Play Hearts of Iron 3 (once its patched) or Company of Heroes against a good player and tell me it doesn't involve strategy..MurderousToaster said:
RTS Games: Are they really that strategic?
- Thread starter MurderousToaster
- Start date
Going by that definition, I'm going to say that about 99% of the RTS games have nothing to do with strategy.
Most RTS games are not strategical at all. They're click fests. So much so that a lot of pros have a measured "clicks per minute" stat.
Things that ruin the strategy in RTS games:
*Stupid unit AI. Having to play a commander, a squad leader, and often, even play the individual soldier all at once to make up for units that will happily stand in the open and fight impossible odds until dead is retarded. A commander should be giving macro orders and units should be able to figure out the specifics to carry those orders out without getting slaughtered because the commander was not paying attention.
*Unit abilities. This mostly ties in with the first point. The current glut of games seem to be all about giving each unit something special. No more grunts or whatever. Well, this means micro is that much more important. Unless someone is a complete twitch spaz, trying to use most of these abilities in a way that is remotely appropriate is impossible.
*Base building. Having to go through some stupid prescribed build order to ramp up resource and unit production is also retarded. It pre-determines the first minute or two of the game among pros and decides the fate of the entire match versus people of dissimilar skill levels.
*1 hp. If a unit has a single hitpoint left, it's still just as effective at fighting as anything else. I generally prefer more tactically designed games where units can be crippled well before they die. As an example, consider Mechwarrior where units can loose guns, heatsinks (which lets those guns fire more than once), take damage to their gyros to make movement difficult, lose limbs, fall down, etc. The result of this 1 hp rule? More micro. Example from Starcraft: 12 BCs vs 12 carriers. The carriers are superior, but if the BCs focus fire on individual carriers and retreat badly damaged BCs while the carriers are not microed, then the carriers can be killed with 0 losses.
*To a lesser extent, rock/paper/scissors. For as much as units may have in special abilities, often they lack a lot of versatility. A squad of marines marches along, ready for action, and then two tanks fire and they all go splat instantly. No light anti-tank weapons? What about being able to approach in cover (stealth, effectively) and spot for the heavy weapons? See what your enemy is building and make the counter and you have a huge advantage. Sure, this might be strategic, but good use of resources should be able to overcome better equipment selection. Units should have utility instead of all being one-trick ponies.
Things that ruin the strategy in RTS games:
*Stupid unit AI. Having to play a commander, a squad leader, and often, even play the individual soldier all at once to make up for units that will happily stand in the open and fight impossible odds until dead is retarded. A commander should be giving macro orders and units should be able to figure out the specifics to carry those orders out without getting slaughtered because the commander was not paying attention.
*Unit abilities. This mostly ties in with the first point. The current glut of games seem to be all about giving each unit something special. No more grunts or whatever. Well, this means micro is that much more important. Unless someone is a complete twitch spaz, trying to use most of these abilities in a way that is remotely appropriate is impossible.
*Base building. Having to go through some stupid prescribed build order to ramp up resource and unit production is also retarded. It pre-determines the first minute or two of the game among pros and decides the fate of the entire match versus people of dissimilar skill levels.
*1 hp. If a unit has a single hitpoint left, it's still just as effective at fighting as anything else. I generally prefer more tactically designed games where units can be crippled well before they die. As an example, consider Mechwarrior where units can loose guns, heatsinks (which lets those guns fire more than once), take damage to their gyros to make movement difficult, lose limbs, fall down, etc. The result of this 1 hp rule? More micro. Example from Starcraft: 12 BCs vs 12 carriers. The carriers are superior, but if the BCs focus fire on individual carriers and retreat badly damaged BCs while the carriers are not microed, then the carriers can be killed with 0 losses.
*To a lesser extent, rock/paper/scissors. For as much as units may have in special abilities, often they lack a lot of versatility. A squad of marines marches along, ready for action, and then two tanks fire and they all go splat instantly. No light anti-tank weapons? What about being able to approach in cover (stealth, effectively) and spot for the heavy weapons? See what your enemy is building and make the counter and you have a huge advantage. Sure, this might be strategic, but good use of resources should be able to overcome better equipment selection. Units should have utility instead of all being one-trick ponies.
