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

So if I had a game with thousands of barbarians fighting hand-to-hand, that would be in the same genre as Total Annihilation/SupCom/Planetary Annihilation?

No, because I'm not trying to use a singular value that is meaningless in isolation.

Mike

What is this I don't even.
All language is about singular values. We go around the world sticking name-tags on everything. I'm just pointing at the subgenre and asking people to name it. I don't see what your beef is.

The unit cap has nothing to do with exponential streaming economy and style. The unit caps on both games were there due to technical limitations. The unit cap in star craft is central to the game.

Genre, yes (as long as it's a strategy game and not turn-based). Setting, no.

So we're saying setting and genre aren't related? What about 'Spaghetti Westerns'?

You're arguing that the SINGLE interpretation of Raw number of units is the only thing worth considering in terms of labeling something as the same genre and I'm telling you that you can't be so focused on a single point like that.

Mike

They are played strikingly differently though.

PA is played on a large scale, using really high economy numbers and very very many production structures, and a player's structures being built across fields and fields. It isn't just, one unit at a time, it is 10-20.

Starcraft, usually you just have 1 of production things and a few handful of units. Instead of numbers, it is how individual things are used, like skills or timing related thing or movement in-combat. Both games have "numbers" and "timing", but one has more "numbers and economy" and one has more "in-combat usage and timing".

Same with mobas, there are less "numbers" and more "specific usage of a unit in timing of combat against another".

So, macro rts, and micro rts. Something with both in near equal quanities, both multiples of things and individual things having in-combat actions players must time, would be a standard rts? Like C&C?

I agree the streaming economy is a good marker for the genre, as scale is to some extent. However there is a big difference of scale between TA-SupCom-PA.

I'm not arguing that. Other people keep bringing scale up, and I'm trying to point to the issues in using scale alone as a way of classifying the genre.

If you look at RAW numbers maybe but think of it more as a trend across all games in the genre, by that metric even TA can easily be considered to be "Large Scale" compared to most RTSes out there.

But the method you're using to do that is flawed because you're needlessly focusing on only a specific element of it.

Mike

If we're going to mention MOBAs then I'm going to have to go into a bit of Warcraft III history here and mention Custom Maps, where unit caps were effectively removed and we had thousands of units on single maps.

I agree numbers and scale are a factor, as part of this genre's appeal is huge battles.

Which specific element am I focusing on?

The Number of units.

Mike

What else is a factor of scale other than number of units? We've had Sins of a Solar Empire discussed already; 'huge' space battles can seem rather small if you can't see lower than the stratosphere of any given planet.

Macro-RTS is what I'd coin them as.

That is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Also worth considering is stuff like how the units are controlled, if you have 100 units that can only be controlled in squads of 10 it can be said that it's not really 100 individual units and only just 10. It's this kind of stuff and more that plays into a game's scale, not just the number of units present.

If I had to rate the most unique factors of TA, SupCom and PA as compared to the rest of RTS games;

1. Scale
2. Simulation Engine
3. Purely Rate Based Eco

Mike

I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about anything else but scale. I've been replying to people who keep citing scale as the defining characteristic of the genre. I'm not the one going around giving that opinion, I'm just discussing with those that are.

Valid points.

You aren't sharing the opinion but you are ham-handedly trying to argue that it isn't the case.

Mike

Well I offer my sincere apologies if my arguing isn't up to your standards!

However seeing as it's my complete ineptitude (and not the fact that we disagree) that irks you, perhaps you could set an example for me to learn by through providing cogent rhetoric against people you do actually disagree with?