Jazzyluv2 said:
TundraWolf said:
naive concept of starcraft.
yes, pumping out units is an essential skill. But when everybody has that skill(you know, because you probably don't) that makes positioning very important, and strategy.
Another thing is that starcraft has only 1 random factor in the game, and that is miss a 50 percent miss chance shooting up cliffs.
I know when you see a starcraft match, all you see is units slaming against each other.
but think about this.
Zealots have to be in front to be able to absorb tank fire, and get in tank lines, vultures have to be in front of the tanks to prevent this, Storms have to be placed properly in order to make the push worth it. Blah blah blah.
And actually, that isn't strategy, that is tactics.
Actually, what you are talking about in COH is tactics.
strategy is like( play safe and defensive while expanding when i can)
Tactics are the individual moments of positioning.
Starcraft has more strategy than you care to give credit for. It's just that your too poor of a player at this point to fathom it.
Okay, well, first off, cheers for the condescension. Because that makes your argument all the more well-received and valid.
All the things you explain as tactics are indeed tactics that exist in most every RTS. I even mention that tactics are the fun, important part of RTSes in my post. And I quote:
You should have to be tactical and strategic in the placement and use of your assets, not just churn out as many as possible and throw them into the grinder.
Emphasis added, of course.
I'm assuming you realize this, as you responded by explaining the tactics of
Starcraft, which I appreciate. However, you can explain them all you want, but without the presence of things such as a cover system for your units (á la
Company of Heroes and
Dawn of War), or some way of actually assigning formations to your units (á la the
Total War series and
World in Conflict, to name a few), there is very little in the way of true tactics, at least no more than in any other RTS. Counter-units are something that are essential to any RTS worth its salt, after all, and being able to properly use them is a key gameplay component if you want to be good at the game. Not that it's entirely that hard to master, being no more difficult than knowing what weapon to use in an FPS at the right time (rocket launcher blows up vehicles, shotguns are good for close-quarters, et cetera).
Being able to implement them properly is where the true test of your skill is, but when you compare the small, quick, stock maps of
Starcraft to the destructible environments and sprawling city- and landscapes of
Company of Heroes, it takes a much more tactically-oriented mind to be able to utilize a changing environment to your benefit. The height differences are much more extreme, the chokepoints are much more narrow and intense but can be flanked from many different directions, and so on and so forth. In comparison to the
Starcraft maps which have maybe two or three chokepoints that have maybe two directions at them, one has a very superior advantage.
In any event, every RTS has the same strategy conflict of expansion vs. defending.
Every RTS. That's one of the core components of every RTS ever made, or at least when considering multiplayer. To have an RTS that doesn't have that sort of balance isn't an RTS at all, merely an isometric adventure game. Really, though, that doesn't encompass what strategy is, nor is it the only strategy that people can implement in RTSes. You can turtle, you can rush, you can boom, or you can have a variation there-in. (I'm assuming you're familiar with these terms, of course.)
Those are the real choices you have for strategy when you go into a game, and then you have strategic choices you make through the course of a match. Where am I going to expand to next? Should I attack my enemy at a flank to draw their attention while I march some troops in the front door, or vice versa? And so on and so forth. There are many different strategies one can implement in the course of a game, and I find myself hard-pressed to say that
Starcraft gives you enough choice in that regard. Honestly, the strategies one implements for any game of
Starcraft depends on two things: what race you are playing and which race your enemy is playing. And that's it. Sure, that's a good thing to consider, but when all it boils down to is "Zerg are weak against fire, so, as a Terran, I'll build Firebats and Hellions" is a super-lame attempt at strategy. Besides that, often the "strategy" one implements in a game of
Starcraft is entirely dependent on whether or not you've memorized the correct combination and order of units to build. That worked back in the day, but it's outdated when compared to what
Company of Heroes,
SoaSE,
World in Conflict, and many others offer.
Perhaps I don't give
Starcraft enough credit, but it's hard to see what nuances it has when you look at how much things have evolved since '97. It might still be popular, and I'm sure there are plenty of people better than me at it, but that's because I haven't spent time trying to memorize exactly how many units to build and what order to build them in for every situation. Games shouldn't be about memory, they should be about dynamic content that changes as the game continues. You need to be able to react to situations as they appear and react to them organically, not just consider it as an equation. "Enemy bunker + 5 Marines = Bunker wins. Enemy bunker + 2 Marauders = Marauders win." That's not strategy. That's math. And math sucks.
Also, props for the insult about my playing ability. I also like how you imply that I've been playing it for only a short amount of time when I've got the original copy of
Starcraft from '98 in my hands right now. Oh how amusingly outdated the graphics look.
Nice talkin' with you.
