Which is why when I play a game I want something different than what I do all day.

If logic is applied, within the scope of life, turn based games are themselves real time strategy.  They feel different from other games, no argument there.  They are easier to play, especially after a long day of work.  Yet, they are a dime a dozen because they are so easy to develop.  As far as the market is concerned, Turn based games are over represented, real time strategy games are the minority and therefore need to be made(they are the current business opportunity).  Right now games that are doing really well in the industry are REAL TIME games.  First person shooters, MMO's, Starcraft and others.  Its not hard to fathom, many of us grew up playing the original RTS games that came out, and now there has been a severe shortage of good RTS games in the past 10 years gamers are chomping at the bit for the next generation of RTS.   Indy game makers make turn based games, serious developers make real time strategy.  I know many gamers reading this will agree, even if they don't make a point of posting an affirmative response.

You hear that, Stardock? You're not serious!

I think it would be really cool to have a game like FE:LH in real-time mode. I guess tactical battles would pause or severely slow time down on the strategic scale though.

If Stardock ever goes into the RTS area, it needs to be based on Kohan.  That's a game no one has ever tried to make a spiritual sequel of, and I constantly hear people asking for a game like it despite its age and relative unpopularity.   Also, the game will be friendlier to the 40+ crowd since it won't require 200 APM.

I could even see a Kohan-style game in the Elemental world.

I'm not trying to have an argument with you, I honestly don't care if you love RTS.

I don't love RTS, I don't even like them.  Whether the gaming community needs more of less of them is irrelevant to me.  Whether they are better or worse or smarter or dumber or easier or harder, none of that matters remotely to me.

I like one thing, you like another thing.  You seemto speak for a large group as though you are the spokesman.  Maybe you are, maybe you're even right.

It still doesn't matter.  I speak for me.

However.

Is simply an incorrect statement.  Saying ridiculous things like that does disservice to the point you are trying to make.

I agree totally. I am 55, been playing games for longer than many forum readers have lived, and have found very little enjoyment in RTS. I am not saying there not a good game type, but just not for me. Each to their own.

I'm really enjoying AoW3.  It has a great Random Map Generator and I really enjoy the extensive tactical battles.  The patches have much improved the game I think.  I like to play XL two-layer maps against 7 Non-Allied Emperor AIs, with Starting Distance = Far, Medium armies, no roads, few Cities and Dwellings (there will still be enough), Many Treasure Sites (basically dungeons) and I like to build up a killer stack with my Leader and starting hero and 4 other troops and go dungeon crawling.  I also use the Advanced Settings: Heroes (and Leaders) start with Resurgence (will resurrect if you win the battle and their corpse hasn't been blown up or animated), and Racial Heroes (you are only offered heroes from races your leader is or that you have absorbed into your empire, unless there are none of those heroes left).  I also like to ally and share open borders with the first player or two I meet with a nice gold or mana bribe, and I don't mind if their empire gets a lot bigger than mine with time.

My favourite Leader at this time for the kind of game I like is Draconian Sorceror.  Draconian Apprentices have Fire Bomb (a ranged physical and fire damage attack that has no ranged or obstacle penalties and hits all hexes adjacent to target hex) and all support units (including Apprentices) can stun when you get the very expensive but well worth it School of Enchantment skill.

I am "Steven Aus" over at http://ageofwonders.com/forums/

I must give credit to the devs for the fantastic support of their new game.  A new race, new classes and new monsters are coming out soon (this might be a paid addition), and a lot of people think that the two included major patches so far have much improved the game, and it's being improved all the time.  Even without extra content on top of the 1.2 version it is a very attractive and playable game with great music and fantastic tactical battles.  The flanking mechanism I think is one of the standout new features in tactical combat, and the green, yellow, red zones for multiple hit attacks (3, 2 or 1 attack) are very easy to understand (you always get at least one attack or spell at the end of your movement, unless you have used up all your actions by retaliating three times last round).

I am in the "interested in deep tactical battles" camp, but I enjoy FE:LH every now and again too, and probably will be getting Elemental 2015 at some stage as well.

Many games already mentioned above, but I would add in Panzer Corps. A faithful remake/update of SSI's Panzer General from the 90s. Love it! 

This statement is not ridiculous when you know how it is meant.  I am setting a standard of thought here.  Taken by itself you can say it is imperfect in many ways.  But that is not how this is meant at all.  

Further explanation to facilitate the annihilation of your ignorance:  Turn based games are a game design short cut to make game design easier(because good game design is really HARD).  That is why established, professional companies should be focusing on making RTS instead of trying to compete with(and therefore crush) Indy game companies and use their budgets to seize the opportunity of the RTS(they can farm turn based mechanics from indy games and incorporate them into their own RTS games as well). Real time strategy requires a higher level of resources to make, and a higher requirement of balance.  Game companies naturally want to marginalized RTS and go for an easier money maker due to the natural requirements of business: less resources in + greater $$ returns = great amount of profit/business as usual. Indy companies have smaller budgets (usually) and therefore will have a much harder time making RTS games that are worth playing(the competition is just too high for most companies).  Any serious developer, who has the money, the capability, should make an RTS because this is the time for them to make a come back.  Will they HAVE to be innovative? yes.  RTS are risky, yet I know one company right now that can afford to make a risk:  Stardock(the opinion I actually care about).  

