Was Dune II the first RTS?

[MrFlibble]

@MrFlibble:

I did not say, that Dune 2 did not have it's innovation. I just said, it's not the first RTS. As for what is covered by the term, it's depend on terminology. If you interpret the term by word, it's mean it's a strategy game, where events are happening in real-time and of this type, there were a lot of games before Dune 2. If by RTS, you mean Dune 2 like games, then Dune 2 is obviously the first.

Yes, I prefer the latter approach, because compound terms are usually idiomatic - that is, as a whole they are greater than the sum of their parts.

Real-time strategy, at least the way this term was used in the 90s, essentially means 'a game like C&C or Warcraft II'. We could say that this is a prototypical category. There's probably no wonder that back then, many RTS games were called (and not without reason) C&C clones.

 

About the game elements, you mentioned, all of them are already made their debut earlier in real-time strategy games in titles like Sim City, Carrier Command, Nether Earth, Populous, Supremacy, just to name the real-timed ones, but for example base/unit construction and unit macro/micromanagement were parts of even more earlier turn-based strategy games (like Utopia) and the real-time tactical parts were debuted in real-time tactics games like Legionnaire, Stonkers and Cytron Masters.

Herzog zwei was just one example, i mentioned it, because Westwood mentioned it.

Of course, many elements were present in other games, but I suppose it's fair to assume that it is in Dune II that they were combined in exactly the way which has came to be associated with the real-time strategy genre for the first time.

Broadly speaking, to me the question of whether Dune II was the first RTS is not a question of innovation, but a question of term usage. Even if Brett Sperry wasn't the first person to combine the words real, time and strategy in this fashion to refer to a game of a certain kind, this term, after the release of Dune II was picked up to refer to a particular, quite popular type of game.

Remarkably, even though Dune II started the trend, apparently it did not become the prototypical RTS, having been obscured by its follow-ups.

 

Besides as i checked some games, i found something:

http://archive.org/stream/byte-magazine-1982-12/1982_12_BYTE_07-12_Game_Plan_1982_djvu.txt

It appears that even the term too, made it's debut more earlier, but everybody just forgot about it. So, it's appears, not even Stonkers was the first, it was Cosmic Conquest. But if we consider the only tactical real-time games too, then Cytron Masters is even more earlier.

That's a very interesting find! But because it's a single usage, it's hard to tell if this was an idiomatic term or a non-idiomatic one (the author just wanted to say that it's a strategy, it takes place in space and it's in real time - after all, a prototypical space strategy game is turn-based).

BTW, I decided to check Google Ngrams for the usage of "real-time strategy". A search in the default English corpus gives some interesting results. Apparently there are instances of usage of this word combination in the late 80s, but the frequency starts to grow rapidly after 1995 (I suppose that the 1970s usage refers to something unrelated to video gaming).

The British English corpus search gives some odd results. I suppose that the real-time strategy might have been used in British media to refer to something (?).

[TCH]

 

Yes, I prefer the latter approach, because compound terms are usually idiomatic - that is, as a whole they are greater than the sum of their parts.

Maybe, but by this logic, we could call StarCraft the first RTS, because Dune 2 lacked a lot of elements too. We could call an even later game the first RTS, because even StarCraft lacked a lot of elements. As time progresses, the games become more and more complex with more and more elements. Which are those elements we define the origin of a category by? What if a SC fan describes the category by elements which did not appeared in Dune 2? Either we stick to the per definition meaning, or every term will be self-righteously interpreted. They will mean what people want to mean by them. A D2 fan will say D2, an SC fan will SC a TA fan will say TA a WZ2k1 fan will say WZ2k1 and so on. We will reach a status of "an RTS is called nowdays a game what is..."

 

Real-time strategy, at least the way this term was used in the 90s, essentially means 'a game like C&C or Warcraft II'. We could say that this is a prototypical category. There's probably no wonder that back then, many RTS games were called (and not without reason) C&C clones.

