Napoleon once said something about fortifications mattering the most to the outcome of an invasion even more so than how an invasion was organized.
After reviewing footage of the current invasion in Congo, I realized that there was difference between capturing territory and securing it. I already knew that there was a distinction between the two terms, but the implications of that distinction only became obvious to me recently. Okay, but what does this have to do with RTS games?
Basically, I think game developers should reconsider the definition of capturing territory in these games to be more than just taking over land. Simply occupying land doesn’t necessarily mean any captured territory is actually secure. Without defence systems installed and any chance of internal rebellion suppressed, no territory has been really secured.
I think games like Paradox RTS games, Men of War, and warhammer should have a built in rebellion feature and an “unsecured debuff.” By leaving any invasive land much more vulnerable to be lost either due to internal strife from the player’s actions or from the fact that the territory captured isn’t really defended, the player is forced to make harder decisions about whether invading their neighbours is worth the potential costs and about how they should treat those they subjugated.
I think RTS games would be much more realistic, but that they would have a lot more to say about the nature of warfare.