I have found that Supreme Commander and Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance require a LOT of strategy to be good at. Just look at some multiplayer videos on Youtube. Those matches are usually over pretty quickly due to some VERY effective tactics. I've seen very little of what would be considered 'rushing' in that game.
No.
RTS games would benefit from having no resource-gathering, or unit creation. There would be factories outside of the battle arena which you couldn't bomb and a finite pool of reinforcements (using a ticket system like the Battlefield games). Resources, like food, water, gas, ammo, etc would be carried from these safe areas into not-so-safe military supply depots that were positioned at the outskirts of the vast battle arena.
There would be no direct face-off. Both sides would try to build up camps in existing towns, or at defensible geographical locations. Then all the stuff that your armies needed to survive, defend itself and fight would come along way-pointed roads and across bridges that hadn't been destroyed. You would be concerned that your supply lines would get broken and your resources hijacked. If your men were captured, morale would impact the supply of reinforcements - you would only get new men to replace those that weren't hostages, until the hostages died, or were rescued.
The map would not be flat.
There would be no fog of war - with parts of the map shaded out so you can't see what is there until you explore. Instead, you would have as many overlapping windows containing intelligence information that you needed to be able to make an informed, though abstract, decision.
If you got tired of being an armchair general you could pick any one of your units and play them (and what AI they commanded) in first-person, whereupon you would find that the fog of war was about enemy stealth, camouflage, sounds of gunfire and visual reports from your team (recent UAV passes, etc.) that appeared on your compass (with estimated distance/colour-coded threat assessment) only when you asked to see the HUD which gave you a report of you and your team's health and stance, your equipped and alternate weapon, its selected fire-mode and ammunition, your grenades, equipment, field dressing, etc. You can't jump around like a bunny-rabbit. Whilst on the ground, you could hot-swap to any unit in your team in line of sight, with a button press - like Battlefield: Modern Combat. You aren't allowed to fly planes as it would be too tempting to try to fly outside of the battle arena and try to bomb a safe area. Better to just support the acquisition of slow helicopters which are automatically spun around as they get to the edge of the battle arena, yet you only get to be the pilot at a higher in-game rank - recruits don't know how to control one, so shouldn't be allowed to make chaotic joyrides in them.
Multiplayer games would be 2 player versus with each person either commanding their AI units or leading an AI team. You could set up an invasion with the addition of a scripting language that would allow you to get your AI to adapt to changing circumstances and then scout out the weak points in the enemies lines on a helicopter mission. If your side were attacked whilst you were off playing it in first-person it would cope just fine without you... just not be any more creative about how it strategised than you had taught it to be. Matches could be paused by mutual agreement, just like chess.
No micro management. No individual/group unit move/attack orders. Just some forward planning and real-time analysis of what strategy to apply to what event. A far greater degree of abstraction. Fun stuff to do whilst you wait for things to kick off.
RTS games would benefit from having no resource-gathering, or unit creation. There would be factories outside of the battle arena which you couldn't bomb and a finite pool of reinforcements (using a ticket system like the Battlefield games). Resources, like food, water, gas, ammo, etc would be carried from these safe areas into not-so-safe military supply depots that were positioned at the outskirts of the vast battle arena.
There would be no direct face-off. Both sides would try to build up camps in existing towns, or at defensible geographical locations. Then all the stuff that your armies needed to survive, defend itself and fight would come along way-pointed roads and across bridges that hadn't been destroyed. You would be concerned that your supply lines would get broken and your resources hijacked. If your men were captured, morale would impact the supply of reinforcements - you would only get new men to replace those that weren't hostages, until the hostages died, or were rescued.
The map would not be flat.
There would be no fog of war - with parts of the map shaded out so you can't see what is there until you explore. Instead, you would have as many overlapping windows containing intelligence information that you needed to be able to make an informed, though abstract, decision.