You're talking about 'popular meaning' or 'popular term usage', not prototyped categories. A popular definition is what the masses call something and ordinary people never do know what they are talking about: they just tend to pick up words, expressions and memes they hear or see, that's why they called RTS games as C&C clones or FPS games as Doom clones or "alien spaceships" as UFO-s. These categorizations are erroreneous. Why? First, because these terms are axiomatic, their meaning is trivial, it's in the term itself. Second, because of unfair and unnecessary exclusion. For example if you only call Dune 2, C&C or StarCraft like games as RTS, then you will excluse a lot of other RTS from the category. For example, Imperium Galactica was an RTS too and nobody called it a C&C clone, because it is an entirely different approach of the genre, they're not even similar. Settlers arrived after Dune 2 and it was an RTS, but nobody compared it to Dune 2, because it was an entirely different approach too.

RTS means it's a strategy game and events happens in real-time. If we follow the logic of popular usage, then microsoft invented computers and operating systems, because it was win95 what spreaded across the continents and got into every home and thus for ordinary people, the computer was equal to PC and operating system was equal to windows or DOS (and even DOS meant MS-DOS for them, even if there were other Disk Operating Systems both earlier and later), just because they did not know anything else outside of these. It is absurd to redefine a term and making it differ from the real meaning, just to match the ignorant masses' expectations.

 

 

Of course, many elements were present in other games, but I suppose it's fair to assume that it is in Dune II that they were combined in exactly the way which has came to be associated with the real-time strategy genre for the first time.

That was i described above. If the sum matters, then we can raise the level and add more and more stuff to the sum which will lead to 'interpret it as you want'.

 

 

 

Broadly speaking, to me the question of whether Dune II was the first RTS is not a question of innovation, but a question of term usage. Even if Brett Sperry wasn't the first person to combine the words real, time and strategy in this fashion to refer to a game of a certain kind, this term, after the release of Dune II was picked up to refer to a particular, quite popular type of game.

Remarkably, even though Dune II started the trend, apparently it did not become the prototypical RTS, having been obscured by its follow-ups.

See? That's what i am talking about. Popular meaning and changing interpretation because of progressing. You cannot obscure or redefine an axiom, just because technology advances. You can extend the category and make subcategories, but the real meaning of the root will not change.

 

That's a very interesting find! But because it's a single usage, it's hard to tell if this was an idiomatic term or a non-idiomatic one (the author just wanted to say that it's a strategy, it takes place in space and it's in real time - after all, a prototypical space strategy game is turn-based).

The author used an axiom, just said out the fact, that it is a strategy which plays in real-time. He did not make it as a category, just used a term which is axiomatic, because it's meaning is trivial, it speaks for itself. It's like calling a computer as a computer. (It would be suprising, if he did called it as a non-Dune 2 like RTS, right? :)

 

BTW, I decided to check Google Ngrams for the usage of "real-time strategy". A search in the default English corpus gives some interesting results. Apparently there are instances of usage of this word combination in the late 80s, but the frequency starts to grow rapidly after 1995 (I suppose that the 1970s usage refers to something unrelated to video gaming).

See? Just as i said above. As win95 spread to the whole world and computers and videogames were begun to used by everybody, the term become a part of the everyday dictionary of ordinary people, but with a wrong meaning: they just saw a game and compared every later game to that one. 'It's just like C&C. It's a C&C clone. Westwood calls it as RTS. Then what is an RTS? A game what is just like C&C. RTS games are C&C clones.'

Are UFO, Settlers or Reunion are C&C or Dune 2 clones? Nope. Not even similar. Are they RTS? Yes they are.

 

There is a meaning of RTS and that meaning is in the term itself. RTS are defined by itself and not by the elements of RTS games.

If you try to interpret it by 'who used it first' or 'who made it popular' or you just try to specify elements which define the genre, then you will drastically differ from reality, because you will bend the meaning to your viewpoint. (It would be weird to call RISK as a Chess clone, right?)

 

The British English corpus search gives some odd results. I suppose that the real-time strategy might have been used in British media to refer to something (?).

