×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Warhammer Mark Of Chaos - How Is The RTS?

Hemos posted more than 6 years ago | from the something-fun-to-play dept.

99

Steven Williamson writes "HEXUS.gaming's resident wood elf, Steven W, jumped at the chance to take the eye-opening trip to the Games Workshop HQ in Nottingham, home to the unique venue that is Warhammer World. What started out as a run-of-the-mill press event to see the latest real-time tactics videogame set in the Warhammer universe ended up capturing my imagination and quashing any previous hang-ups I almost certainly had about the people who played Warhammer and indeed the tabletop game that has spawned this latest PC game, Warhammer: MOC."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

99 comments

Champions? (0)

Orange Goblin (945041) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769366)

Looks very Warcraft 3 to me...

Re:Champions? (3, Insightful)

cafard (666342) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769409)

Champions have been a major feature of Warhammer Fantasy Battle long before the Warcraft authors played Dune 2...

Re:Champions? (4, Informative)

Echo5ive (161910) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769515)

Well, Warhammer had unit champions way before W3 was even planned. And they're not at all like the unique Warcraft characters; each unit can have a champion. They're kinda like squad leaders.

Re:Champions? (1)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769820)

There's a Penny-Arcade comic (my favorite of all time) that says it all - but of course their site is crippled beyond any use so I can't find it to link it. Anyone else know which one I'm talking about?

-stormin

Re:Champions? (1)

Ignignot (782335) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769852)

I think it is located here [penny-arcade.com] , but again, the site is crippled. That was found by searching google for "penny arcade world of warhammer"

That's the one. (DBC) (1)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 6 years ago | (#15772551)

I think I like expandable message-boards better. It's hard to keep things in context when "reply" makes everything but the one msg you're responding to disappear. I like the tree-based message boards where you can expand or contract messages.

If this were that type of msg board, the DBC in the title of my post would actually have meaning.

-stormin

ghd (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15769379)

real similiar

Slashdot editors. (5, Funny)

gowen (141411) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769453)

No punctuation sentence fragments very hard to underst

Re:Slashdot editors. (2, Funny)

volsung (378) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769547)

No kidding. This title is from the Zero Wing school of sentence construction.

Where stereotypes touch reality (4, Funny)

beaverfever (584714) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769458)

Is that the comic book guy [nohomers.net] on the bottom-left side of the photo [hexus.net] ?

Spamvertisement (-1, Troll)

nodnarb1978 (725530) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769470)

A blatantly self-promoting advertisement submission is one thing, but linking the article twice, for blatant SEO-ness and referring to yourself in the third person in the submission are a whole 'nother can of worms.

Hangups? (3, Funny)

BlueCodeWarrior (638065) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769480)

quashing any previous hang-ups I almost certainly had about the people who played Warhammer


Hangups? What, people who play Warhammer are too nerdy for the slashdot crowd?

Yeah, I play 4 different GW games, I'm sure that they will be much better than any Warhammer computer game, at least until Age of Reckoning comes out...

I'm modding you +n insightful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15769783)

this part anyway: "Hangups? What, people who play Warhammer are too nerdy for the slashdot crowd?"

Snoooore... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15769491)

No wonder most of the gaming world is in the process of waiting for or already pre-ordering PS3s and Wiis...

And pc gamers are more and more writing indignant replies to stories about how pc gaming continues to die...

Re:Snoooore... (0)

Andrew Kismet (955764) | more than 6 years ago | (#15770148)

I think Valve are single-handedly keeping PC gaming alive right now...

Re:Snoooore... (1)

NetFu (155538) | more than 6 years ago | (#15771531)

Yeah, and Blizzard had nothing to do with the fact that I haven't bought an Xbox 360 and have absolutely no plans to buy the PS3 or Wii.

I'm a longtime PC gamer, and Warhammer is boring to me. Not everybody will be into it, but that doesn't mean PC Gaming is dead. I think this is big news for Warhammer fans, and that's about it (although I know no PC gamers who are Warhammer fans).

I like WoW for the whole MMORPG experience, and I see nothing on the Xbox 360 or PS3 that comes close. I have a friend who's been trying to get me to buy an Xbox 360 for months, and he can't give me a good reason to buy one considering I like MMO's. He's an Xbox 360 gamer purely for eye candy, and that's not the kind of gamer I am.

