Strategies

If you have lots of peasants, and he has few elite... you can keep his elite force focused on killing say half your army, whilst the rest make a dash for his base.
But I would saying reaction speed too. Knowing what to do in which situation is important, which I suppose falls under intuition

That is pretty much the exact definition of intuition: fast reacting without much thought.

Regardless of percentages, though, awareness of units' capabilities, an opponent's strategies and tactics, the game's mechanics, the factions' strengths and weakness, and of the maps/environments/situations is the most important characteristic for winning.

You can't take a unit to it's full potential if you don't know what it's full potential is and you can't have a good strategy if you don't know what ur doing, so awareness is critical for both planning/strategy and execution/tactics. It also helps intuition in that you can't react if you don't don't what you're reaction is gonna be. By knowing what's going on, you can apply you're knowledge to you're strategy, you're tactics, and how to react to situations.

So I guess that if you are going to use percentages, it's 50% awareness, 20% planning/strategy, 20% execution/tactics, and 10% intuition because knowledge helps all the others and intuition is a helpful part that makes the best of the others in situations where you don't have time to plan out an action.

I'm still sticking with my numbers, because most of what you said falls under one of my catagories

Knowing what units are the best to build in which situation is basically all that stradegy is. Knowing how to use them best is tactics. Knowing (or guessing) when it's best to use them is intuition.

Strategy is the biggest part. Puppeteer, if you buy only peasants in a game against me, I will crush you. It doesn't matter how good you manage them, I'll still crush you.

Meh I guess it's a PoV thing because the way I see it, management and strategy stem from awareness not the other way around. That's why I put it with such importance, it's the biggest part because it contributes to everything and a player is nothing without it; I mean, the more a player plays a game, the more a player knows a game. The more a player knows a game, the more a player can do in terms of strategy, management, and reaction. You're never getting all of that without awareness or luck, especially awareness ofc.

Strategy is no good if you can't execute it well. The execution/tactical part of RTS is more than just running ur units around, u know; it's knowing exactly whether to get more units or more farms or more of a different kind of unit in a certain situation, it's knowing exactly where to place your buildings and units to get the most out of them. It's knowing ur stances and what to shoot at.

If a person goes for a fast-tech strategy to TGs, for example, then their strategy is no good if they don't make it so that they have enough forces to hold the enemy off while getting rangers at just the right time; focus too much on getting rangers through upgrades and farms and whatnot and you won't have enough units to defend. Focus too much on getting units and it's not really fast teching at that point.

Imo, planning and tactics are equal; as Yoda said, no matter how well a person micros their peasants, they still lose because the player planned ahead and got archers or cavalry. Likewise, no matter how brilliant a person's rush/harassment strategy is, for example, no matter how well it was planned ahead, it's no good if a player let's their raider units get killed by falling victim to hit-and-run tactics or diversions.

I had thought this topic had died long ago...apparently someone has brought it to life.

hmm...Awareness is the state of being aware of what's going on whereas Intuition is the immediate apprehension of an event...

So, awareness, reaction, and intuition work together in a process. You'd be aware of the 'goings on' (awareness of events) then, you would notice something (apprehension), then you'd react to the apprehension.

In my opinion, You need all three in the process.

Next: Strategy and Tactics. Strategy is the art of employing the means of war in planning. Tactics is the maneuvers you use during the battle. Tactics is after Strategy because without strategy, tactics are worthless.

Basically, you plan your half of the 'dance of battle' (Strategy) and then you'd begin to 'dance with your enemy' (Tactics).


So, in my opinion, a battle goes along the lines of 45% 'Foresight and Reaction' Process, 45% 'Preparation and Dancing', 10% actually fighting the battle.

So, all definitions from Dictionary.com...check them if you wish.

In the words of Sun-Tzu: "All warfare is based on deception. There is no place where deception is not used."

no matter how well a person micros their peasants, they still lose because the player planned ahead and got archers or cavalry

Why presume that the peasant guy always uses it? Why does the opponent have to be the smart one? It could be that they much prefer Turtleing but by using scouts have discovered, for lack of a better example, the enemy trying to Fast-Tech to Upgraded Rangers. In which case spamming Peasants to take out farms and upgraded Archery Ranges if he has not much in the way of defense hinders him greatly. I am in no way saying spamming Peasants is a fail-safe strategy that should be imployed in all situations.
If the Peasant spammer lets the guy get a huge army of elites, then he has played badly. You can't start the arguement from when they both have built their armies up to equal size.

Yes you can, when the arguement that a player with bad strategy but good tactics loses to a player with good strategy.

So you can't say the person with good strategy suddenly has bad strategy...

They're equal qualities imo; a good idea is worthless if u can't make it happen and tactics are worthless if they aren't tied by some major plan.

Yes you can, when the arguement that a player with bad strategy but good tactics loses to a player with good strategy.

But then if you are using the idea of a guy with a small but very elite force, I don't see bad tactics. But good tactics. So then it would be a case of good tactics but bad tactics against good strategy and good tactics. Which is kinda pointless argueing