The link is broken. What they said?

[X3M]

About half way this thread, we went off topic:

http://forum.dune2k.com/topic/25147-the-end-for-rts/page-2

 

Actually fits this current topic.

Some links are already dead, hmf... :|

 

Any way, you need a clear definition for what RTS means. Only then you can point a first one.

When we take RTS literally, you have to take actions in real time (if you don't someone else does!). All players play simultaneously. But you can do so with a strategy. And the real time part is greatly improved with the help of your little humble PC.

 

Over the years, I have learned that strategy means so much more then just, blowing up someone else.

 

For strategy, you need the game to have at least 2 elements. Then you can choose which one to focus on when the time is right.

Thus you have to time your actions right to get the best strategy. And that is called RTS. (my opinion)

 

In war gaming, elements can be: possible micro management with units, resource management, army placement, base layout (proper wall placement as example), specific map control to boost certain elements.

 

I also once said, RTS does not mean "ay bloody warr". Although we all have grown old with that concept.

The best example that I can think of for an RTS, that does not allow you to blow up your opponent, would be Transport Tycoon.

Getting the first connection between 2 factories. Removing sea when boats make us of opponents. And I got some more nifty works with that game.

 

Any way, RTS war games: you destroy your opponent.

Other RTS, you either reach the goal first, or you try to reach the goal first while pausing your opponents.

 

---

 

To the question if Dune2 was the first RTS?

No.

 

When assuming that the terminology of RTS means exactly like what the wiki says.

Still no, the first official RTS is Stonkers (according to wiki)

(I love the part where one soldier runs after a supply truck, and the supply truck suddenly starts running away. :) )

But the first game that has been accepted by the majority of people as first RTS, is indeed Dune2.

[MrFlibble]

Maybe, but by this logic, we could call StarCraft the first RTS, because Dune 2 lacked a lot of elements too. We could call an even later game the first RTS, because even StarCraft lacked a lot of elements. As time progresses, the games become more and more complex with more and more elements. Which are those elements we define the origin of a category by?

Even if you do not agree with the prototype or family resemblance type categorization, you can simply measure the degree of similarity between, say Dune II and StarCraft, or Dune II and Herzog Zwei or Stonkers using such binary parameters as the presence/absence of resource gathering, base construction, tech tree, direct unit control etc. Dune II and StarCraft will have more similar features compared to the pre-Dune II real-time strategy games, even if you add in StarCraft-specific features which will increase the dissimilarity between StarCraft and Dune II.

Also, no one ever claimed to have invented or promoted the widespread use of the term RTS in connection with StarCraft or any other game than Dune II.

 

You're talking about 'popular meaning' or 'popular term usage', not prototyped categories. A popular definition is what the masses call something and ordinary people never do know what they are talking about: they just tend to pick up words, expressions and memes they hear or see, that's why they called RTS games as C&C clones or FPS games as Doom clones or "alien spaceships" as UFO-s. These categorizations are erroreneous. Why? First, because these terms are axiomatic, their meaning is trivial, it's in the term itself.

If you say that the "popular" definition is erroneous, then who establishes in the "correct" definition? Is there some authoritative dictionary of video game terms that provides such definition?

 

RTS means it's a strategy game and events happens in real-time. If we follow the logic of popular usage, then microsoft invented computers and operating systems, because it was win95 what spreaded across the continents and got into every home and thus for ordinary people, the computer was equal to PC and operating system was equal to windows or DOS (and even DOS meant MS-DOS for them, even if there were other Disk Operating Systems both earlier and later), just because they did not know anything else outside of these. It is absurd to redefine a term and making it differ from the real meaning, just to match the ignorant masses' expectations.

Again, could you please indicate the source of this correct meaning you're referring to?

Also it seems that both players and video game journalists end up in the "ignorant masses" for not using the literal understanding of the term?

 

That was i described above. If the sum matters, then we can raise the level and add more and more stuff to the sum which will lead to 'interpret it as you want'.