Not to mention that I'm not the kind of gamer who takes over the living room for myself when nobody else wants to watch me play games. I have a wife and 3 kids with far different interests than the games I play.

Consoles just don't work for guys like me, and with the gamer demographic constantly increasing in age, there are more and more gamers like me. The only thing that would come close to replacing my gaming laptops would be a handheld like DS or PSP with built-in networking for some kind of (good) MMO. I'd buy that...

Re:Snoooore... (1)

b1ad3runn3r (896115) | more than 6 years ago | (#15772694)

I wish there was a Rome: Total War style game set in high fantasy. The combat in that feels more realistic than all this other MMO or RTS bologna...

Headline Not Parse The Sense Can't Make (4, Funny)

thatguywhoiam (524290) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769501)

For a second I thought the Warhammer series had turned into a manga, with a title like that...
Alas, no. Just monday morning slashdot posts pre-coffee.

Now, work am off to I do time no more waste.

Re:Headline Not Parse The Sense Can't Make (1)

Bazman (4849) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769628)

And RTS is 'Request To Send' isnt it? Are they playing Warhammer over an RS232 link?

Re:Headline Not Parse The Sense Can't Make (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15772761)

"For a second I thought the Warhammer series had turned into a manga"

I thought they already had [wikipedia.org] ...

According to Andy Chambers, the chief designer at the time, the Tau were intended "to be altruistic and idealistic, believing heartily in unification as the way forward." part of the reason for choosing the Tau was their clean, 'manga' image.

Fluff piece (2, Interesting)

bidule (173941) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769505)


This guy is really enthusiastic. You have to dig through the dythirambic spew to get the meat. At least you can't have the standard GW step 3 aka buy tons of figurines at high cost. Yeah I skewed against them, cry me a river ;oP

Re:Fluff piece (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 6 years ago | (#15770607)

At least you can't have the standard GW step 3 aka buy tons of figurines at high cost. Yeah I skewed against them, cry me a river ;oP

Are you kidding? Since I don't play in league games I don't care about having official figurines. I've thought more than once about using knockoff battletech figures for space marines, or maybe eldar :P

The fact that GW's rules do not permit use of non-licensed figurines in tournament games is all I need to know that they're in it only for the money.

Re:Fluff piece (1)

ethereal (13958) | more than 6 years ago | (#15771892)

Exactly which other game manufacturers DO permit use of unofficial pieces in their sanctioned events? I'm not thinking of any right now. I don't know why you're so surprised about that turn of events.

"All about staying in business" is more like it.

Re:Fluff piece (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#15776306)

If I go play D&D it doesn't matter if I have an [official] Ral Partha figurine or a cheap knockoff. Granted, it's not a miniatures combat game, but the point still stands. Since GW doesn't allow it, you can't use those figurines in j. random league game at your local gaming shop, either, which is what I'm really complaining about. If you could buy plastic armies a lot cheaper, I'd be complaining less then, too. Not to mention that their vehicle models are really simple and cheap, yet still not all that well-designed in terms of being stable when partially completed, while you're painting the inside... I mean the whole thing screams of being worked on by a bunch of ninnies baked out of their minds and huh-huhing about "wouldn't this be cool? giant rat guys!" Over time it's evolved into a fairly well-thought-out system... but people have been sending them their ideas on how to fix their game for aeons.

Re:Fluff piece (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15779706)

Try entering an officially sanctioned D&D Miniatures tournament without using D&D minis. See how far you get.

There are, in addition, plenty of non-GW sanctioned tournaments that allow alternate miniatures.
Check out http://www.indygt.com/mainpage.asp [indygt.com]

Re:Fluff piece (2, Interesting)

Eccles (932) | more than 6 years ago | (#15771156)

At least you can't have the standard GW step 3 aka buy tons of figurines at high cost.

Ebay is your friend here. Buy them, then sell them back on ebay when you're no longer interested for a similar price, even possibly a profit if you're a decent painter. Also, OOP figures often go for cheaper than the latest stuff.

I bought a bunch of current model figs the other day, including $125 (list) in stuff still sealed in shrink wrap, and 50-60 other miniatures (mostly metal) for $100 including shipping. And a chariot just arrived today, $10 including the shipping.

Check advice sites for when to buy ebay stuff. I won the big lot I just mentioned in an auction that ended after 1 am EST. Sniper programs are also handy.

