The Future of RTS

Every year many of us find ourselves waiting for a new, well built, modern RTS, only to see another year pass with disappointment. There is an ongoing debate both within publishers and amongst the general public regarding the ability of RTS as a genre to compete with other more popular games. Most publishers ultimately decide it’s not worth taking the ‘risk’ on a genre perceived as poor when it comes to ROI. Far gone are the glory days of the early 2010’s of Starcraft 2. The meteoric rise of both Twitch and the SC2 competitive scene ushered in a new era of live streaming, competition, and gaming. While gaming and esports continue to grow, the RTS genre has fallen to the wayside. Even though SC2 has been a great game for RTS as a whole, it's disappointing that a decade old game still carries the banner for the genre.

Throughout this article I will review and critique some of my favorite RTS games of all time. I will attempt to quantify and distill fundamental design decisions and their consequences into the major factors that have made these RTS games successful. Ultimately, I hope to challenge common beliefs of what have been considered the best RTS and possibly shine a light on what an RTS of the future could be. First and foremost, it is important to identify what have traditionally been the biggest obstacles facing RTS as a genre becoming more popular, especially in this current/new era of gaming.

Doublelift is one of NA’s most popular League of Legend pro players.

Three of the biggest issues facing RTS are:

Mechanical/APM Requirement

Simply put, most RTS games are exhausting. As someone who has achieved a relatively high level of play in numerous popular RTS games, my best coaching advice for the vast majority of players would be to play more and to play faster. In most instances being able to micro, macro, and multi task is the biggest obstacle keeping players from pushing their play to the next level. Many times, I hear players getting frustrated as they ultimately know what and how to execute, but their fingers cannot keep up. Often a player with higher APM will trump an opponent who might otherwise make better decisions and have a better grasp on the game. There are always exceptions, but most players would agree that a 300 APM player will beat a 100 APM player almost every time.

Starcraft is exhausting - Jaedong Lee after a SC1 game covered in sweat, an all too common sight for many RTS players.

Solo Experience/Anxiety

It is no coincidence that the most popular games and esports these days are team games. Going online to a lonely experience queuing into the ladder abyss leads to a disconnectedness that is not appealing to most people. As time goes on (accelerated by COVID) more of our daily lives are digital and remote, and people yearn for connection through gaming. Having 1v1 as the de facto main way to compete deters sociability, community, and ability to play and/or hang out with friends. Don’t get me wrong, some people love the accountability and determinism to the wins and losses they incur through 1v1, but I would argue most (whether they admit it or not) prefer the lack of accountability and ability to defer to blaming teammates or other variables. All of this leads to ‘ladder anxiety’, a stressful experience for players, in a society that is already feeling more anxious and more stressed in their day to day lives.

Learning Curve

In general RTS has always been considered one of the ‘nerdier’ genres and perhaps for good reason. If you compare any RTS game to Fortnite, COD, Among Us, or other popular games out there it is definitely less ‘snackable’. It is harder to jump into an RTS and start playing immediately without any background or serious study. If you haven’t played, it isn’t exactly intuitive or easy to understand for viewers either. On the other hand, there is a case to be made that other popular games exist which require similar levels of learning, whether it’s MOBAs, MMOs, autochess, or various shooters with skill based abilities. Maintaining a high ceiling for pro play while leaving opportunity for all levels of players to enjoy your game is key to large commercial success for all publishers and a balance that has been hard to strike within RTS specifically. The ideal competitive RTS being mechanically easy to learn, hard to master.

The Three Evils

Although these three issues (APM, solo anxiety, and learning curve) are all unique, I would argue that they all share the same underlying effect: they are detrimental for 'casual' players. ‘Casual’ being an ambiguous term, but for the sake of clarity I would define it as people who play 5-15 hours a week, do so recreationally, and commonly do so to relax, have fun, and hang out with friends. Some of these issues are easier and more straightforward to address within the scope of an RTS. When dissecting my favorite games later in this section, I would encourage you to keep these difficulties in mind when thinking of great RTS games of the past. At the end of each game section I will weigh the Three Evils into the overall score of each game, judging games not only on their overall design but how well suited they would be to compete if they were re-released as a new game in the current gaming landscape.

Key Factors I will be using to weigh my favorite RTS games of all time:

Space Control

By far the most important aspect to designing any ‘good’ RTS is space control. Controlling space in most strategy games (even if not RTS) is at times difficult to define, but also the most crucial aspect to the general ebb and flow of any game. By having more room to maneuver, a player will have more options in their arsenal, while the competitor, who is more limited, must account for a greater variety of threats. The most common ways to control space (from a game design perspective) are generally terrain, units, and defensive structures. But space can be controlled in other, less obvious ways as well. For example, the fog of war mechanic puts an emphasis on scouting and decision making with incomplete information, or resource scarcity can funnel players to certain sections of the map.

Bobby Fischer's 21-move brilliancy and controlling space in a game of chess.

Variety (Race/Faction/Units/Tech)

Diversity is good, and all the more so in RTS. Different players will pick different options depending on different factors: aesthetics, gameplay style, unit availability, unit specific abilities, difficulty in executing, personas, etc. Although it makes balancing a game harder, variety is also the spice of life for games! Players demand it, and the more you have, the more fun your game has the potential to be.

Balance

Balance is the yin to the yang of variety. Balance of any game is tough, and in an RTS it is particularly important because most players identify with a specific race/faction. More variation means harder to balance. For example in chess, a mirrored game with no unit variety between two sides is imbalanced just because one side moves first. With the popularity of gaming/esports on the rise, balance could see the most benefit from focus as the industry, and people within, mature and provide much needed expertise. Publishers should look to put more time, resources, and energy into listening to domain experts who can understand and guide the balance or design to all games.

Economy/Resource

Lumber, gold, minerals, tiberium, stone, food, ammo, fuel, etc. One human component that makes RTS enticing is the ability to be something bigger than yourself. Be a general, a king, a commander, or god and control the fate of the world/universe at your fingertips. Besides fighting, there is an innate human drive to collect, build, and ultimately amass the biggest/best army, hero unit, or best economy.

Age of Empires 2

Space Control - 8.6 / 10

AOE2 is one of my favorite games out of all RTS’s when it comes to space control. Terrain is extremely important. High ground is a huge component when considering where to push or how to approach each unique map. Units receive a +25% bonus in damage when attacking from an elevated position, as well as taking 25% less damage from the unit from below. You have a plethora of defensive buildings to choose from including walls, towers, and the ever oppressive castle. All maps are randomized, which leads to players having to scout and then plan out where to prioritize resources. Attacking or defending becomes a very conscious choice depending on the faction, surrounding terrain, and general playstyle you enjoy.

Player Blue, using an overwhelming force and numerous siege weapons (siege tower, battering ram, and trebuchet) breaks through stone walls to attack his opponent.

Variety (Race/Faction/Civ/Units/Tech) - 3 / 10

AOE2 delivers a wide range of different civilizations to choose from, even if these civilizations play more or less the same. The vast majority of units, buildings, and tech are available to all civilizations. Each civilization has some unique components when it comes to specialized units, tech, and natural/passive boons. This generally leads to a game that feels more bland overall when dealing with more or less the same unit compositions, buildings, and tech paths game after game. Overall AOE2 is enjoyable to me because of it’s great space control which more than makes up for its lack of flavor in variety.

AOE2 civilizations represented by their shields/emblems.

Balance - 7.8 / 10

Although bland, AOE2 is a well balanced game. Most pro players at the highest