The only real-time 4X game I ever played and heard of was Pax Imperia way back in 1994 and 1997. I always wondered why no one had tried to make a real-time 4X game, and I am excited to hear that someone is finally doing it.
To answer the original question, I definitely prefer real-time 4X over turn based strategy. Real time in Pax Imperia wasn't a click fest or fast paced like other games cited here (C&C and some others whose titles I can't quite recall).
The "real time" component to the 4X game seemed to really make the game more "realistic" (I hate using that term in games)and more enjoyable.

But this is all my opinion. I prefer the real-time component over the turn based component.

I admit I never played MP, but usually MP is even more dedicated to tactics only than SP. That's why I don't play it.

see the world before you start talking about it.

and aside from the limited choice of *how* you attack your enemy, no, SP has no other form of strategy

but you haven't seen multiplayer, so your missing half of the game. you need to play it if you want to tell us whether or not the game has strategy

but you haven't seen multiplayer, so your missing half of the game. you need to play it if you want to tell us whether or not the game has strategy

Perhaps you could tell me how it does have more strategy in MP? Or are you satisfied by blaming my repulsion to MP for everything?

Personally I can't imagine how a game can have more strategy for MP than SP since the part that I percieve as strategy takes far too much time for MP. I'm not going to talk about the game that has already done steps in the direction of making it a viable MP game - but this game also doesn't have MORE strategy for MP.

So if you could just enlighten me about the bigger strategic portion in multiplayer part of Homeworld I'd be very thankfull.

In Homeworld, I'm sure you're well aware that the more units you have after each battle dictates how many units there are in the next? That each battle, while pre-defined, does not affect how many units of each appear in the next mission? In addition, you're free to capture and reshape your entire fleet at any point, correct?

I've spent days pondering how to rearrange my fleet, constructing and retiring units so that they'd be fit for the current mission, only to be ousted in the next and return to the mission before and start anew. I'm not sure why this would not count as strategy.

In fact, the only way to do incredibly well, mission after mission, is to plan for all the missions before hand. After Mission 02, for example, you want this many salvage corvettes to capture ships. Immediately after you want to expand more salvage corvettes for ships in the next mission, while increasingy your anti-fighter capabilities. Directly after you're forced to engage a fleet of capital ships, in which your anti-fighter force can be toned down in favor of a larger anti-capital ship force.

I've only done so well after I've beaten the original blindly.

Perhaps you could tell me how it does have more strategy in MP? Or are you satisfied by blaming my repulsion to MP for everything?

...
come back once you've won a match of MP (not if you've gotten beaten, or lost by a huge margin) and surely you'll understand. I'm not taking time to explain to you something that you aren't going to believe anyway.

To me, a good RTS combines many different strategies. You have to be thinking and reacting to what is happening to your civilization every second. Your units and formations can be countered and you need to respond quickly or risk their demise. The unfortunate reality is that this tends to degenerate into rigid build orders and micro-management (a click-fest). I have enjoyed many RTS games (currently playing Rise of Legends )but they all end up with me getting beaten by a youngster with better mousing skills....
What I am hoping for with this game is more thinking through the possible strategic paths and less "if he built zerglings, I should have built firebats".

Naturally, the definition of tactics/strategy isn't well defined so I guess we can each have our own definitions. There is no clear line and my opinion is just that - my opinion.

Let me try to explain my distinction between the two:

Tactics are the way that your ships fight and maneuver. It is things like what to attack (specifically), what formations to use, how to maneuver, and where to go.

Strategy is the plan behind these movements. Is it a feint to draw his forces away? Is it an attempt to cripple his resource collection? Is it an assault designed to kill the MS?

So in short, strategy is what you are trying to accomplish. Tactics are the lower level details of how exactly you do it.

Also part of the strategy (as applied to Homeworld multiplayer) is setting up your resource collection. How many should be built initially? This has a profound impact on your fighting force because a high initial investment in resource collection (infrastructure, if you will) means that less is available for early combat units but more will be available later (provided that you live long enough to reap these benefits). Ditto for research.

Research itself is part of it. Do you spend your time researching ships that can be researched, built, and deployed quickly or do you start with the more powerful, but slower, capital ships so that you have an advantage there in the later game?



So when I say 'strategy' or 'tactics,' that is what I'm thinking about.