Also, saying you do not care is irrelevant, if I cared about your feelings I would not even talk about this with you online.  You should assume that nobody cares that you don't care, caring is not relevant to online discussion(or any debate/argument either) because we don't know each other.  We use other forms of discussion to persuade, don't mistake that I am trying to persuade you when I am not(even if it seems like we are discussing something, this is after all, a discussion viewed by many).

You can choose to not care and be ignorant, that is your choice.  I haven't posted this just for you.  

I am not a fan of RTS games. They are, in fact, the games I enjoy the least. 

That's similar to me saying something like... "RTS games are for people with no thought process, and can't handle in-depth strategy." Do I really think that, no, but it is just as insulting as the crap you are spewing. Do you seriously believe that crap, or are you just trolling for a good argument?

Guess someone should tell the maker's of the Civ series that they have just been an indie developer all these years.

In my opinion, many of us here, obviously not all, probably not even most, but many of us wouldn't buy the best RTS of all time were it to come out. Even if it were to come from Stardock, a company many of us love to support. To some, RTS just isn't fun.

I'm going to assume that sareth is simply trolling and cease responding to the idiocy he is perpetuating.

On the odd chance that you're serious though, well, I think you need to do better homework before you make the claims you have been making.

Because I'm quite sure that the Civ series and XCOM and even HoMM were all commercial failures that only would have sold well had they been RTS.

Frogboy, I play the following when I want to do 4x or strategy games:

• Gal Civ III (Alpha) Coming along very nicely.
• Gal Civ II Ultimate pack. (Classic space 4x, never loses its luster.)
• Distant Worlds (All expacs except the latest 'universe'. Great game.)
• Fallen Enchantress, Legendary Heroes. (I learned of this game via this website. I love the game, and purchased several DLC's for it.)
• Civ V (all expansions, great graphix, could really use a 64 bit engine. Loved IV which I also play.)
• Endless Space (base game, was a shock to be told I can only travel along star lanes and not able to move in any direction. Play is predictable and I rarely play anymore.)
• Heroes of Might and Magic III (My very first exposure to PC gaming was this game. It never gets old)
• X2 (Great game but can take hours just to get anywhere and do anything.)
• Xcom Enemy Within. (I highly recommend all to try this amazing game by Firaxis. Great Great game. Hoping for more content.)

I also put in 2 hours a night and 12 on the weekend playing an MMO. My current MMO I am enjoying is Star Wars the Old Republic. The following MMO's are ones I have invested at least 1 year or more in:

• Star Wars the Old Republic (Currently playing everyday. I have 7 real life friends who joined me from EQ2)
• Everquest (99-2003)
• Everquest II (7-10 years played. Left it again for Star Wars. I feel SOE has just gone to the dogs and its 'Free to Play Your Way' is absolute crap, I have no hope for EQnext but will keep an eye on it.)
• The Secret World, (2 years, excellent game. Tough learning curve, lack of solo stuff at end game.)
• Elder Scrolls Online, Played Beta and 1 month. Great game I like Star Wars graphix better.)
• Aion. (6 months, great graphix difficult lvl advancement not for Western MMO players.)

Hmm, that is all I can think of at the moment but I am sure there are more. 

Please keep your brilliant games going!

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this game. Any +/- you may have, etc.

edit: Or anyone else who has played it for that matter.

Actually your statement and mine are not similar at all.  Game design is far different from game playing.  You decide to take it personally, that is your own issue and not connected in any way to my statement.  I wrote this statement precisely, your attempts to misconstrue the statements without reading them are obvious and do you no credit.

Civilization and the Total War Series are notable exceptions, I'm talking about the glut of turn based games coming out from indy developers right now.  If you read critically you will notice that I have not made any concrete statements about game companies, because of this kind of obvious troll response.

If you read critically, you will notice that the core of my statements have NOTHING to do with how fun RTS games are(mainly because that is subjective and therefore a moot point) and everything to do with how little RTS is represented in the marketplace.  You and I can and will enjoy turn based games, yet I will always think turn based games are inferior creations to RTS games because they require so much less talented engineering(this is why serious game studios should focus on this, because they are best equipped to fill the void).  

Our perspectives on this differ between game design and game playing.

I don't have time to satisfy your lack of intellectual rigor.

Beyond the scope of this conversation, I am not discussing commercial failures at all.  You should really play sins of a solar empire.  If you play it and you do not see how RTS can be redesigned fundamentally just from an overall design then you need to upgrade your perspective on game design.