I Need a New RTS

[MajWound]

What? That was all macro. The entire thing was your overarching strategy and very little thought was needed to be given to the micro, unlike games like SC2.

When I think "macro", I think workers, resources, economy, construction, expansion. All I ever seemed to do was move my pricks from one wall to the next. I felt like all the "big picture" strategy was broken down into the territories you had to take, so all I had to do was get to the capture point and hold it. Then, if I lose my pricks, all it takes is click click and more pricks are dropping into the field. All the economic shit was done behind the scenes, so the ticking resource counter was the only indication of how I was doing on that front. My favorite part of the game was the mission where you need to hold out in the city so you have to build bunkers and minefields to protect you. That was awesome and really kept me going.

 

[Apollo45]

Pick up Homeworld. The original is the best, but Cataclysm and Homeworld 2 are both awesome.

Sins of a Solar Empire is good, but it's purely skirmish/multiplayer - no campaign involved - and can get boring after a little bit.

Also, maybe more along your lines, pick up Command and Conquer: The First Decade. Every game in there is awesome, although I found Generals to be wanting, and it'll take you through the golden days of Westwood Studios before EA ruined my childhood. On that note, however, don't bother buying the new C&C games. C&C3 is decent, as is RA3, but they're not exactly great, and C&C4 isn't worth its weight in piss.

 

[Knusper]

Well, it seems you don't like CoH, so I would recommend Men of War. It's a WWII (yes, I know) RTS but you get to play as the Russians. It's an acquired taste but my brother and I love it so if there is some way to try it out before buying it, do it.

 

[MajWound]

The Total War sisters are nice girls. They're a little complex than their friends, so I think that you'll find your experiences to be a little more in depth. They quite like their quiet time with settlement management and negotiations, but they love to get down and dirty with battles - and I think you'll find them to be some of the best you've had.

I completely missed this post. I've heard nothing but good things about the Total War series, but which ones really shine?

 

[Stephen Caswell]

Age of Mythology. It's AOE2, but in Ancient Greece with Titans!

 

[Merkavar]

i would suggest dawn of war. i didnt like dawn of war 2.

maybe civ 5.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

What? That was all macro. The entire thing was your overarching strategy and very little thought was needed to be given to the micro, unlike games like SC2.

When I think "macro", I think workers, resources, economy, construction, expansion. All I ever seemed to do was move my pricks from one wall to the next. I felt like all the "big picture" strategy was broken down into the territories you had to take, so all I had to do was get to the capture point and hold it. Then, if I lose my pricks, all it takes is click click and more pricks are dropping into the field. All the economic shit was done behind the scenes, so the ticking resource counter was the only indication of how I was doing on that front. My favorite part of the game was the mission where you need to hold out in the city so you have to build bunkers and minefields to protect you. That was awesome and really kept me going.

Ah. I see, we just have differing definitions. That probably comes from the RTS's we both played first. Since the first one I played seriously was Dawn of War, where resource gathering meant owning territory and holding points I've always defined macro as strategy and micro as tactics.

In other words, my plan to win (macro) and the movements/moment by moment actions I take to get there (micro).

I would definitely try Dawn of War if I were you.

 

[MajWound]

i would suggest dawn of war. i didnt like dawn of war 2.

maybe civ 5.

My roommate and I broke the hell out of Civ V. As it turns out, if you refuse to ally with anyone for any reason, even economic reasons (basically become Switzerland), nobody will attack you and you're virtually guaranteed to win with non-violent goals every time.

Also, it's paced like molasses in deep space. I refuse to apologize for not having the patience to play a single match in the time it would take me to beat 5 other games.

Ah. I see, we just have differing definitions. That probably comes from the RTS's we both played first. Since the first one I played seriously was Dawn of War, where resource gathering meant owning territory and holding points I've always defined macro as strategy and micro as tactics.

In other words, my plan to win (macro) and the movements/moment by moment actions I take to get there (micro).

I would definitely try Dawn of War if I were you.

I'm glad we got that settled. For reference, I define macro as the process of building an army/base and micro as the troop movements individually. What you call macro I call strategy, as an entirely separate concept.

 

[Mr. Eff_v1legacy]

I completely missed this post. I've heard nothing but good things about the Total War series, but which ones really shine?[/quote]

It pretty much depends which period of history you're interested in. The first two (Shogun and Medieval) were good, but the later games made huge improvements in the mapping. Each game makes improvements of course, but all of the games are well done and functional. Empire introduced naval battles, and either Empire or Napoleon introduced technological research. I've heard someone say that Napoleon was a bit sticky due to its era (muskets and cannons being primarily used) but I found it to be alot of fun.

I personally like Medieval II, but I played Napoleon alot too.