... come back once you've won a match of MP (not if you've gotten beaten, or lost by a huge margin) and surely you'll understand. I'm not taking time to explain to you something that you aren't going to believe anyway.

You know you have no arguments. Stop trying to make a valid point without actually explaining it. You're just making an arse out of yourself.

Tactics are the way that your ships fight and maneuver. It is things like what to attack (specifically), what formations to use, how to maneuver, and where to go. Strategy is the plan behind these movements. Is it a feint to draw his forces away? Is it an attempt to cripple his resource collection? Is it an assault designed to kill the MS?

I don't agree with so narrowly defined tactics. That would give it no planning at all, it would be just what you do, the actuall execution. It would also mean that any plan you make, however small it is, would be strategy.
For instance; you decide to ambush an enemy who you know is coming down the road. Is this strategy or tactics? Or is the decision to make an ambush strategy and all the rest is tactics (and why the differentiation)? Or does the strategy in your view also involve also the plan of the battle and tactics is only it being carried out? Etc. Tactics IMO is more than the execution of plans, it contains the planning and the execution of short-term actions.

The ship management of HW is an element of strategy but (again IMO) not at all enough to call it a strategy game.

But as I said, your definition is just as valid as mine. I'm speaking strictly about my opinion about what strategy/tactics is.

You know you have no arguments

no... I have a wide and very complex arguement that I'm too damn lazy to bother with

kid SEE THE WORLD FIRST, dont start talking about something that you PURPOSELY AVOID.

how many people on this forum have actually played HW or HW2 in MP

ok, HW fans, now, are there not numerous ways to use strategy to take down your opponent? (as wedge defined it)

You're just making an arse out of yourself.

wow, way to start being hostile
I'm sorry that it feels like talking to a noob here... it just really does.

let me put it this way: taking a mindset from SP in HW or HW2 and bringing it over to MP will see you dead in under 3 minutes, even if your in a 3v3

go ahead! prove me right! I'm waiting.

For instance; you decide to ambush an enemy who you know is coming down the road. Is this strategy or tactics?

tactics, it falls under execution.
now, the *reason* your ambushing is strategy (ala getting a BC while its weak)

think of it this way space: if its something that your trying to accomplish to win: its strategy
(eg: trying to shut down production, targeting the SY, targeting the mothership, targeting resources, overwhelming attacks, establishing forward resourcing ops, establishing production behind the enemy etc.)

if its something your doing to accomplish said strategy, but it can be done in several ways: then its tactics
(eg: ambush, bait and switch, multi-pronged attacks etc.)
I know the lines fuzzy, but HW and HW2 step far enough over into strategy to say that they have a limited amount in strategy in them

not a hell of a lot, granted.

and a note to other people: sorry about the multi-posting, I'm still used to the old board.

This is a silly disagreement... the distinction between tactics and strategy is scale.


I'm happy to grant that the HW games didn't have strategy if the TBS people will grant that most of their games don't have any tactics. Tactics are often as deep and complex as most strategies. They're typically on a smaller scale and over a shorter period of time. But the nature of what is being done is very similar.

What's more, planning tactics isn't any easier then planning strategy. They are slightly different skills but similiar.


The primary distinction at the end of the day is that strategy can be reasoned out in a single game if you take your time. Tactics have to be trained and trained and trained. In most RTS games you don't have time to think. So your play style is the product of dozens or hundreds of games in which you've learned what should be done when.

You then react automatically when the enemy comes at you a certain way. You reteat, counter attack, bring down heavy artillary on them, or do something more complex like retreating in two different directions and then counter attacking from them... thus pinning the enemy between your attack groups.


It's automatic and spontanious. Good RTS players are good at thinking on their feet like that or they die. Good strategy players however, know to take their time on each move. They have to think what the enemy will do three or more moves ahead at least. And plan out any flaw in their strategy.

The one thing I will leave you with, is that there are far fewer "moves" in any turn based strategy game then there are in an RTS game. This is part of the reason why computers are good at strategy games. There are fewer moves and fewer options. Solutions are more obvious so long as you're being very logical about the whole thing. Where as in RTS games there are so many options and so many possibilities that only humans really play them well.

I also agree with what karma said.

Another thing, fast decisions come with experience and familarization of the game.