Re:Fluff piece (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15771184)

dithyrambic = enthusiastic [m-w.com] .

"Word of the day" toilet paper?

Re:Fluff piece (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15772502)

More likely "saw enthusiastic twice and went for thesaurus.com to look smarter".

Skaven over Orcs? (3, Interesting)

Sapphon (214287) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769609)

What on earth prompted the inclusion of Skaven (rats, basically, for those of you playing at home) as a 'core' race over Orcs? Unless there's been a significant change since I last visited my local GW, Orcs have a far bigger following.
For the non-wargamers, this is akin to FIFA 2007 letting you play with Manchester City instead of Manchester United.

I'm not against the idea (of dropping either Orcs or Man U. *grin*), I just find it curious. Won't they have the same problem as with Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War, when all the Imperial Guard players had a sook about not getting to play their army (except as a "Dog of War" in one mission)? Or is the percentage of people buying this game who actually come from the tabletop version so low that it just doesn't matter?

Re:Skaven over Orcs? (3, Insightful)

swv3752 (187722) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769645)

Probably just wanted to avoid those claims that Warhammer is just a clone of Warcraft.

Re:Skaven over Orcs? (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769662)

since warhammer's been around a lot longer, wouldn't the claim be that Warcraft is just a knock-off of Warhammer?

Re:Skaven over Orcs? (1)

GundamFan (848341) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769697)

Well yes... but this is the internet.

I sware if I hear that the Tyranids are a copy of the Zerg one more time I am going to start kicking people in the shins.

Listen... Blizard... Fanboys... Blizard was heavly "inspired" by Games Workshop products (That have been around since the '70s and '80s) not the other way around. That doesn't make Warcraft and Starcraft "not good" it just makes them not at all origonal.

Re:Skaven over Orcs? (2, Insightful)

iapetus (24050) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769822)

Re:Skaven over Orcs? (1)

Echo5ive (161910) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769867)

Random sidenote: the Penny Arcade forums (where I also hang around) are organizing a guild for the Warhammer MMO. That strip gave us the name: The Six Mouths! (Or "Da six moufs" for greenskins)

Re:Skaven over Orcs? (1)

happyemoticon (543015) | more than 6 years ago | (#15770046)

Not original? Sir, in what other game can I play a big, hairy cow with a hypnotising dance routine [youtube.com] ?

Seriously though, I think you're weighing content too heavily. Most "originality" is pretty much just rehashed ideas from long enough ago that most people have forgotten about the work that inspired them. The entire fantasy genre is pretty much a result of Tolkien, and he drew everything from Germanic, Norse, and Celtic/British folklore. And if you're going to call GW original, well:

  • Humans: Duh
  • Dwarves: Check
  • Elves: Check
  • Orcs: Check
  • Dark elves: Check
  • Chaos: Check (Christian demonology)

What they did was turn the inspiring battles of fantasy into something that could be played out on a table. And then Blizzard took this tabletop game and made it into something you could play on the computer and not, unless you really want to, devote every waking moment of your life to and hundreds upon hundreds of dollars.

Re:Skaven over Orcs? (1)

GundamFan (848341) | more than 6 years ago | (#15770195)

I never said that GW was totaly original. (They have developed a rather complete lore for both of there Game worlds, but I understand the "anything I don't like is stupid" attitude so I will let that go.) All I am trying to get across is that no matter how you look at it when you examine the facts Games Workshop did not and could not have copied Blizzard and it is a documented fact that Blizzard was inspired by Games Workshop products.

Re:Skaven over Orcs? (1)

justinkim (513188) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769803)

Which is a ridiculous claim as Warhammer Fantasy Battle and 40K have been around much longer than Warcraft.

Re:Skaven over Orcs? (1)

Homr Zodyssey (905161) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769692)

It should be pointed out that they added the Imperial Guard with the expansion to Dawn of War. I'm just annoyed that they still haven't made Tyranids >:(. Perhaps they left the Orcs out because they intend to put them in an expansion pack. If they put all the good races in the main game, then there's nothing left to sell their expansion packs with.

Re:Skaven over Orcs? (2, Interesting)

Firefly1 (251590) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769985)

It should be pointed out that they added the Imperial Guard with the expansion to Dawn of War. I'm just annoyed that they still haven't made Tyranids >:(.
The upcoming second expansion (Dark Crusade) adds the Tau and Necrons. The developers have no current plans to include Tyranids because they are not convinced that their engine, as good as it is, can do them justice. Although in the interests of rounding things out, I wonder if we'll be seeing Dark Eldar at some point...

