RTS Games: Are they really that strategic?
- Thread starter MurderousToaster
- Start date
I think DoW 2 allows players to use more statragy when playing then just throwing your men into the fray. But I can't tell you how much I hate getting spammed by low grunts before I can even build turret to hold them off
Supreme Commander got close to it, with the scale. But the only time I've really experienced true strategic control was in Sins of a Solar Empire. And even that could use some improvements.
The only game I can really think of as being a real time Strategy is Sins of a Solar Empire. Most other games are tactical, as the above posted mentioned. But yeah, most of the time it's above the best unit, or finding the gun with the highest rate of fire and aiming it near your opponent and holding down the fire button
Praetorians wasn't too bad a game for strategy. You couldn't exactly do unit spamming because they would get chewed up in no time.
Just assaulting an enemy base was a real hoo-hah. Firstly, you have to clear the way to the base which was no mean feat. Then you had to scout the defences without your hawks / wolves being shot to bits.
Secondly, you had to know where to put your catapults and archers. Archers were a major pain because they could light their arrows on command - and burn the doors down or kill anyone on a parapet.
Then you had to move you your Legionaries into the interior of the base deciding was it worth throwing their pillium before charging into combat or have them adopt the testudo formation in case of stray archers.
Brilliant game, but one hell of a tough one.
Just assaulting an enemy base was a real hoo-hah. Firstly, you have to clear the way to the base which was no mean feat. Then you had to scout the defences without your hawks / wolves being shot to bits.
Secondly, you had to know where to put your catapults and archers. Archers were a major pain because they could light their arrows on command - and burn the doors down or kill anyone on a parapet.
Then you had to move you your Legionaries into the interior of the base deciding was it worth throwing their pillium before charging into combat or have them adopt the testudo formation in case of stray archers.
Brilliant game, but one hell of a tough one.
So how much "strategy" is involved in the infamous Zerg Rush that wins 90% of online matches?Pendragon9 said:
On the topic...newer RTS are starting to take notice of the fact most modern RTS are just gigantic spam sandwiches, and are changing for more strategic battles. See: Dawn of War 2, and Command and Conquer 4.
Basic RTS tends to be spam 1 unit, though it is not as effective as a well rounded army attacking from multiple positions with proper support, this will beat a spambot every time.
TW takes alot of knowledge of the strategy used at the time, I started to research medieval tactics when I bought ME2TW.
Civ is a turn based strategy game which works like the world view of tw, it takes strategy and balance, but less time constraint.
TW takes alot of knowledge of the strategy used at the time, I started to research medieval tactics when I bought ME2TW.
Civ is a turn based strategy game which works like the world view of tw, it takes strategy and balance, but less time constraint.
And do you know how many matches are won with that in professional spars? NONE!DarkWarriorSSJ said:
Because when you have an excellent strategy, you can fend back even the strongest zerg rush.
Yes, the zerg are imbalanced, I'll admit, but when you have a TVP match, go on. I dare you to find a match that relies solely on a spam fest.
Starcraft requires a good amount of thinking. If it was such a horrible game as you implied, then it wouldn't be the national sport of an ENTIRE COUNTRY.
And before you get all angry and say how overrated it is, actually play it online for a day. You'll see the myriads of strategy required.
I agree. RTS games have become more about micro than outwitting your opponent. In WC3 though I tried to have strategies, such as ambushes, outmaneuvering in troop production tech, and harassment.Most of the people I played against always used the same strategies, so I, with my superior strategies outwitted them.
There's strategy, but you have to build that strategy within the game's rules.
Consider Chess, would it not make more sense to move all your units at once? Yes it would, but that's not how Chess works.
Similar principles apply to pretty much every strategy game.
Consider Chess, would it not make more sense to move all your units at once? Yes it would, but that's not how Chess works.
Similar principles apply to pretty much every strategy game.
Wrong. A perfectly executed zergling rush at the very beginning of the game can result in victory, even among professionals.Pendragon9 said:
Yes. Thankfully there are two things that prevent that.Internet Kraken said:
Not everyone can execute a zerg rush perfectly, and in professional matches, zerg rushing is banned.
That's why I prefer pvt matches. Since it's impossible to rush.
Edit: I also agree with eldritch Warlord up there. All RTS games have different units, whose purposes vary. You can't charge in there all willy nilly.
This is why I'm waiting for Starcraft 2. Starcraft has excellent strategy and no matter how many times I've played against my friends their is always an ingenious way to turn the game around.
I went into Dawn of war 2 expecting the same thing. however they failed
. the ballance wasnt so bad in the beginning, but then they released the 1.5 patch. The goal was to add more hard counters into the game to make certain units more usable, ie make scouts something more than a cheaper, weaker tactical marine. I don't know how they managed to do it but they completely missed their mark, most on-line games i've played seem to be: pick one T1 unit and spam it until you win.
The only team which you can get away with building a balanced force is the Space marines. spamming one unit doesn't work, but if your playing any other race then just build as many of your tier 1 Close combat units as you can or you will be beaten by you opponent(who by the way is defiantly building as many of his tier 1 CC units as he can).
DOW2 just degraded into banshees vs homagaunts. I'm hoping the new expansion will fix this. But im not gunna hold my breath. Just wait for starcraft 2
I went into Dawn of war 2 expecting the same thing. however they failed
. the ballance wasnt so bad in the beginning, but then they released the 1.5 patch. The goal was to add more hard counters into the game to make certain units more usable, ie make scouts something more than a cheaper, weaker tactical marine. I don't know how they managed to do it but they completely missed their mark, most on-line games i've played seem to be: pick one T1 unit and spam it until you win.The only team which you can get away with building a balanced force is the Space marines. spamming one unit doesn't work, but if your playing any other race then just build as many of your tier 1 Close combat units as you can or you will be beaten by you opponent(who by the way is defiantly building as many of his tier 1 CC units as he can).
DOW2 just degraded into banshees vs homagaunts. I'm hoping the new expansion will fix this. But im not gunna hold my breath. Just wait for starcraft 2
There's different types of RTS games. Resource management/Build type, or 'Strategy' type. I think the latter borrows a lot more from board games, but, basically, the difference between the two is this: Do you win by upgrading your units and destroying your enemy's base, or do you start with a fixed number of units and win by using them wisely?
To be honest, that was the reason why I loved Kessen. For many people, that game was slow as hell, but I actually had to think about every move I was making to beat it on the hardest difficulty. Every little detail mattered.
To be honest, that was the reason why I loved Kessen. For many people, that game was slow as hell, but I actually had to think about every move I was making to beat it on the hardest difficulty. Every little detail mattered.