 

[MajWound]

It pretty much depends which period of history you're interested in. The first two (Shogun and Medieval) were good, but the later games made huge improvements in the mapping. Each game makes improvements of course, but all of the games are well done and functional. Empire introduced naval battles, and either Empire or Napoleon introduced technological research. I've heard someone say that Napoleon was a bit sticky due to its era (muskets and cannons being primarily used) but I found it to be alot of fun.

I personally like Medieval II, but I played Napoleon alot too.

I'm on it. Thank you, and thank everyone else for helping. This thread has been a wild success. I think I'll have enough games to get me to November.

Achron-a time travel RTS
See it to believe it.
It's not out yet, but I'm definitely looking out for it.
Take a look at http://www.achrongame.com/

Never heard of it. This is from the Wikipedia article:

The unique aspect of gameplay in Achron is the fact that the game proceeds not only in many instances of space, but also in many instances of time. Players can simultaneously and independently play in the past, present, or future...

Additionally, apart from the player being able to view and command his forces in the past and the future, individual units may travel through time as well, with a process called "chronoporting". When it takes place, the player must be cautious to avoid "chronofragging" their units - that is, having units collide with previous or future instances of themselves...

Chronoporting is useful as different instances of a unit may battle alongside themselves, resulting in a way of easily building large armies of time clones...

 

[Mr. Eff_v1legacy]

You're welcome. Glad we could help.

Happy conquering!

 

[Shaso40]

To MajWound
As I said, go on the website!

 

[BaronFelX]

Oh, man, if you like scale and insane economic management, you have to get your hands into Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander. Most people hated them because you never stockpiled anything and you could never really afford to buy anything outright. It was always managing resources in versus resources out, and if you messed up that flow and got glutted or shorted, you were right fucked. Also, the AI was good enough (and TA was in 1997, mind you) that you didn't have to supervise every little thing that your units did, so you could really consider what was going on with the big picture.

 

[MajWound]

To MajWound
As I said, go on the website!

I'm looking at it and it sounds badass. I just have no Goddamn idea how it would work in multiplayer.

 

[Darth_Dude]

Age of Mythology. It's AOE2, but in Ancient Greece with Titans!

And better Graphics!

 

[Flailing Escapist]

If you are into Lord of the Rings BFME2 is right for you!
Ba Ba Ba Ba Da Da Da

 

[KnowYourOnion]

I love RTS games. I've been married to Starcraft II for a while now, but it's an open relationship and she's giving me the green light to seek other pleasures. Previous relationships include:

Age of Empires II (We still hook up sometimes.)
Age of Empires III (That was a dark patch.)
Empire Earth (A different experience every time. Sexy as hell.)
Empire Earth III (Then puberty hit her like a truck made of trains.)
Starcraft (Something about being fucked in the ass by a Korean just feels right.)
Warcraft II (My first love. Fuck, she was ugly in retrospect.)
Warcraft III (Her "models" got "3D" if you know what I mean.)
Rise of Nations (Forgettable.)
Company of Heroes (Well. That was...interesting.)

And a number of one-night stands. I'll remember them if you mention them.

Men of War: Assault Squad!
One of the best RTSs I've ever played, it's pretty realistic, you need to use tactics and a fair amount of micro-managing.

Oh and fully destructible battlefields which can range from 1v1 to 8v8

 

[Thaliur]

If you feel like trying something different with loads of different gameplay outcomes, you could try:

Earth 2150 (and it's standalone expansions "Lost Souls" and "The Moon Project")
Excellent storyline, huge tech tree, and completely custom-built units with highly detailed AI modes (not just aggressive and defensive, but also settings like "flee at x% health", "lights out" makes them less visible at night, platoons allow organised armies that really act as an army should...). Also the three playable factions are actually vastly different in terms of resource gathering, unit specialities and construction. Compared to them, Terrans, Protoss and Zerg seem like palette swaps.
Earth 2160 isn't bad either, but extremely dumbed down compared to 2150. Still a great storyline, though, and, like its predecessor, excellent voice acting (at least in German. It's an "old-European" production after all).

The War Of The Worlds (What I usually refer to when I say WoW, since it's much older than World Of Warcraft)
The best comparison might be the Total War series. You get a "world map" (actually an "England map"), where you move your units around, and at any time you can switch to local map view to build structures, and of course to fight battles.
BOth factions are completely different in terms of economy, research, military and of course design, and I never ever managed to complete every research item in one playthrough on either side. No (officially supported) multiplayer though. It's in the code, but hidden. Probably because a multiplayer game of that kindwould take ages.

 

[teebeeohh]

supreme commander if you like big scale combat, but stay away from sc2

and one of my personal all time favorites would be ground control, which is less strategy and more tactics but still an awesome game.

 

[Tallim]

Warzone 2100 as previously mentioned. Especially if you have people you can play multi with, although the campaign is pretty awesome.

Myth 2 : Soulblighter


Fun Captcha: