I enjoy both types of games, but prefer turn based over real time. I've always held that calling a game a 'real time strategy' game is a misnomer. Both games require you to assess the terrain, make a plan, develop a logistical base, build infrastructure, deploy military forces, maneuver those forces, engage the enemy, provide reinforcements, and conquer your opponent.
The primary difference is that in a 'turn-based strategy' game, you have plenty of time to do all those things. In a so called 'real-time strategy' game, you usually have just enough time to build some troop buildings, start cranking out troops, and send them all screaming at your opponent. Even with the speed turned down, RTS games usually devolve into clickfest wars of attrition.
The argument that 'real life' is more like the rts game is a fallacy. I would agree with that statement if one were describing squad/individual unit tactics, definitely. But strategic, or big picture planning, is something else and requires different skills than tactical engagement. Strategy calls for balance and attention to detail. Tactics call for flexibility and snap-decision making.
Maybe it Is just semantics, but every time I hear the term RTS used, it grates on me. As much as I enjoy these sorts of games, I will never see them as strategic in scope. Even an excellent game such as Rise of Nations, which can simulate an entire nation (simplified), still becomes a click fest when the battle begins.
-Elgalad
).
