pure base building, such as Evil Genius or Black & White (at least to some degree). Those games were greatly entertaining, with little to no control of the smaller units roaming about. Sure, you had your immediate henchman or beast under your control, but that's it.

I think the problem with RTS games is that they are all lumped together. SupCom is not StarCraft which is not Myth. Each of these fit on a slightly different plane, which can usually be broken down to the above terms: strategy or tactics. I think if critics, publishers, and players were clearer about this when promoting a given game, I think fewer people would try games they might otherwise know they will dislike. I recently spoke to someone who thought SoaSE sounded like it would be similar to Homeworld 2, which leads me to believe that RTS games need more distinction of classes.

And personally, I am fine with base building, but am not enthused by your average building (StarCraft) and prefer to have something complex (SupCom) or none at all (Myth). This discounts base building in an environment which breeds stress by crossing genres (Battlezone).

Holding choke points and choosing when to engage is tactics, not strategy. Choosing how to spend the resources collected is strategy.

Let me use Starcraft 2 as an example of this. Strategy in Starcraft 2 is building your building in a certain order that will allow you to have cloaked flying units as fast possible, but once you build them managing them and choosing their direction and targets is tactics.

I would really like to know how does SupCom have more complex base building? It has larger maps that will allow you (and ask you) to build more buildings, but I do not see how that makes it more complex.

Alright then, let me present my definition. Strategy is planning for a war, and tactics is executing engagements. In that sense, holding a chokepoint is very much a strategic decision because it affects not only the next particular engagement but all the possible engagements that can and cannot happen because of it. I may be cutting my enemy off from the rest of the map, for example, and thus it represents a strategic decision rather than a tactical decision. A tactical decision would be primarily deciding which enemy unit to attack in a particular engagement, what abilities to use, and when to retreat or move to more beneficial terrain (for that particular engagement).

I would absolutely say that it is strategy, for example, to split my fighting army into two or three groups and use one to bait the enemy while striking his base with my other groups. Likewise, I consider it a strategic decision to focus on denying my enemy his resource production capabilities.

Edit: I believe the terms micro and macro can be used here. Micro would be tactics, macro would be strategy.

Yeah you're right, they're not the same. Anyway, I think now that you understand how I see tactics/strategy, you can understand why I see basebuilding as a part of - but not all of - strategy in rts games. It's a point of view, of course, but then what isn't.

In my case, I didn't bring up "Genius" or "Black&White" because I've never actually heard of them.

But I do agree; RTS games need to be delineated as to which ones are oriented a particular way.

Base-building wise, it's one of those things that's a "depends on the game" for me. While I haven't played the full SupCom game, the demo gave me the impression of having to carefully think out and plan a base (which I actually admit to having fun doing), while DoW2 and especially HW1&2 focus you on the execution of operations against the enemy player.

Any of you guys played any of the battlefront.com games?  Such as combat mission, theatre of war, etc?  They are all about tactics, and none about base building.  Very interesting games.  I personally love combat mission, for its unique gameplay style, and attention to detail.

I disagree; DoW2 isn't a terrible tactical game at all. You have to take it all into consideration. DoW2 stripped out almost all base-building, and, yes, it does orient around arbitrary VPs. But that doesn't make it terrible.

Different units do different jobs, and the requirements of ranged&melee units to work in concert means that you have to not only have a good mix of units, but also a good tactical plan. Just spamming 'the best' unit is a sure way to lose in DoW2 multiplayer, and I understand that even though I've never played DoW2 multiplayer.

SupCom (1, not 2) has fewer production buildings, that is true. But there are more defensive structures, the ability to construct stationary artillery, necessary equipment such as radar, building upgrades, and buildings have different traits based on what is built in conjunction to what.  It is more complex. There's no better/worse judgement attached to that.

Well, I just figured to add them to the list. I was surprised others didn't toss them in, but that is an issue with any debate (as was previously stated by another). The debate is always limited (maybe even hindered?) by the experiences of the debaters.

And thank you for the recognition of that point.

If I remember correctly all sides in SupCom have almost same buildings and units. And they all work the same way with VERY similar capabilities.

Yes, you got a bigger overall number of different buildings but that does not make the game more complex in a positive sense. I played SupCom1 (as well as TA) and all the building management was more a chore then anything else (and the point of the game was to eventually get to top level). Starcraft 2 building management on the other hand is not. With 3 sides all very different from each other there are so many more combination in each game then SupCom. And you do not need top level to win even on bigger maps and longer games.