RTS Games: Are they really that strategic?

[Spacelord]

I agree that there generally isn't much strategy involved in low level play. Though when all players are pretty good at, say, Starcraft, you soon find out that there's a lot more to the game than spamming. I should know because I had to see many a hydra army annihilated by well aimed psi storms before I actually learned to play the actual game.

There are many levels of play: if you can get away with spamming, then by all means do so if it allows you to win. But Starcraft is one of those games that rewards the crafty.

So in conclusion: yeah I guess you can say that many players don't use much strategy, but it's definitely there. And rewarding if you get good at it.

 

[Pendragon9]

Wrong. A perfectly executed zergling rush at the very beginning of the game can result in victory, even among professionals.

Yes. Thankfully there are two things that prevent that.

Not everyone can execute a zerg rush perfectly, and in professional matches, zerg rushing is banned.

Ling rushing is not banned. What gave you that idea?

It just doesn't work well enough to be worth doing most of the time.

That's why I prefer pvt matches. Since it's impossible to rush.

Also wrong. Toss can rush Terran and vice versa.

They're banned in several ladders on ICCUP, which is a dedicated server for Starcraft. If you ever play there, alot of people will not be too friendly to ling rushers.

http://www.iccup.com/starcraft/sc_ladder_rules.html
?

Plus, ICCUP does not equal professional. Professionals are paid.

Well, I guess they were isolated matches then, because I've run across "no zerg rushing" games. It just happens sometimes. I guess they don't have it as an official rule though.

Barracks Barracks Supply, Bunker Rush, 2 Gate Proxy Zealot are not like a ling rush?

But that's the point. Both those races can build two gates or two barracks at the same time. So rushing or not, it's still fair because each side can have time to prepare. If you can't defend yourself by the time the other guy has a group of zealots ready, you need more practice at the game.

I've certainly won my share of rushes against a mass of zealots. And I've lost many a rushing squad of marines to a defended base.

 

[Uncompetative]

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.

I do.

 

[Naheal]

When it comes to online, Starcraft REQUIRES strategy. Just trust me on that.

So how much "strategy" is involved in the infamous Zerg Rush that wins 90% of online matches?

If you die to a 'ling rush, you're doing it wrong.

OT: Try Sins of a Solar Empire.

 

[Deleric]

spamrushing is technically a strategy. And yes, to be really successful at ladder games in RTS's, you really need microing skills and such.

 

[Bato]

I like RTS games.
Especially online.
But only if we are turteling.
The game lasts a long time, and I have a blast.. Sometimes.

I love using Guerrilla Tactics with the Black hand on C&C Kane's Wrath.
But I don't rush as fast as I can, to be the first one with the biggest army and strike first.

The Black hand's units are pretty cheap anyway, it is easy to get a bigger army and faster. But that's their power, in numbers. (And Purifying Flame. Mmmm Purifying Flame)

 

[Shock and Awe]

Total War is for you! You actually need to use strategy or you can easily be beaten by a smaller force.

 

[The Austin]

Step 1: Build army.
Step 2: Send massive wave.

Congrats, you are accomplished!

 

[ShankHA32]

Starcraft is really focused on strategy. For all of those who say zerg rushing is imbalanced, its not. There are strats that own zerg rushing just as hard as it owns noobs.

If your scouting is pro, you own.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Depends on single player vs multiplayer.

Single player, you can be as strategic or spammy as you like, thus letting you choose your own experience based on your level of skill and ability to outthink a computer at various levels of difficulty.

Multiplayer, you have to contend mostly with tossers who wouldn't know a defensive square from a cavalry charge.

I'm being unfair. The problem often comes out to time issues. Whenever I play an RTS strategically it can take days to overcome enemies via clever manipulation of trade, spies in their bases, slowly toppling their infrastructure one fortress at a time. Multiplayer games don't have that luxury of pausing, saving, and coming back the next day. That would make them too much like RPGs for most people.