Editing Real-time strategy (section)

====Turn-based vs. real-time====
{{Main|Time-keeping systems in games}}
A debate has emerged between fans of real-time strategy (RTS) and [[Turn-based strategy|turn-based strategy (TBS)]] (and related genres) based on the merits of the real-time and turn-based systems. Because of their generally faster-paced nature (and in some cases a smaller learning curve), real-time strategy games have surpassed the popularity of [[turn-based strategy]] computer games.<ref name=gspytbsrts>{{cite web | last =Walker | first =Mark | title =Strategy Gaming: Part V – Real-Time vs. Turn-Based | publisher =GameSpy | url =http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february02/strategygames05/ | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20081221074049/http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february02/strategygames05/ | archive-date =December 21, 2008 | access-date=October 28, 2007 | url-status=dead}}</ref> In the past, a common criticism was to regard real-time strategy games as "cheap imitations" of turn-based strategy games, arguing that real-time strategy games had a tendency to devolve into "click-fests"<ref name=armchair>{{cite web |title=Theatre of War by 1C and Battlefront – Interview |publisher=Armchair General Magazine |url=http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles.php?cat=59&p=2806&page=1 | access-date=June 2, 2007}}</ref><ref name=pcp>{{cite web | title =Point – CounterPoint: Turn Based vs. Real Time Strategy | publisher =[[Strategy Planet]] | date =June 27, 2001 | url =http://www.strategyplanet.com/features/articles/pcp-turnvsreal/ | access-date =April 5, 2007 | url-status =dead | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20070226185919/http://www.strategyplanet.com/features/articles/pcp-turnvsreal/ | archive-date =February 26, 2007 | df =mdy-all }}</ref><ref name=gspystrategy2>{{cite web | last =Walker | first =Mark | title =Strategy Gaming: Part II | publisher =GameSpy | url =http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february02/strategy02/ | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20100105182651/http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/february02/strategy02/ | archive-date =January 5, 2010 | access-date=October 28, 2007}}</ref> in which the player who was faster with the [[computer mouse|mouse]] generally won, because they could give orders to their units at a faster rate.

The common retort is that success involves not just fast clicking, but also the ability to make sound decisions under time pressure.<ref name=pcp/> The "clickfest" argument is also often voiced alongside a "button babysitting" criticism, which pointed out that a great deal of game time is spent either waiting and watching for the next time a production button could be clicked, or rapidly alternating between different units and buildings, clicking their respective button.<ref name="babysitting">This mostly a concern with older RTS games that did not feature building queues, meaning that players would have to click the button to build a unit soon after it was completed. However, in some games where units have timed abilities that must be explicitly activated, for instance heroes in the real-time tactics game ''[[Mark of Chaos]]'' this is still a concern.</ref>

Some titles attempt to merge the two systems: for example, the role-playing game ''[[Fallout (video game)|Fallout]]'' uses turn-based combat and real-time gameplay, while the real-time strategy games ''Homeworld'', ''[[Rise of Nations]]'', and the games of the ''[[Total War (video game series)|Total War]]'' and ''[[Hegemony (video game series)|Hegemony]]'' series allow the player to pause the game and issue orders. Additionally, the ''Total War'' series has a combination of a turn-based strategy map with a real-time battle map. Another example of a game combining both turn-based game and real-time-strategy is ''[[The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-Earth II]]'' which allows players, in a 'War of the Ring' game, to play a turn-based strategy game, but also battle each other in real time.