"No resource" RTS games

[Novacain4862]

(Forget it I'm stupid)

I'm stupid, it came out like 2 years ago, well how about what do you guys think about "no resources" RTS games? Like them? Hate them? I personally find them refreshing, takes one less chore out of the game. More time to micromanage your units and pretty much treat them like family. Well DOW2 did this and I liked it, World in Conflict did it and I liked it. Maybe I'm just a sucker for these kinds of games?

http://pc.ign.com/objects/821/821566.html game, its RTS fun fun

 

[SovietSecrets]

Fun and a great game to play, but a bit short for me. Go try it out if you haven't already. If you like RTS games, most likely you would like this one as well. Launching nukes is always a blast and looks pretty.

 

[Novacain4862]

I usually hate cut scenes because I think it breaks the flow of the game. But man cut scenes just made that game great. It made me sad when characters died or things did go my way. Cause it feels like my fault and I could have prevented it.

 

[lizards]

i enjoyed WIC for a while but then i quit for a couple reasons:

1 heavy artty is way to fucking powerful
2 infantry can be run over by tanks
3 off map support was to cheap
4 snipers are way to powerful
5 infantry to expensive for what they cost

you cant claim that all 4 trees need eachother when one is independent one sucks and one can be completly defended against with 1 unit

 

[Bluntknife]

I tryed DOW2 and didn't like it, I've always hated those levels in rts's that give you a limited number of troops.

My reason for enjoying rts's is making huge amounts of troops and sending them all in and have one huge massacre.
Rts in my books stands for real time slaughter

 

[Novacain4862]

i enjoyed WIC for a while but then i quit for a couple reasons:

1 heavy artty is way to fucking powerful
2 infantry can be run over by tanks
3 off map support was to cheap
4 snipers are way to powerful
5 infantry to expensive for what they cost

you cant claim that all 4 trees need eachother when one is independent one sucks and one can be completly defended against with 1 unit

Well I'm sure Infantry shouldn't be rushing tanks in the first place lol. Off map support is way too cheap. I don't think snipers are that powerful they can only pick off infantry.

The limited number of troops is good cause it teaches you to be careful. I do like resource gathering RTS games as well such as Starcraft, Warcraft, Age of Empires. But just its refreshing to not have to think about your workers getting harassed or your buildings getting raided.

 

[Valiance]

I loved the DoW 2 campaign because tactics and strategy come above "oh I had another expansion mining than you so I out-macro'd you."

Granted, I fucking hate the multiplayer. It's imbalanced, leaves me feeling empty and unfulfilled, and nothing is more boring than playing UT's Domination or Battlefield 1942 as an RTS.

"go here, take cover, and don't die while I fucking wait to drain enough points to win!"

It's such a bad concept. King of the Hill vs outright obliteration? Nothing feels better than making a huge army, fighting a huge army, and winning...Or launching nukes.

I guess personally, I prefer the huge scale type of battles for the most part, and wouldn't even call DoW II a RTS so much as a RTT.

That said, I liked it for different reasons than I like RTS games, and I never played WIC.

 

[lizards]

i enjoyed WIC for a while but then i quit for a couple reasons:

1 heavy artty is way to fucking powerful
2 infantry can be run over by tanks
3 off map support was to cheap
4 snipers are way to powerful
5 infantry to expensive for what they cost

you cant claim that all 4 trees need eachother when one is independent one sucks and one can be completly defended against with 1 unit

Well I'm sure Infantry shouldn't be rushing tanks in the first place lol. Off map support is way too cheap. I don't think snipers are that powerful they can only pick off infantry.

The limited number of troops is good cause it teaches you to be careful. I do like resource gathering RTS games as well such as Starcraft, Warcraft, Age of Empires. But just its refreshing to not have to think about your workers getting harassed or your buildings getting raided.

you havent been playing for to long have you? infantry werent rushing tanks they were jsut going from one forest to the next 2 snipers can kill an entire force of infantry at range and the limited number of troops makes it so combat is limited to either being in one area or the next

and just a sidenote if you want people to take you seriously then dont act like your 12 and say "lol"

 

[Novacain4862]

How about garrisoning your infantry inside of buildings? Those anti-tank infantry can make quick work of tanks. If you have a problem with getting owned by snipers then don't build infantry cause its pretty obvious you don't like them anyways. I don't care if people think I act 12 just because I said "lol". Try brushing up on your spelling so you don't look like an idiot.

 

[SP MeaslyBinkie]

I tried the demo for World in Conflict:Soviet Assault and I thought it was pretty good it reminded me of Warhammer:Battlemarch, but I think DoW 2 will become the new type of RTS but I would call these type of games Real.Time.Tactical.Stratagy.

 

[Reaperman Wompa]

I tryed DOW2 and didn't like it, I've always hated those levels in rts's that give you a limited number of troops.

My reason for enjoying rts's is making huge amounts of troops and sending them all in and have one huge massacre.
Rts in my books stands for real time slaughter

That, I always liked throwing a few super heavy tanks/troops/monsters at my enemies over and over, always filling up my pop cap, I hate games where all I do is control a squad, I always feel robbed of most of the fun.

 

[The_Prophet]

I hate it. Ruins the entire experience for me.

 

[Markness]

What's so bad about macro? It adds so much more strategy when you have to spread out your troops to protect your mines but not too thin or the enemy can break through and you have to expand at the right time and so on.

 

[ChaoticLegion]

I find both types of RTS fun..... I'm a huge fan of the old Age of Empire type gameplay, but i also love games such as Company of Heroes..... but then there are also games with different resource setups such as Supreme Commander. I think different resource variants work well with different games, I don't have a preference for either.

 

[Mikkelet]

I find both types of RTS fun..... I'm a huge fan of the old Age of Empire type gameplay, but i also love games such as Company of Heroes..... but then there are also games with different resource setups such as Supreme Commander. I think different resource variants work well with different games, I don't have a preference for either.

Just my words

 

[KDR_11k]

Well, I guess I could point at Kernel Panic [http://spring.clan-sy.com/wiki/Kernel_Panic]...

People who go "oh no micro is RTT, I want epic battles" tend to be the kind who play RTSes WRONG. I'd wager a good part of them thinks "no rush" rules make sense.

I'd group the singleplayer mode of DoW2 into the SRPG genre, not RTS.

 

[Unknower]

They're a nice change from other RTSs.

 

[Vek]

I think it was some old=ish World War 2 strategy game. That didn't really have any resources. You basically could control X number of units for missions and in some cases get planes to drop off some supplies and soldiers. But no actual harvesting.

Different approach to resources in RTS games is fun.

Probably Codename: PANZERS or Blitzkrieg were what you played. I love both of those games.

 

[51gunner]

Endwar is probably my favorite strategy game of all time, and it's a no-resource kind of game. There's just you, your enemy, and twelve "units" at a time. (One unit is like four tanks, four IFVs, four gunships, or like 20 infantry. A lone "unit" can do something.)

 

[PersianLlama]

World in Conflict is the only game of that kind I've enjoyed. Soviet Assault recently came out and I need to buy that!