What would you call the TA-SC-PA subgenre?

I personally think the main point to all 3 is scale. Exponential growth, large forces. I would name the genre 'exponential rts' or E-rts for short....

The reason for this it describes what the other rts styles lack.

I describe them as Infinite War RTS games when explaining to people what they're like, sound nice enough.
Streaming economy means games could last forever, also means that the scale of the battle is limited only to what unit limit (if any) and map size your game engine allows.
Lore wise all three are also really ABOUT really long drawn out wars, in fact SupCom even called it the infinite war.

You beat me to it.

Starcraft on spheres.

Formally, I would say "TA on spheres," but (to me at least) starcraft is more well known than TA, so it makes for a better reference point for those who don't know the game.

But this is about macro and starcraft is very micro.

Yes, but, when you think of starcraft, you don't think "micro." You think "RTS."

The game's focus on micro/macro defines the game itself, but not the genre.

Then why not say Supcom on spheres?

Yes, but I suggested Supcom, Supcom is pretty well known as far as I understand.. It's also macro based so it sorta' fits a bit better, but to each his own.

The following term is what I have been using since my arrival on the forum to define the family : "Simulated projectile RTS"

https://www.google.fr/webhp?sourcei...com tatsujb Simulated projectile RTS&safe=off

there really is no leeway to be had on this term, IMO.

it's really simple it's the one thing that allows you to sort them from the rest of the other RTSes with that exact result.

And allows for others to join the familly.

I would call it a "Simulated Advanced Large Scale Activity RTS" ,as I see a linear progression from TA over Sup-Com to PA, almost like an evolution.

LSC RTS.

(Large Scale Combat).
(Or MSC: Massive Scale Combat)

I've generally been using the phrase "TA-alike subgenre". Not ever name requires a breakdown of core terms. It's perfectly reasonable to name something after it's originator.

You're right, it's an RTS. But Total Annihilation, Supreme Commander (+2) and Planetary Annihilation have started a subgenre within RTS'. An RTS currently means everything from Starcraft to Total War.

I just call these games (along with all the Spring games) the Annihilation games. They're all part of the same family that can trace their lineage back to TA.

I'd call it Macro Streamed RTS or something similar I suppose, as all three can be pretty macro based, and all three having a streamed economy- Supcom 2 not fitting into this specific subgenre (Similar to how Halo Wars doesn't fit into the genre that is fps, but into the RTS genre, the name or series does not dictate the genre.)

Wouldn't that be Macro RTS? I would call it that.

Starcraft and mobas, are Micro RTS.

I suppose C&C are standard RTS, not being too micro or macro? Except C&C 4, thats micro.

The aim here seems to be to come up with a name which distinguishes *A from *Craft. Both these games are firmly in the traditional RTS genre (base building, units, economy etc..) and for some reason need to be distinguished.


I would like to put forwards the ides of continuous vs. discrete games. It is probably just as flawed as other distinctions but it appeals to me at the moment. The distinction has the added downside of only meaning something to people who don't to draw the distinction.

The *A games are continuous. Actions tend to happen smoothly. Resources flow in and out at a constant rate. Economy is allocated proportionally. Metal spots are scattered semi-uniformly over the map and expansion is done slowly but steadily. Units are constantly produced along with their production facilities. Armies approximate a blob by containing a lot of units. Players should constantly poke at their opponent and are likely to have many important locations and armies.

The *Craft games are discrete. Actions are often taken in large chunks. Individual economic actions are quite large and a lot of work is put into builds which fit the actions together efficiently. Approximating the economy with continuous functions yields poor results. Resources are concentrated to the extent that a single expansion is very important. Factories are large so it is important to match your factory plan to the number of expansions you own. A players military tends to consist of a large army blob and a single (important) raiding party. Most battles are large, short and rare. There is usually no m0re than 2 spots to put an army to optimally defend your base and a large amount of no-mans-land. This means that there are a few discrete state which your army can inhabit.


Micromanagement seems like a way to distinguish the games but I don't think it is a particularly good one. By current standards TA has a basic UI and I have yet to see an RTS where you cannot improve by clicking faster. Clicking faster is probably more important for Starcraft but it is hard to quantify and has a lot to do with the competitive scene which accompanies the game.

Scale has been suggested but I am not so sure that it is useful. Firstly scale has to be defined in a way which is not based on game's theme. Sins games can span solar systems while Supcomm plays on a slice of planet but this does not mean Sins has a larger scale. The slice of planet may have more distinct parts. I have seen Starcraft II games which were pretty large, several bases per side with a few armies roaming around and engaging. I would not say that game was small scale. Similarly *A games can often work on quite small maps.

While I agree the scaling up is a good attribute to point out, we need to remember both TA and SupCom had unit caps. And scale was more a key factor of SupCom than TA (though it has to be said TA pushed the boundaries of contemporary hardware).

The trouble with micro-macro is that it's both related to scale/number of units and the playstyles associated with each. There's nothing stopping us microing PA units (and people do, particularly in tournaments).
Then you have series like Total War, where huge numbers of units are controlled under banners which we micro.

..........So? Scale isn't just measure by whether or not a game has AN unit cap. Just because SupCom and Starcraft both have unit caps doesn't mean they are the same scale.

Mike