I'm wondering if the name 'Real Time Strategy' is wrong, the ones I've played involve tactics at best, and at worst you win by clicking quickly and not too inaccurately. At present I'm making do with Praetorians which is fun but too fast for an old gloombucket like me, and while I can't blame the authors for having it classified as RTS it seems to be strategy free. Any thoughts?
First off, I'm not sure that Civ can be classified an RTS. It's turn based after all, not Real Time.
I think the RTS games do on the whole include strategy but combine it with speed of thought and an ability to juggle information. World in Conflict is a prime example of a recent real time strategy game that requires serious application of resource management alongside battle tactics, fast clicking will get you nothing but dead soldiers rather quickly.
If you're looking for tactics without the realtime element then try Naked War click here or LaserSquadNemesis click here both of which are war by email games and give a good if frustrating accounting of themselves.
My favourite srategic game remains the elderly Risk 2 by Microprose, based on the board game. I don't like them too complicated, and I find that most RTS games become yawn inducing click-fests all too soon.
Off topic but I once played a boardgame called something like Apocalypse or Armageddon, where capturing territories conventionally would earn plastic stages of nuclear missiles. You could use these to build lots of short range missiles or fewer longer range missiles. Missiles destroyed territories and could set off chain reactions through adjacent territories with missiles. It wasn't as simple as Risk, and perhaps not in the best possible taste but it was great fun.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.