Our strategy gaming veterans tackle the age-old debate between real-time and turn-based strategy games, exploring how personality types influence gaming preferences, examining the technical and design considerations behind each approach, and discussing hybrid games that blur the lines between these traditional categories while analysing what the future holds for both formats.

This episode provides a comprehensive examination of the fundamental divide between real-time and turn-based strategy gaming, with the hosts sharing personal preferences while maintaining balanced perspectives on both approaches. The conversation explores how different personality types gravitate toward different gaming styles, examines technical and design considerations that influence developer choices, and discusses hybrid games that successfully combine elements from both categories. The hosts analyse historical context from early games like Civilization and Dune 2, debate the role of pause mechanics in RTS games, and speculate about future trends in strategy game development.

<a href="https://rss.com/podcasts/criticalmoves/1975673/">RTS vs TBS: What Makes a Great Strategy Game? (Ep | RSS.com</a>

Critical Moves Podcast – Episode 24 Show Notes

Episode Title: RTS vs TBS: What Makes a Great Strategy Game?
Hosts: Al, Tim, Nuno
Episode Length: ~44 minutes

Episode Summary

The twenty-fourth episode of Critical Moves examines the fundamental differences between real-time and turn-based strategy games, with each host sharing their preferences while acknowledging the strengths of both approaches. Tim advocates for RTS games’ spontaneous decision-making and fast-paced action, while Al and Nuno position themselves as appreciating both styles depending on mood and circumstances. The discussion explores how personality types influence gaming preferences, examines technical limitations that historically shaped game design, and analyses hybrid games that successfully combine elements from both categories. The conversation reveals that rather than viewing these as competing formats, modern strategy gaming benefits from the diversity both approaches provide.

Personality and Gaming Preferences

Spontaneity vs Calculation

Tim’s preference for real-time strategy stems from his appreciation for spontaneous decision-making under pressure, describing RTS gameplay as requiring on-the-spot choices without extensive calculation time. This preference reflects personality traits that thrive under time pressure and enjoy the adrenaline of rapid decision-making in dynamic situations.

The contrast with turn-based gaming becomes clear through Tim’s description of turn-based games requiring different cognitive approaches – calculating multiple moves ahead, considering long-term consequences, and optimizing decisions through careful analysis. This methodical approach appeals to players who prefer strategic planning over reactive gameplay.

Perfectionism and Time Pressure

Al’s observation about perfectionist players gravitating toward turn-based games reveals important psychological factors in gaming preferences. Players seeking optimal solutions benefit from turn-based formats that provide unlimited thinking time, while RTS games reward “good enough” decisions made quickly rather than perfect decisions made slowly.

This distinction creates different skill sets and appeals to different cognitive styles. RTS players develop rapid pattern recognition and instinctive decision-making abilities, while turn-based players develop deep analytical skills and long-term strategic planning capabilities.

Mood-Dependent Gaming Choices

Contextual Preferences

Both Al and Nuno describe their gaming choices as mood-dependent rather than format-exclusive, with certain circumstances favouring different gaming styles. Turn-based games often appeal when players seek relaxed, contemplative experiences, while RTS games satisfy desires for intense, engaging action.

This flexibility suggests that many strategy gamers appreciate both formats for different reasons rather than viewing them as mutually exclusive. The mood-based approach recognizes that gaming serves different psychological needs at different times.

Energy Levels and Cognitive Demand

Nuno’s surprising observation that Burden of Command (turn-based) requires more mental energy than Grit and Valour (RTS) challenges assumptions about cognitive complexity in different game formats. This suggests that cognitive demand depends more on specific game design than format choice.

The revelation that RTS games can provide mental relaxation while turn-based games demand intense focus contradicts common perceptions about these formats. Simple RTS mechanics can offer stress relief while complex turn-based systems require substantial mental investment.

Historical Context and Technical Considerations

Civilization’s Original Vision

The discussion of Sid Meier’s original real-time concept for Civilization raises fascinating questions about alternative gaming history. Had Civilization launched as an RTS game, the entire trajectory of strategy gaming might have developed differently, potentially affecting the balance between real-time and turn-based games.

This historical context illustrates how individual design decisions can influence entire gaming genres. Civilization’s turn-based success established a template that influenced countless subsequent games and may have created market space that wouldn’t have existed otherwise.

Technical Limitations Shaping Design

Tim’s suggestion that early turn-based design stemmed from technical limitations rather than pure design choice highlights how hardware constraints historically influenced gaming formats. Complex calculations required for games like Civilization may have necessitated turn-based approaches when processing power was limited.