There are cases of normal usage you find both in publications (video game journalism) and speech (what players and gaming industry people say). As elsewhere in language, this usage is determined both by an established tradition and a certain norm which may be written or unwritten.

Personally I am not aware of any dictionary of video game terms that would give universally accepted definitions. If one exists, please give me a link.

 

The link is broken. What they said?

I'm sorry, the forum software seems to act up with these links. I fixed them in the first post (hopefully), but apparently there are recorded usages of "real-time strategy" (with the hyphen) in 1970s. This is especially noticeable for the British corpus. The Ngram viewer doesn't seem to allow to view contexts (or I didn't figure out how to do it), so no idea what it was used to refer to.

[TCH]

I had to split this to two posts, because the engine told me i surpassed the amount of allowed quotes. (???)

 

@X3M

 

Any way, you need a clear definition for what RTS means. Only then you can point a first one.

I think it's clear enough by itself.

 

 

When we take RTS literally, you have to take actions in real time (if you don't someone else does!). All players play simultaneously. But you can do so with a strategy. And the real time part is greatly improved with the help of your little humble PC.



Over the years, I have learned that strategy means so much more then just, blowing up someone else.



For strategy, you need the game to have at least 2 elements. Then you can choose which one to focus on when the time is right.

Thus you have to time your actions right to get the best strategy. And that is called RTS. (my opinion)

 

Perhaps. We may begin to dissect the term to words, or describe what can happen, but as i said in my last post, this term is axiomatic, it describes itself.

 

I also once said, RTS does not mean "ay bloody warr". Although we all have grown old with that concept.

Yep, that's what i mean. An RTS only means, it happens in real time, it does not mean a military game.

 

 

The best example that I can think of for an RTS, that does not allow you to blow up your opponent, would be Transport Tycoon.

Getting the first connection between 2 factories. Removing sea when boats make us of opponents. And I got some more nifty works with that game.

Yeah, for example Transport Tycoon, or A-Train, or Sim City. These kind of games are all "just build" type of strategies.

 

 

Any way, RTS war games: you destroy your opponent.

Other RTS, you either reach the goal first, or you try to reach the goal first while pausing your opponents.

Maybe, but even warlike RTS games does not have to be like Dune 2.

 

Still no, the first official RTS is Stonkers (according to wiki)

That's what i believed to too, but according to Wiki RTS Chronology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_real-time_strategy_video_games

The first one was either Cytron Masters or Cosmic Conquest.

 

But the first game that has been accepted by the majority of people as first RTS, is indeed Dune2.

Reality does not care about the beliefs of people.

[TCH]

@MrFlibble:

Even if you do not agree with the prototype or family resemblance type categorization, you can simply measure the degree of similarity between, say Dune II and StarCraft, or Dune II and Herzog Zwei or Stonkers using such binary parameters as the presence/absence of resource gathering, base construction, tech tree, direct unit control etc. Dune II and StarCraft will have more similar features compared to the pre-Dune II real-time strategy games, even if you add in StarCraft-specific features which will increase the dissimilarity between StarCraft and Dune II.

You missed one of my key points. What about RTS games which came after Dune 2 and they're nothing like Dune 2? UFO, Settlers, Reunion, Imprium Galactica and more. What about them? That's what i referred to in my previous post, if you try to categorize the genre through a popular meaning, you'll exclude a lot members which happens to fall outside that scope, yet still, in reality they don't.

If you say that the "popular" definition is erroneous, then who establishes in the "correct" definition? Is there some authoritative dictionary of video game terms that provides such definition?

The correct definition is defined by itself, as i mentioned several time: it's axiomatic. Why do you need a dictionary for a term which has a trivial meaning?

Again, could you please indicate the source of this correct meaning you're referring to?

I'm not referring to a source. I don't need a source for this. But if you insist to have a dictionary explanation, here's one from Wikipedia:

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_strategy)

Real-time strategy (RTS) is a subgenre of strategy video games which does not progress incrementally in turns.