Re:Skaven over Orcs? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769757)

The Skaven were the only race which had miniatures included in Advanced Heroquest (a game that managed to combine all of the worst features of Warhammer and Heroquest), so there is some precedent for their inclusion in Warhammer spin-offs.

Re:Skaven over Orcs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15769967)

They're probably trying to push Skaven at the moment. It's a traditional GW tactic to give their customers not what they (the customers) want, but what GW wants to sell more of.

Re:Skaven over Orcs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15770347)

For the non-wargamers, this is akin to FIFA 2007 letting you play with Manchester City instead of Manchester United.

As an American who doesn't care so much about soccer nor understand why it's better than footbal (except for the lack of commercials), I still don't understand. :)

Re:Skaven over Orcs? (1)

Razzendacuben (985660) | more than 6 years ago | (#15770632)

The skaven are perhaps a little more unique - GW may have really started orks as an army way back when (and they did) but since everyone and their mother has orcs in their fantasy RTS. They still have the orcs as an army (seems to me from the article they're all pretty much even, the writer was just *really* bad) but the way to pick up new players, not just hardcore fans, is to add some new flavor.
  Besides, I'm willing to bet for whatever reason the story of the game revolves more around skaven than orks. Who, despite the fun of Dawn of War definitely aren't that big on interesting story.

Re:Skaven over Orcs? (1)

kabocox (199019) | more than 6 years ago | (#15770824)

I'm not against the idea (of dropping either Orcs or Man U. *grin*), I just find it curious. Won't they have the same problem as with Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War, when all the Imperial Guard players had a sook about not getting to play their army (except as a "Dog of War" in one mission)? Or is the percentage of people buying this game who actually come from the tabletop version so low that it just doesn't matter?

I'd never heard of Warhammer 40K until I acquired a um, uh demo (cough, cough) of the RTS Warhammer 40K. I was impressed. I liked it far more than Warcraft except for one thing. I found it too easy. (I usually can't get through any RTS without cheats at somepoint this game even on "hard" I didn't need them.") It was awesome having an RTS that catered to just throwing the grunts away instead of resource collection. I latter found out about the table top game. I looked into it. Then I became really depresed at the resulting game. Why? Warhammer is a freaking huge universe. The first game should have released with 5-6 races min. or have something like a "build a race" option with tons of detail around a map and unit editor. The unit coloring is cool, but I'm thinking more of picking actual units from the vast store of Warhammer universe to become your army. I'll give them credit though, the output is first rate, and they wouldn't have pleased the die hard table top fans anyway. Warhammer really needs its own MMOG with update packs every 6 months or so just adding additional content that was too much to start off with. I'd hope that Warhammer MMOG is based around armies and will let you customize everything. The game is great except don't read up on the table top stuff unless you want to get disappointed in the game. It's like playing a D&D game and being happy, and then finding out all of the D&D universe and never quiet being happy with what little made it into that one game.

I used to work there (4, Informative)

RembrandtX (240864) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769673)

I used to work at GW. Both in the US, and across the pond [When they were located in Lenton, and for about 2 months after they relocated to the new building.]

HUGE building, big spacemarine on the top. And, they have their own pub :P [seriously]

Stuff like computer programs have ALWAYS been the bastard step child of the company. They are always Licence deals, and the company itself keeps creative control.

Little known fact, Blizzard entertainment origially wrote 'warcraft' to be a RTS of warhammer. Approached (i think it was) Steve Godber on the board, for a licencing deal, and was turned down. Instead the deal was given to Mindscape, who made 'Shadow of the Horned Rat' which was a colossal failure.

The guys at Blizzard were big Games-Workshop fans:

Warcraft = Warhammer
Starcraft = Warhammer 40k
Diablo = DungeonQuest / HeroQuest

I think the guys at Relic finally got it right, and that the Studio(At GW) finally got someone with a clue to make video game decisions. [although the MMORPG that they had going, died, but it seems that they moved the licence over to Relic .. so who knows.]

Re:I used to work there (1)

james_orr (574634) | more than 6 years ago | (#15771893)

MMORPG licence is with Mythic ... now EA Mythic I guess. The guys who do Dark Age of Camelot.

