Firstly, your point on the history in games, the ''masterpiece'', attention to detail etc... remember simple can be fun too. Sometimes it is merely the combinatorial explosion of several simple elements that can make something with very few details fun. For example, chess. So, that says to me that a very simple, basic RTS can be fun too, just by providing fun mechanics. This goes back to what I said a couple of months ago, to great furore: story/background/plot is not needed. Most of the time it augments the game, but it is not needed for the game.

Other points: I also like historical wargames, but don''t play many as I can''t afford to buy much these days. (Anyone point me to some good abandonware/freeware ones? Email or post here) What really interests me is to do something like win as the Germans in WW2, or Iraq in the Gulf War, or to defend Carthage from the Romans... the challenge of succeeding where the real-life general did not, with pretty much the same resources available.

But in simpler RTS games, I think the ''RT'' element is an important one. In turn-based games, you have infinite time to think. Real time games put you under some pressure, force you to make quick decisions, split your time, etc. I think this is a good added dimension. Any idiot can do something complicated, given enough time to work it out. So, the pressure of limited time helps to really show who is the best thinker. Again, look at chess, and how they use the clock in tournament play.

The ''S'' element of RTS is obviously the main one, although it is really more about Resource Management and Tactics than strategy, usually. But I like having a variety of different means at my disposal to beat an enemy. I like having to outthink or out-guess the opponent. I like planning ahead the units I need to build for my preferred method of attack. I like contemplating how best to construct base defences, maximising the effectiveness of turrets/guard dogs/walls etc. There''s a lot of thought, and a lot of tradeoffs due to the time/money resource balancing. There is also very little that is ''random'' and so I feel in control: meaning I feel good when I win and I need to think harder when I lose.

I would certainly be interested in games that combined a strategic/operational map with a tactical map. This helps to unify the campaign/story, removing that ''game level'' feel. You then also get the opportunity to deploy delaying tactics (send a force that you know can''t win, but will at least delay their expansion), massed attacks (put all your resources in one place at the expense of others) etc. I''ve seen some games employ some of these ideas, Age of Wonders and Lords of the Realm (or was that Lords of the Castle? I forget) for example, but no game seems to do it amazingly well. I guess the problem with such hybrids is that a lot of good turn-based players wouldn''t adapt to the real-time tactical map, and vice versa.

How would I improve RTS games?

1) Interfaces have to get better. In many of these games, micromanagement is part of the fun, and that needs to be streamlined.

2) Units need to be reasonably generic, while maintaining identity. I have already argued elsewhere against very specific ''counter-units'' which are usually just used as a game balance hack.

3) Remove/reduce the reliance on resource gathering units. These units become the weak link in most of these games, allowing a thoughtful opponent to cut your resources off very easily. (eg. In C+C, destroy harvesters, destroy refinery, destroy construction yard.) A fixed amount of resources at the start, with perhaps periodical reinforcements ("If I can just make it through another 5 minutes, the reinforcements might just save my ass!") instead of buying stuff as you go along.

4) Strategic level decisions: at an incredibly basic level, simply give the player X credits to split between 2 or more missions. They will have to evaluate the mission briefs and allocate resources accordingly.

And many more, if you gave me an extra hour or two to think about it

Where the hell is the DIPLOMACY?

Why cant i talk political trash with/without consequences?
Nothing feels better than shunning a countries arrogant leader and then whipping his ass on the battlefield

I would like to have a town with people in it that handle my resources for me. You keep them safe, you become more prosperous.

Another thing I personally like is slower game speed. I''m not good at clicking on little buttons to queue up some units to build while trying to fight someone. That''s just dumb.

I also would like less mission based gameplay, and more of a persistent, large world where you and a few or a lot of friends can play. It would turn it into a territory game more like a real war. I think that would be fun.

On that same note, game maps need to be less restrictive and more restrictive at the same time. There shouldn''t be absolute game boundries. You should be able to sneak around someone''s base. They shouldn''t be able to put it on the edge of the map, and they are invincible. The more restrictive part comes from random crap on the ground. When you go outside and walk around, there is always a bunch of shit that some people have left in your way. Same thing with game maps. They shouldn''t be all just a green tile or something. TA and Myth have done a very good job of doing this though.

I also like a lot of realism. I don''t like when I can send in a few troops that have 80000000 HP''s and just wipe the floor with 5000 enemies unless there is some technological reason I can do this. Not just because I can click faster than someone else.

I also think it would be cool to customize units by putting a better driver or something in them. You could have a vehicle with a bunch of vet badasses that give the unit some special skills.

I''m not sure if that last one would work well, but those are my thoughts.

the original command and conquer. my first rts and my favorite to date. the whole globe and map idea was great, it made me feel like i was going somewhere instead of just fighting battles and moving to more battles. thats all.