They have a lot of more explanation in that article and also a link to the chronology and they describe the history of RTS too. And Dune 2 is far from the beginning. Dune 2 is a milestone not the definition itself.

Also it seems that both players and video game journalists end up in the "ignorant masses" for not using the literal understanding of the term?

(I will never wash this from myself. :) )

I do not want to sound like an ass, but as i witnessed what happened in the video game business in the last quarter century, and as i saw what the VG press/media did, and as i watched afar what's going in the communities... Well let's say "players" and "video game journalists" are synonyms for the "ignorant masses". :P (And not because they using some term wrongly.)

The press is always controlled by several groups, because it's the primary instrument for brainwashing/mass controlling nowdays, and the readers will believe at least one of the sources. If a reader hate group X, he will believe a media which also hates group X and will despise those sources which stand beside group X. But these are all labels, a circus made by the elite, for the ignorant masses. Choose the group to love or hate, it's just another face of the same elite. But that's off topic and beginning to slide towards politics, so i sit on my mouth. :P

And as for the players, just by viewing the former half decade: anything can be sold to players, i saw games where you just have to click one button and you gain points by that. People paying for that. Stone simulator on Kickstart. People paying for that. Pixel clicking by Peter Molyneux (!!!). People paying for that. Must i make a comment on this? I'd rather not.

There are cases of normal usage you find both in publications (video game journalism) and speech (what players and gaming industry people say). As elsewhere in language, this usage is determined both by an established tradition and a certain norm which may be written or unwritten.

Following that logic, if someone will replace "yes" and "no" with each other in the public media, then the two concept will switch places? How absurd is that? Just as i said to X3M: reality does not care about people's beliefs. If there's a term which speaks for itself, then it's meaning is clear and it's irrelevant what the public believes about it.

Personally I am not aware of any dictionary of video game terms that would give universally accepted definitions. If one exists, please give me a link.

I did. See above. (Still i don't understand why do you need a dictionary for a trivial case.)

As for unversal acceptation, if you tend to interpret the term differently from what it means, you will never have an universally accepted version, because everyone will interpret it as they want. You want Dune 2 to be the first RTS, you will say Dune 2. If someone want Herzog zwei, he will say that. Neither will be correct.

I'm sorry, the forum software seems to act up with these links. I fixed them in the first post (hopefully), but apparently there are recorded usages of "real-time strategy" (with the hyphen) in 1970s. This is especially noticeable for the British corpus. The Ngram viewer doesn't seem to allow to view contexts (or I didn't figure out how to do it), so no idea what it was used to refer to.

Maybe there is an even earlier RTS game made in the UK in the seventies? A lot of genre born in the seventies. First FPS for example (Spacesim). There were those mainframes and they had games too.

[X3M]

By saying that the masses accept Dune2 as the first RTS because they don't know better. I actually exactly meant what you are telling me. ;)

 

Now, perhaps it sounds like non sense.

Has it occured to you that if there is a board game that follows real time and allows strategy, than that would be a real time strategy game, without the help of computers? (Although real time with board games is very hard to achieve, it is possible)

But then again, hide and seek is a game played centuries ago. Also real time and you can have a strategy (path finding). No board, no PC. Was it the first RTS?

So, the first RTS in video gaming? The first RTS including board games. Or the first RTS "game" ever?

"game", since surviving is a nesety in reality, not a game.

 

Now, if we agree on looking for the first RTS in video gaming...

Any way, Cytron Masters or Cosmic Conquest, I am going to look into that. I am curious if they befit the real time and the strategy parts. :)

[Nyerguds]

I find it funny that pretty much everything discussed in this thread is kind of in the wikipedia article :P

But yeah... the terminology can usually be summed up like this: if it includes base building/economy, it's "real time strategy". Otherwise, it's "real time tactics".

And you can't really nitpick on that, since the two words are pretty much synonyms. It's just how the terminology is established.

 

The first RTS including board games. Or the first RTS "game" ever?

