Micro Vs. Macro In Real Time Strategy

I love real time strategy games for the simple reason that being able to control a bunch of stuff at once is really cool. It's good to be the boss.

Which is why it drives me batty that, in order to be truly successful at such a game, you need to micromanage. There's all kinds of things wrong with that, not the least of which is that it completely defeats the point, which is to have fun on a big to huge scale.

Now, let me clarify just what I'm talking about, for those of you who aren't huge RTS gamers. "Micro" is what you're often told to do to exploit certain strategic tools in the game.

For instance, in Total Annihilation, a common micro tactic is to use called Slashers and Samsons, which are similar units with long-ranged light missiles that don't do that much damage individually, to make up for their individual low damage values by concentrating their fire on a handful of targets. Their combined range and concentrated damage actually makes "microed" Slashers/Samsons the most efficient and destructive units in the game (at least, against low-level units) despite the fact that on an individual basis they're pretty weak.

Or in the strategy guide for Seven Kingdoms here (which is essentially an official page for the game), there are various suggestions for micro tactics.

Why does this really bother me? Well, for one thing, it rewards the exact same skill set as every other computer/video game. In and of itself, that shouldn't be a problem, but the RTS represents a different activity from most games. Whereas in other games you are usually controlling one individual or a small group, in an RTS you command an army or a nation. This requires an entirely different makeup and tendencies from those other situations.

What makes it even worse is when everything about the game requires excessive micromanagement. Total Annihilation, for example, has arcane ways to exploit bugs in the game (the main one is called "sparking," but I'm not going to explain it because it's a form of cheating, it's rather involved, it's something that experienced players assume everyone knows [and thus can be jerks about], and worst of all for me, it's micromanagement) that let a player produce more resources faster than without them.

It doesn't have to be that way (and it really shouldn't be). I've thought for years that many RTS games would probably benefit from delegation-you build a special unit or structure, and that unit or structure does the "micro" for you-and perhaps you can't even do it for yourself. Another possibility (to handle the micro tactics such as the ranged unit example above) would be berserker units-i.e. units that, once they were involved in battle, couldn't be given new orders until the fight was over. Yet another possibility would be, in games like Seven Kingdoms and Kohan (where units tend to travel around in large squads rather than alone) a slow reaction time that was represented as a delay from the squad captain receiving, processing, and relaying the orders. (Or, in any other game, a simple communications and response delay. Take your pick.)

Don't think I'm complaining about micromanagement because I have poor reflexes (which I do). In fact, I'm actually terrible at pretty much all aspects of RTS games, and regularly get curb stomped even by Total Annihilation's lame AI. I just think that the playing field shouldn't be unfairly stacked in favor of those with quick reaction times (like almost every non-turn-based game ever).

-Signing off.