Here's the site [warhammeronline.com]

Re:I used to work there (1)

RembrandtX (240864) | more than 6 years ago | (#15772983)

oops .. yeah .. sorry .. I meant Mythic (in virginia). Ironically .. JUST before they got the licence, I put an application in there [I know folks who work there] only to be turned down. Apparantly, working in the design studio at Games Workshop wasn't enough of a background to work on their video game ;P

Meh .. just as well .. would have been like going back to highschool at 35.

Re:I used to work there (1)

sesshomaru (173381) | more than 7 years ago | (#15775680)

Well, I think Relic is doing well with their 40K RTS license, what do you think?

I thought it was odd that Namco got the Warhammer Fantasy Battle license while Relic has the 40K license.

RTS vs. RTT? (1)

Jakhel (808204) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769680)

can someone explain the difference between a real time strategy and real time tactics game for me please? Are these names just synonyms, or is there an actual difference in the gameplay (like RPG vs. Action RPG)?

Re:RTS vs. RTT? (3, Informative)

Parallax48 (990689) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769741)

As I understand it, the difference is in the nature of the battle.

RTT games are those where you start with a certian set of troops and have to guide those troops through an engagement. You don't normally get any more, and the game is usually over when that one battle is won or lost.

RTS games are larger, or longer - they are made up of many battles. You build a base, create armies and have several battles.

A good example of a RTS is Red alert, A good example of a RTT is Myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_%26_Conquer:_ Red_Alert [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_(computer_game) [wikipedia.org]

Re:RTS vs. RTT? (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769866)

Sure. Strategy is the management of resources, buildings, troops and technologies. Tactics are the actions taken on the field of combat. Ever played Myth? [wikipedia.org] That is a hard-ass real-time tactical game. You start out with X number of troops, and that's all you get for the entire game. The army that understands how to use formations & terrain can beat a superior force that doesn't. [wikipedia.org]

Re:RTS vs. RTT? (2, Informative)

skorch (906936) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769920)

Well the real time part is obvious (as in, not turn based), so the real issue is the difference between strategy and tactics.

To oversimplify it, a military strategy includes all the logistics of war, including the acquisition and allocation of resources, management of supplies, as well as the global movement and positioning of troops.

Tactics just refers to the specific maneuvering and commanding of troops engaged in combat.

So basically, how you command your units at your base, and where you choose to send your troops to engage in combat (such as which enemy locations or strongholds to attack first, etc.) are your strategy; and how you command your troops once they are in battle are your tactics.

So an RTS will include such elements as gathering resources, and then spending those resources on building structures and recruiting troops and units as a core element of the gameplay. A tactics game will focus mainly on how you micromanage your troops in battle, and leave the logistical elements such as recruiting or resource gathering either as secondary or completely separate.

A good example of the difference between tactics and strategy is seen in the Rome: Total War. They have a turn-based strategy portion of the game where you build structures in your cities, recruit your soldiers and move your armies around the world map. Then when a battle starts it switches over to a Real Time Tactics game, where all you are concerned with is ordering your troops around the battle map to win the encounter. When the battle is resolved it switches back to the world map and the strategy portion of the game.

I generally prefer tactics to strategy, as real time strategy is a bit unrealistic (building entire cities in the same time frame as it takes to fight a battle is just unrealistic to me), but the Total War mechanism of breaking those two elements apart works perfectly for me. It allows the strategy to take place over a time frame of months to years (as it should) and the tactics portion to take place over a matter of minutes to hours (as it should). I'm curious to see how this PC adaptation of Warhammer worked it out, as I enjoy a good RTT (and there aren't many).

Re:RTS vs. RTT? (3, Informative)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769928)

Tactics is units, movement, and positioning.

Strategy is which units, resource management, and larger scale goals.

It's the macro/micro thing. Strategy is the macro, the big picture. Tactics is the micro, where the rubber meets the road.

Re:RTS vs. RTT? (2)

MrTester (860336) | more than 6 years ago | (#15770156)

All of the above responses are correct, the problem is that RTS games have strategy elements in ADDITION to the tactics, rather than instead of the tactics.

I have always thought "How can this be a Strategy game if I have to spend half an hour maneuvering my group to the right spot and then hand position each one in their deffensive positions?"

