#62, that was the third definition on the list. The first one confirmed what draft has been saying. Also, the definition you gave didn't really back up what you're saying, so hush-a-roo.

The definition for Tactics: (used with a sing. verb) The military science that deals with securing objectives set by STRATEGY, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy.

I am now in agreement with draft.

Perhaps then, what RTS games really lack is good tactical combat. I also think that the pace of the game is way too quick. It's like playing a 1 minute game of Speed Chess where you don't have time to really think or develop good tactics. It's all attack attack attack.

Granted, I've played some fun Age of Empires games, and I even bought WC3 (looking for the ultimate strategy game). But I just have a problem with the Do Everything Fast gameplay that's common among most RTS games. I want slow paced, thinking strategy games where I have the time to create something a little more complex than "grab all the gold mines." If the games last 8 or 9 hours instead of 2-4, that's fine with me, as long as I get to develop a complex strategy using good military tactics. A game with larger maps, more units (not more variety, but a larger unit count, i.e. 500 to 1000 units instead of a max of 100), and more interesting ways to complete an objective.

Also, I think map design in RTS games is highly under-rated. Most of the maps out there (that I've seen) are pretty much a re-hasing of all the other maps.

I still stand by my statement that there's no more strategy in WC3 than there is in BF 1942.

I do not have a beef with WC3. I'm just a picky gamer