I've never, ever seen a board game that was not turn based... ???

Then again, I heard Westwood's RTS concept apparently evolved from the Battletech games they developed where they had a system of limited turn time.

[TCH]

@X3M: 

 

By saying that the masses accept Dune2 as the first RTS because they don't know better. I actually exactly meant what you are telling me.

Whoops, sorry. Maybe i misunderstanded something.

 

 

Now, perhaps it sounds like non sense.

Has it occured to you that if there is a board game that follows real time and allows strategy, than that would be a real time strategy game, without the help of computers? (Although real time with board games is very hard to achieve, it is possible)

But then again, hide and seek is a game played centuries ago. Also real time and you can have a strategy (path finding). No board, no PC. Was it the first RTS?

So, the first RTS in video gaming? The first RTS including board games. Or the first RTS "game" ever?

"game", since surviving is a nesety in reality, not a game.

Maybe it was not specified, but we argued about the first RTS video game, not the first whatever RTS, that would be nonsense; reality always "plays" in real-time, so whenever the first sentient being at anywhere in the universe made up some strategy aganist anything, that is the very first RTS, but only if we assume that strategy needs conscioussness; but this is getting too philosophical. :)

 

 

Now, if we agree on looking for the first RTS in video gaming...

Any way, Cytron Masters or Cosmic Conquest, I am going to look into that. I am curious if they befit the real time and the strategy parts.

Cytron Masters is here: http://thegamearchives.net/?val=0_2_1_0_0_9_40227_0_0_0_0

Or a video:

However, there is no binary for Cosmic Conquest, only source code in BYTE magazine. So, if you would like to try it, you have to fire up a FORTH compiler on an Apple 2, or in an emulator and type the source by yourself, then compile (or interpret, if has that function).

 

@Nyerguds:

 

But yeah... the terminology can usually be summed up like this: if it includes base building/economy, it's "real time strategy". Otherwise, it's "real time tactics".

Cytron Masters has base building, unit management and some economic as you have to management energy (the resource in the game) and still it's called a real-time tactics game. Now which is which? ;)

 

And you can't really nitpick on that, since the two words are pretty much synonyms. It's just how the terminology is established.

Of course, if you use them as synonyms or RTT as a subgenre of RTS, then it's correct. Actually "tactics" is very ambigous, if you have two armies facing each other and there is no bases or economics, you can still use strategy.

I think it's rather the release time which should decide between Cytron Masters and Cosmic Conquest.

[X3M]

Awesome video (even though it looks dull to others)

Cytron masters, looks like real time according to the video that you have supplied.

I see objects moving ahead while the player continuous making decisions. That is a hard proof already.

 

Strategy is undertaken before the battle. Tactics are implemented during battle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactic_%28method%29

 

This means that resource and base management, and building up (macro) your forces is all part of strategy. Upgrades are a valid strategy option too.

While fighting and using micro are tactics.

 

Ok, the confusing part is setting up the position of your forces.

When you do this before your battle, it is strategy.

When you do this during your battle, it is tactics???

 

Wow, never knew it could be so "easy" to understand.

 

So you want an RTS?

Then you need something of the strategy part.

This does also mean that Transport Tycoon is still a strategy game.

All those games where you only do battle however are tactical games. Except those where you are allowed to customize your own forces! And except those where you are allowed to place your units the way you want.

 

An awesome trivia question would be: "Is chess a tactical game or a strategy game?" :D

 

Planning tactics is also a strategy, you do this on before hand. Thus planning to attack the resource site of your opponent is strategy. Yet when doing this is a tactic.

 

Now, I can't tell yet if Cytron masters is a strategy or tactical game. Can one plan ahead? I guess so, thus it should be RTS by our standards. Not RTT.

 

Interesting discussion :).

[Nyerguds]

Actually "tactics" is very ambigous, if you have two armies facing each other and there is no bases or economics, you can still use strategy.

Well, that's what I said; "strategy" and "tactics" are synonyms.