A real strategy game (the kind Ive been waiting for) would allow you to define, create and maneuver Battalion level oragnizations, not individual units. Then the "Factories" (or whatever) would fill the organizations as needed instead of having to go to the factiry and say "Create 5 orcs and put them here".
This would allow players to focus on actual strategy elements.

It would be great. Create an empty unit, tell it what types of units to have, tell it to patrol my western flank. Then select some factories to "Fill out" the unit. Anytime it take casualties the factories will crank out replacements. Let me set behaviors for the organization as a whole and seperately for units with the organization (sort of like the original Earth 2150).
That would be so much more fun than the "Real Time Micro Management" games out there today.

I had the whole game designed at one point, but my programming skills blow.

Re:RTS vs. RTT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15770322)

If you aren't planning to capitalize on it at any point, I'd gladly take a look at your design--I can't promise that it'd ever get done, but I've been working on a few projects like that.

Better yet, just post the design somewhere and let the internet do the rest (unlikely, sure, but not impossible).

Re:RTS vs. RTT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15770437)

That sounds very sweet. I do not know of any strategic game that comes even close to doing what you propose. They are all about micromanagement.

Re:RTS vs. RTT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15770941)

There are true RTS games, Hearts of Iron 2 comes to mind, a WWII real time strategy/logistics game. Awesome game, and you command troops at battalion level or higher (aircraft at squadron level, and naval forces are battle groups, i.e. Carrier groups with 12 - 18 ships). Reinforcements and supply are indeed produced by your industry (or rather a certain portion of it, that you allocate to the tasks).

Strategical (do I attack at day or night, should I wait a few days until I manage to encircle the enemy and cut him off from his supply, but allow him to fortify, or do I attack right now, etc) and logistical decisions (should I build a factory which will take a whole year and only pay off some years later, or start working on that Carrier?, should I use a standing or a conscript army (or something in between)?, should I make a resource trading deal now with a country I may possibly be at war in the future?, etc) are the ones that decide winning or losing, not whether you can click a mouse button 500 times per minute (the warcraft/starcraft players actually measure this as an indicator of skill).

Re:RTS vs. RTT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15772222)

Basic rule of thumb:

Strategy: Long term.

Tactics: Immediate.

eg: Win the battle (tactics), but lose the war (strategy).

TBH, ignore nitpickers. If you want to get totally anal, there's no RT involved in the RT* genre - real time my ass, building a tank every ten seconds, har. :p

But seriously, it doesn't matter if you're playing some epic, three-month long wargame or a quick bout of Age of Empires - strategy *and* tactics are involved in either. (Strategy: When to build that 298th villager. Tactics: "Oh noes a knight wtf wherez teh pikeman?!?!?!" :P)

To be honest, given the broad range that the two terms can be warped to encompass, while still staying true to their roots, even single-battle, static-resource games can't be labelled as one or the other - start off with 20 guys, say? Strategy: Figuring out how you're going to beat the enemy. Tactics: Shifting to meet a target of opportunity that presented itself.

Why the RTS and not the MMO? (2, Insightful)

Disstress (928999) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769767)

I find it strange that they found the RTS awe-inspiring as opposed to the amazing MMO being made by the *soon to form* EA Mythic. [warhammeronline.com] I can't imagine the guys at GW not *more* behind the up-and-comming MMO, especially with some crazy guy [thewarband.com] promoting it from his phone, and the fact that they had issues with the previous developer and could use all the confidence re-building behind this new game.

Re:Why the RTS and not the MMO? (2, Insightful)

Razzendacuben (985660) | more than 6 years ago | (#15770682)

No, the problem with the MMO is that Warhammer has never been about one guy running around on his own, it was always about big epic battles between armies LED by individuals. Can you imagine World of Warcraft where *every single player* has some 30 troops to command? An RTS is a lot more like GW's style, especially with the competitive multiplayer that can imitate the tabletop version as closely as any game type can.

It's about time... (2)

ameoba (173803) | more than 6 years ago | (#15769911)

It's about time that people stopped calling RTSes stratergy games and started refering to them as tactical.

Re:It's about time... (1)

warith (121181) | more than 6 years ago | (#15770320)

It can be argued that some qualify for both... Homeworld and Rise of Nations both come to mind as games that benefit from long term strategic planning, in addition to your standard faire skirmish-level battle tactics.