If you got tired of being an armchair general you could pick any one of your units and play them (and what AI they commanded) in first-person, whereupon you would find that the fog of war was about enemy stealth, camouflage, sounds of gunfire and visual reports from your team (recent UAV passes, etc.) that appeared on your compass (with estimated distance/colour-coded threat assessment) only when you asked to see the HUD which gave you a report of you and your team's health and stance, your equipped and alternate weapon, its selected fire-mode and ammunition, your grenades, equipment, field dressing, etc. You can't jump around like a bunny-rabbit. Whilst on the ground, you could hot-swap to any unit in your team in line of sight, with a button press - like Battlefield: Modern Combat. You aren't allowed to fly planes as it would be too tempting to try to fly outside of the battle arena and try to bomb a safe area. Better to just support the acquisition of slow helicopters which are automatically spun around as they get to the edge of the battle arena, yet you only get to be the pilot at a higher in-game rank - recruits don't know how to control one, so shouldn't be allowed to make chaotic joyrides in them.
Multiplayer games would be 2 player versus with each person either commanding their AI units or leading an AI team. You could set up an invasion with the addition of a scripting language that would allow you to get your AI to adapt to changing circumstances and then scout out the weak points in the enemies lines on a helicopter mission. If your side were attacked whilst you were off playing it in first-person it would cope just fine without you... just not be any more creative about how it strategised than you had taught it to be. Matches could be paused by mutual agreement, just like chess.
No micro management. No individual/group unit move/attack orders. Just some forward planning and real-time analysis of what strategy to apply to what event. A far greater degree of abstraction. Fun stuff to do whilst you wait for things to kick off.
blitzkrieg refered dircectly to fast assult with armored units in other words tanks, apc, attack helicopters, things that in most rts you dont get until a little further in the match.APPCRASH said:
what you are thinking of is a russian attack in other words drown them in your blood or overwhelm them en masse amounts of troops.
apc engineer rush hit there barracks and build more engineer and take there construction yard
( i prefer to take the conrstuction yard first)
but i've never been very good at rts's i can win a few battle on C&C 3 online but that about it
recently joined computer club at school were we basically just play video games starcraft is on there ive been playing computers so i can try to get good but if experience tells me anything comps ain't nothing like Players. playing as zerg and surviving thats a good sign.
my next step is proly to build lots of spires and upgrade them to greater spires and those walrus/elepant things can't remember the name right now.
also on c&c3 cloaked flame tanks will basically screw you over.
( i prefer to take the conrstuction yard first)
but i've never been very good at rts's i can win a few battle on C&C 3 online but that about it
recently joined computer club at school were we basically just play video games starcraft is on there ive been playing computers so i can try to get good but if experience tells me anything comps ain't nothing like Players. playing as zerg and surviving thats a good sign.
my next step is proly to build lots of spires and upgrade them to greater spires and those walrus/elepant things can't remember the name right now.
also on c&c3 cloaked flame tanks will basically screw you over.
Do you realy want to handle logistics, tactics, strategy, propaganda, morale, medical issues, home support, resources, desertions, military intelligence,worl approval, the UN, etc...?
No, no you don't. They are just boiled down to be very VEEEEEEEEEEEERY simple and fun. Which they are. Some are better (TW series, DoW / second one is shit, Blitzkrieg) other are... special.
No, no you don't. They are just boiled down to be very VEEEEEEEEEEEERY simple and fun. Which they are. Some are better (TW series, DoW / second one is shit, Blitzkrieg) other are... special.
If you want to play serious strategy, play in an official ladder match. I've logged over 1000 hours playing Starcraft online in unranked matches. During my first official ladder tournament, I got my ass beat by the real players and got knocked out after my first 3 matches. If you are interested in strategy, play competitively, otherwise you are pretty much out of luck. Also, AI design is a very difficult hurdle to overcome for RTSs, and sometimes your ability for micromanagement will come into play because of the limitations of the AI. Play the single player campaigns until you are familiar with the eccentricities of the AI, then you'll be ready for online play. Also, don't expect to be uber-1337 the first time you play online. I lost the first 50 or so matches I ever played online with Starcraft.MurderousToaster said:
Also to all the people crapping all over the place about the Zergling rush: A perfectly executed MARINE or ZEALOT rush at the beginning of a game can end in victory against crappy opponents, you just have to know how to defend against it.
Watch some elite level Starcraft videos and you will get strategy.
When I play it with my friends (we are now at a fairly skilled level), the spam-as-many-carriers-as-you-can tactics doesn't work anymore. We have to experiment, and you can't use the same tactics in every match. That's why I love that game.