I like Real Time because it's real easy to spot the noobs. The bad part is that you can really just rush the heck out of the other guy. But this is the only bad part

What I really hate is very very long games where the other guy can make up hes fricking mind on what to do or is too slow in moving. Therefore I pretty much hate turnbased.

I'll give you and example:

2 vs. 2

My team was rushed. My defences to my flagship was destroyed and both of the enemies started to target my teammate.

The enemy started to move in their entire fleet towards my teammate to destroy him. I found later that their mothership and carrier is left unguarded. I told my teammate to keep all their attacks on him. I build a small decoy defence for my teammate to keep the enemy's attention. I decided to sneak attack the enemy. I still had my shipyard so I build 2 crusiers and 4 destroyer. I hyper spaced right next to the enemy mothership and blew it up. The second one had time to react and build a hyperspace inhibitor. Therefore when I tried to do the same with the second one I was blocked and all my ships were heavily damaged.

My stratigy to sneak them almost worked but. We eventually lost. It was one of the most exciting game I had played in HW. I didnt find anything CLOSE to that in turnbased.

HW had both stratigy and tactic (look at my example). Whoever said HW had none is a total noob

exactly lizard

the choice to hyperspace in w/ your ships was tactics (exploiting a formational weakness) whereas the choice to attack their ships was strategy (exploiting a weekness in infrastructure)

sounded like an awesome battle there mate.

oh yeah . Of course it would have been better if i had won

no... I have a wide and very complex arguement that I'm too damn lazy to bother with kid SEE THE WORLD FIRST, dont start talking about something that you PURPOSELY AVOID.

I still see no arguments. I hope you find some.

This is a silly disagreement... the distinction between tactics and strategy is scale. I'm happy to grant that the HW games didn't have strategy if the TBS people will grant that most of their games don't have any tactics. Tactics are often as deep and complex as most strategies. They're typically on a smaller scale and over a shorter period of time. But the nature of what is being done is very similar.

I agree completely.

I'd go for tactical RTS. sounds silly, but something like MOO3.
The decision to move your fleets and which worlds to hold and which to bombard was strategical. Once you chose what to do, you actually got down to HOW to do it. that's tactics.
Take WWII and battle at coral sea. Tactically Japan won that engagement. they inflicted heavier losses to USA. However, strategically, USA stopped Japanes advancment into to south asia. That was tremendous strategic victory for USA.

I'd go for tactical RTS. sounds silly, but something like MOO3.

MoO3 is exactly what Sins is trying to achieve - a strategy that has no turns. Except that Sins seems to aim FAR FAR higher, which is phenomenal. I loved the concept of MoO3, but the result was... (trying not to be nasty) dissapointing.

I still see no arguments. I hope you find some.

ok, your now just acting stubborn.
you've just been called a noob by more people than I care to count, and you still think there is an arguement to hold DESPITE not experiencing the game enough to know.

this pathetic arguement of yours is void.

ok, your now just acting stubborn. you've just been called a noob by more people than I care to count, and you still think there is an arguement to hold DESPITE not experiencing the game enough to know. this pathetic arguement of yours is void.

That "more people than you care to count" is 2. And one of them is refering to his own interpretation of tactics/strategy and calling everybody that doesn't agree with him a noob. Which is pretty noobish in itself.

And I agree that my argument is void. Since I gave no argument. The thing I am asking you about (and it seems you forgot) is how does HW give more strategy in MP than in SP. I wasn't trying to mock you, I asked you because you said it does. All I get from you is "I can't be bothered" kind of answers. Now please post your arguments.

Will you be able to pause the game in Sins?

One thing I really liked about the Baulder's Gate series is that it was real time but you could also pause the game to take a breath if you wanted to. Dungeon Seige was that way as well. More like a real time but with a pause. Now being role playing games both allowed you to give new orders to your characters while in pause so you could simulate a turn based game in that way.

Anyway, a pause button, even if you can't give out new orders or change things, would be nice to have to take a breath.

Space, schematic please take your meaningless arguments elsewhere. (I.e. messenger or email or something). Your arguments are not contributing to the topic and there are people here that wants to contribute to the topic but does not care to see your constant insults to one another. You might as well be spamming the forums.

I'm not flaming at you and I'm not insulting you two in anyway, i'm just asking nicely please take your arguments elsewhere.