But, like it or not, "strategy" has been enshrined as a game genre, while "tactics" has not, so I think we're stuck with RTS. =|

Re:It's about time... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#15770597)

That depends, the normal Warcraft-esque RTS surely deserves the name tactics more but something like Total Annihilation or Supreme Commander might not fit the term very well.

Re:It's about time... (1)

Puff of Logic (895805) | more than 6 years ago | (#15771739)

You're not alone in this thinking. However, Supreme Commander [supremecommander.com] ,the spiritual successor to Total Annihilation, is touted to focus far more on strategy as opposed to the more tactically oriented RTS games we're used to. I'll be interested to see exactly how strategic Supreme Commander is, since much has been made of its large maps and coordinated unit movement (with respect to arrival times at a destination). Also, Total Annihilation is one hell of a pedigree to claim.

Re:It's about time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15772755)

I don't know about this title but part of what made me like the previous warhammer strategy games (at least Dark Omen) was that it was so much more strategic than other real time strategy games at the time. While warcraft was pretty much just clicking as fast as possible on the "build grunt" button, in warhammer you had to engage in a tactical dance with the opponent, trying to outflank him and encircle him. Troops were really well balanced (except for the mighty wizard) and you had to really know how to use your ranged troops together with your infantry or cavalry and how to use the terrain to your advantage fighting downhills and ambushing your opponents with hidden troops from the forest.

Re:It's about time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15777075)

Strategy? Tactics? Who needs either of them when you can have micromanagement and hotkey memorization instead? Mind you, RTMHM does lack a certain je ne sais quoi.

Did they really?? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#15770276)

Is it just me or did they somehow manage to double post an entire _article_?

Gee... I'm sure that doesn't help with pipe cloggage.

Games Workshop is the Microsoft of gaming (2, Insightful)

Qbertino (265505) | more than 6 years ago | (#15770415)

Games Workshop is the Microsoft of the gaming world. Many RPG and Tabletop enthusiasts still have vivid memories of GW severly abusing their market power to push independent vendors to take minimum quantities of their stuff only to prepare and probe the market for their GW-only outlets in close proximity to these exact shops. This all started in the early to mid nineties.
GW is a mean bunch of quasi-monopolists pushing overpriced stuff and comes at position #2 for killing of diversity in the Tabletop/Fantasy/RPG Market - right after Magic.
As a result I don't buy stuff from them and encourage any Tabletopper to play game from other vendors. Warmachine from http://www.privateerpress.com/ [privateerpress.com] is a very neat (I'd say better) alternative to Warhammer. Check it out.

Re:Games Workshop is the Microsoft of gaming (3, Interesting)

LordDracula (153751) | more than 6 years ago | (#15770888)

GW definitely has done (and is still doing) a lot to try to keep a stranglehold on the mini-gaming market. Privateer Press has put out an incredibly fun game in Warmachine, and now Hordes. Their models are at least equal, and in many cases (IMHO) better, than GW's stuff. But the real glory shines in the game play and setting.

I think that back in the late 90's, GW was definitely in position to completely kill the mini-gaming market right there after the fall of Ral Partha (yeah, Reaper's always been around, but has *never* managed to produce a half-way decent set of rules, so they're stuck in the "supporting other games" market for the most part). However, a couple of companies rose up to challenge them, mainly Rackham with their Confrontation game and Privateer Press with Warmachine. In some ways, GW has set the stage for their own overthrow by their abusive tactics (just try to find a place other than their own website that you can view and purchase their models online--you can't, because they don't allow it). I, for one, won't really miss them.

Re:Games Workshop is the Microsoft of gaming (1)

RembrandtX (240864) | more than 6 years ago | (#15773027)

Games Workshop is worth over 2 Billion USD in sales a year.
They have offices in 7+ countries, produce their games in 30+ languages.

They don't have a strangle hold on the gaming market. They don't TRY to have a stranglehold on the gaming market.
They don't even consider their product a game.

I know .. I worked there for over 5 years, helped grow the US office from 60 to over 120 employees, and then helped start the current incarnation of Games-Workshop Japan.

Prior to that .. I was a hobby shop owner. I sold my store, which lasted another 3 years after I left before one of the owners funneled 60k out of it to pay off their other business's debts.

Games-Workshop, if you are ever on 'the in' is called 'The Hobby' inside the company. 13 year old boys, who buy the figures, paints , and toy soldiers .. are not called gamers, but hobbyiests.