When I play it with my friends (we are now at a fairly skilled level), the spam-as-many-carriers-as-you-can tactics doesn't work anymore. We have to experiment, and you can't use the same tactics in every match. That's why I love that game.
No RTS that gets any sort of attention makes it to release with an unbeatable rush intact. Even the old infamous 4pool for Starcraft when the Spawning Pool was still 150 minerals wasn't unbeatable, it just forced a certain start that limited build orders and made the Zerg's opponent more predictable, that's why Blizzard changed it. You just haven't figured out how to beat spam. That's not the game's fault, that's on you. You're confusing tech with strategy. Rushing is a strategy too, and so is rush defense.MurderousToaster said:
DarkWarriorSSJ: Zerg rushes on b.net are the epitome of strategy. "This tactic works 90% of the time against noobs, therefore if I always use it, I will probably win 90% of my games." Like it or not, THAT IS STRATEGY.Pendragon9 said:
And as I said above, Zerg rushes have never been unbeatable. They used to force a very specific build, now they just force what should be done in every game anyway: scouting and map control. If you expect a Zerg rush, you can block ramps with Zealots, go fast forge and double cannon near your ramp or mineral line, get a fast bunker near your mineral line, a depot/barracks shield by your CC, or wall your ramp if the map allows. There's plenty of ways to deal with Zerg rushes.
Pendragon9: Wrong, on both counts. They do win matches and they're NOT banned. You don't see them because they're risky and they don't always work when people KNOW HOW TO PLAY. The issue here is that the people complaining don't want to admit they lose because they aren't familiar with the game. They claim the game is broken because they aren't aware of their options.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8zl4LsFwHI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFstnwzlbMw
In that second game, if that player had surrounded his bunker with SCVs and continued sending SCVs to build it as they died, it would have finished, he could get a marine inside, and then the rush would be over, but he chose to attempt to surround his marine with SCVs, which failed.
Anyway, rushes and spams are strategies. They're not good ones, but they are. If you're losing to them, it's because yours is even worse, not because the game is broken. Try making "practicing and studying" part of your strategy. Gamers should not be given equal rewards for unequal efforts. That's communism. If you're unwilling to put forth the effort to become good at a game, just accept it and don't ruin it for people who actually care and practice.
Alot of RTS games aren't really as strategic as they'd like to be. A nice example: Halo Wars. It can easily be turned into a Spam-A-Thon ofthe same unit, all piling in on the same target.
Only if you play on hard.
For instance in DOW,dark crusade, (on easy) you can make, 2 dreadnoughts 2 predators and a land raider, back thme up with terminators and fully upgraded space marines, then just walk hither and nither on a path of dead chaos troops.
Try the same on normal, adn you'll have problems, you need to back up your existing troops by training beyond your squad cap, so that several squads and veichles are left at 99% trained. the instant a sqaud falls in combat the'yre replaced.
On hard however, if you have only infantry, even ones with anti armour weapons, against a veichle you're fucked! You need chaplins, proper upgrades, quick time saving movments, patrols, well secured resources, back up, orbital bombardment at the ready, all possible infantry, veichle,hero, and general upgrades possible; to capture one stratigic point.
For instance in DOW,dark crusade, (on easy) you can make, 2 dreadnoughts 2 predators and a land raider, back thme up with terminators and fully upgraded space marines, then just walk hither and nither on a path of dead chaos troops.
Try the same on normal, adn you'll have problems, you need to back up your existing troops by training beyond your squad cap, so that several squads and veichles are left at 99% trained. the instant a sqaud falls in combat the'yre replaced.
On hard however, if you have only infantry, even ones with anti armour weapons, against a veichle you're fucked! You need chaplins, proper upgrades, quick time saving movments, patrols, well secured resources, back up, orbital bombardment at the ready, all possible infantry, veichle,hero, and general upgrades possible; to capture one stratigic point.
The C&C is pretty much about spamming the same unit crap, which is why I find it so boring and why it sucks balls.
Supreme Commander is a lot better its more strat based, sure you can spam a lot but due to the way the 'kill the commander' victory condition works it lends itself to a whole host of other strats.
Men of War and Total War series also get my vote.
Supreme Commander is a lot better its more strat based, sure you can spam a lot but due to the way the 'kill the commander' victory condition works it lends itself to a whole host of other strats.
Men of War and Total War series also get my vote.