This technical perspective suggests that some traditional turn-based games might benefit from real-time implementations now that hardware limitations no longer constrain complex calculations. However, established player expectations and design traditions continue influencing format choices.

Multiplayer Dynamics and Social Gaming

Speed Chess Parallels

The comparison between chess variants and strategy gaming formats provides valuable insight into how time pressure affects strategic thinking. Speed chess fundamentally changes chess gameplay despite identical rules, just as time pressure transforms strategy gaming experiences.

This parallel suggests that the same strategic concepts can create entirely different gaming experiences when time constraints change. Players often develop preferences for specific time pressure levels rather than specific game mechanics.

Multiplayer Accommodation

Tim’s experience with Beyond All Reason’s pause mechanics reveals how multiplayer RTS games must accommodate various player needs while maintaining competitive fairness. The ability to disable commands during pauses prevents strategic advantages while accommodating legitimate interruptions.

The challenge of managing 16-player games demonstrates the social complexities that emerge in large multiplayer strategy games. Design decisions about pause mechanics, time limits, and player accommodation become crucial for maintaining fair and enjoyable experiences.

Hybrid Games and Genre Innovation

Real-Time with Pause Systems

The discussion of Paradox games and Total War highlights successful hybrid approaches that combine real-time action with turn-based strategic thinking. These games appeal to players from both preference camps by providing flexibility in pacing and decision-making approaches.

Hybrid systems demonstrate that the RTS vs turn-based divide may be less important than providing appropriate pacing for different gameplay elements. Strategic decisions benefit from contemplation time while tactical actions benefit from real-time execution.

Combat Mission’s Dual Implementation

Nuno’s example of Combat Mission offering both real-time and turn-based options for identical scenarios represents the ultimate hybrid approach. This flexibility allows individual players to choose their preferred format while experiencing the same strategic scenarios.

The community divide over “correct” ways to play Combat Mission illustrates how strongly players identify with specific formats even when games support both. Format preference becomes part of gaming identity rather than merely mechanical preference.

Future Trends and Market Analysis

2025 Release Patterns

Nuno’s analysis suggesting RTS dominance in 2025 releases reflects potential industry trends toward real-time strategy gaming. However, this analysis must be balanced against the commercial success of established turn-based franchises like Civilization.

The observation about developers attempting to recreate classic Command & Conquer experiences suggests cyclical trends in gaming preferences. Nostalgia-driven development may temporarily favour specific formats before swinging toward alternatives.

Revenue vs Quantity Considerations

The discussion about Civilization 7’s likely revenue dominance despite numerous RTS releases highlights the difference between market quantity and market value. A single successful turn-based game can generate more revenue than multiple smaller RTS titles.

This economic reality suggests that both formats remain commercially viable, with turn-based games potentially offering higher individual profit margins while RTS games provide more diverse market options.

Technical Design Philosophy

Granular vs Discrete Decision-Making

Tim’s preference for real-time gaming’s “grayscale” decision-making over turn-based “binary” choices reflects deeper philosophical differences about strategic flexibility. Real-time games allow continuous adjustment and reconsideration while turn-based games require commitment to discrete choices.

This distinction affects how players approach strategic problems and develop gaming skills. Real-time players develop adaptability and course-correction abilities while turn-based players develop thorough analysis and commitment skills.

Computational Efficiency

The discussion of turn-based games offering computational advantages for complex calculations reveals ongoing technical considerations in game design. Turn-based formats can handle more complex calculations without performance concerns that affect real-time gameplay.

This technical factor continues influencing design decisions for games with extensive simulation elements or large-scale strategic scope. Complex grand strategy games often choose turn-based formats to manage computational demands effectively.

Contact & Links

Episode Verdict

This episode successfully navigates the potentially divisive RTS vs turn-based debate with diplomatic balance while providing meaningful insights into player psychology and game design philosophy. The hosts’ willingness to acknowledge both formats’ strengths while sharing personal preferences creates an inclusive discussion that validates different gaming approaches. Their exploration of mood-dependent preferences, personality factors, and technical considerations provides depth beyond simple format advocacy. The conversation’s strength lies in recognizing that strategy gaming benefits from diversity rather than format uniformity, with different approaches serving different player needs and gaming contexts. The hosts demonstrate that mature gaming discourse can examine preferences without declaring superiority, helping listeners understand their own gaming preferences while appreciating alternatives. The discussion of hybrid games and future trends provides forward-looking perspective that acknowledges evolving player expectations and technological capabilities.

Next Episode: Why Tempest Rising Could Be the RTS to Watch in 2025

Discover more from Critical Moves Podcast

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

RTS vs TBS: What Makes a Great Strategy Game? (Ep 24)