From the Games-Workshop perspective, they have been around since the 70's. Peter Ackman [the guy who sold WOTC to hasbro] once came to the U.K. to ask the board there how they stuck around for so long. This was when Magic was impossible to keep on shelves anywhere. John Stallard, then in charge of U.K. Sales and Exports replied : "We don't worry about losing customers, because every year, amazingly enough, there are a whole slew of new 13 year old boys who haven't ever seen us."

Just to put it into perspective: There is a resident staff of over 100 artists working in the GW studios. From Sculpters, to photographers, painters, and normal visual artists. THAT .. is a lot of people, coming up with a LOT of creative stuff. They are not worried about stuff like : Warmachiner, Hot Lead, Heartbreaker, etc etc etc.

Those companies make fun games, hell .. people at workshop have even played them. But they don't have the drive, income, or production capabilities to survive the long haul.

Wiz Kids has the right idea. But time will tell as far as they are concerned.

So really, I can tell you, GW's goal is not to stop other people from making games, its to just keep making their own games. 'A copy of 40k in every toychest in the world.' is their mission statement. not 'Drive everyone else under.'

Privateer Press ? Heartbreaker ? These are not their compeition. Companies like Sony or Microsoft or RC cars, or Model rockets are. Games-Workshop is marketed, sold, and used as a Hobby, not as a game. Thats the difference. People spend lots of money on hobbies, and a hobby normally follows them around for their entire life in one way shape or form.

meh ... until you have worked there .. you can't understand how sad it is to hear folks say GW tries to monopolise the market.

Re:Games Workshop is the Microsoft of gaming (1)

LordDracula (153751) | more than 7 years ago | (#15791358)

I've known several people that have worked with GW, and for the most part they'd agree with a lot of what you've said. Especially the "hobby" part. It's true that GW may not be actively seeking to kill the mini-gaming market, it's just that their saturation of said market makes them slightly dangerous. Whenever I mention to non-gamer people that I play miniature wargames, they invariably ask, "You mean like Warhammer?" So, to the non-hardcore gamers in the real world, GW is miniature gaming.

Not to say that for their market (which is 100% geared towards 13 year old boys, as you mentioned), they don't do a great job. They do. Pretty pictures, pretty models (with few exceptions), and a "one-stop shopping" deal for all the related junk to go with the hobby. The problem is, though, that it is geared towards 13 year old boys--which means as those "customers" grow older, more often than not they wind up outgrowing GW's wares. Yes, they may not be worried about customer retention, but those 13 year old boys (and girls, for what few typically play these kinds of games) tend to wind up growing up and making more money, which they spend somewhere else usually. But, that's not really the point of your post.

GW may not be trying to monopolize or kill the miniature gaming market. Probably not. But they are trying to prevent their "hobby" from being seen as a competitor for other games (as you so clearly brought up)--which is one of the reasons why they are so draconian about their distribution/selling practices, particularly when it comes to traditional game stores. I think that GW would like to see all of those go away, and be replaced with one of their own stores, where they sold nothing but GW product. They've already done plenty of damage to small store owners here in the US, and you absolutely cannot view or purchase GW products via a web interface in the US (and possibly UK)--you have to go to GW's online shop.

For me, the crap game is enough to not buy their stuff. Their heavy-handed approach and egotistical business practices just make it easier for me to give them the 132-salute. (Count in binary on your hands...)

Re:Games Workshop is the Microsoft of gaming (1)

Echo5ive (161910) | more than 7 years ago | (#15780923)

There are several Swedish web shops that sell the GW range. If GW tried to stop them our consumer protection agencies would fine them so big and hard they'd never try it again.

Re:Games Workshop is the Microsoft of gaming (2)

Puff of Logic (895805) | more than 6 years ago | (#15771780)

Fair enough, and good points. However I spent enough time drooling over blister packs, poring over the books, and spilling pots of Blood Red and Ultramarine Blue all over my parents' carpet that GW products will always have a place in my heart. Even if their business practices are terrible, their product is appealing. Hell, I hadn't played anything in years but when Dawn of War and the Winter Assault RTS games came out, I bought them immediately. Worth every penny, too.

Game sounds exciting (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#15770671)

I've liked previous releases, but, as I boot 'Doze less and less, I'm wondering if they'll release GNU/Linux compatible versions.

Granted, marketing in stores probably won't be realistic, but how about straight from the company?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...