[X3M]

Sorry, but they aren't synonyms.

 

Synonym means that you have 2 different words that have the (exact) same meaning.

Wiki clearly points out that there is a difference between strategy and tactics.

 

Most correct dictionaries online also say that tactics is strong related to strategy, but not a synonym.

[Nyerguds]

Well, yes and no. "strategy" and "tactic" (singular) aren't synonyms, but a strategy is generally made up of one or more tactics, and "the use of tactics" is strategy. So in reality, anything involving tactics will involve strategy and vice versa, so functionally, especially in this context, they can be considered as two words saying exactly the same thing. Which, as far as I know, is the definition of a "synonym" :)

[X3M]

You know...

...

You are now saying, they are synonyms, but aren't. :D

 

Almost a religious versus atheist discussion.

(Hmmm, am hoping that a god and an afterlife exists, but there is clearly no good proof for that, yet we exist and everything has been created at a certain point, yes and no at the same time)

...

...

...

...

 

Any ways. Let's continue and simply have at least 2 answers to the question.

We all agree on what real time means, right?

And are looking for the first video game that uses real time and strategy/tactics.

 

[TCH]

@X3M: 

 

 

This means that resource and base management, and building up (macro) your forces is all part of strategy. Upgrades are a valid strategy option too.

While fighting and using micro are tactics.



Ok, the confusing part is setting up the position of your forces.

When you do this before your battle, it is strategy.

When you do this during your battle, it is tactics???



Wow, never knew it could be so "easy" to understand.

I would not make it this complex. CM seems strategy to me.

 

 

So you want an RTS?

Then you need something of the strategy part.

This does also mean that Transport Tycoon is still a strategy game.

All those games where you only do battle however are tactical games. Except those where you are allowed to customize your own forces! And except those where you are allowed to place your units the way you want.

I think this is easier than this, see next:

 

An awesome trivia question would be: "Is chess a tactical game or a strategy game?"

Both. As your applied tactics are parts of your strategy.

 

Now, I can't tell yet if Cytron masters is a strategy or tactical game. Can one plan ahead? I guess so, thus it should be RTS by our standards. Not RTT.

I would vote for strategy, as you have to do some resource management and unit production too. I think, in a clean tactics game, you would not have dynamic reinforcements. (On dynamic i mean, self producted, not planned. For example: "General Shityard will be here in three weeks" is planned, "Our officers recruited 300 more men" is dynamic.)

 

@Nyerguds:

 

Well, that's what I said; "strategy" and "tactics" are synonyms.

Maybe, but i would rather say, that tactics is part of the strategy.

 

 but a strategy is generally made up of one or more tactics, and "the use of tactics" is strategy

Strategy is more than just combinations of several tactics. For example, timing, when to apply a tactics. I think strategy is not the "sum" of the tactics, but the art of tactics applying. Of course if you meant this by "the use of tactics", then we agree.

 

@X3M:

 

And are looking for the first video game that uses real time and strategy/tactics.

We already know that it's either Cytron Masters or Cosmic Conquest, they are both RTS-es, it's just the release time which is not clear. Cosmic Conquest came out in 1982 second half in BYTE, but i believe it was available earlier at South Africa.

Cytron Masters says, it's either 1982.06.01. or sometime in 1980. If this latter one is true, then CM is the true winner. If the first, then we should check, when BYTE 1982/2 came out and we can accept that as the release date of CC. Unless we find another release date in South Africa. But if we don't and the BYTE 1982/2 is later than 1982.06.01. then it does not matter, if Cytron Masters came out in 1980 or 1982, it's still the winner.

[Nyerguds]

@Nyerguds:

Maybe, but i would rather say, that tactics is part of the strategy.

Strategy is more than just combinations of several tactics. For example, timing, when to apply a tactics. I think strategy is not the "sum" of the tactics, but the art of tactics applying. Of course if you meant this by "the use of tactics", then we agree.

As you already said:

Both. As your applied tactics are parts of your strategy.

^ This is exactly what I meant.