RTS Games: Are they really that strategic?

[MurderousToaster]

I'm a big fan of the RTS genre, but whenever I play online and try and take a measured (i.e strategic approach to playing them, it's by people who have simply learned which button to spam and then charge me with.

I understand "That's the way the games roll", but it would be nice to see an RTS where it actually focuses on being more strategic than spamrushy.

 

[oliveira8]

They are not spamrushy...they just found a way to beat the game.

Spamming untis works in the single player(In Red Alert 2 my armies were a sea of conscripts) put that to work in multiplayer all you need to be is faster than your opponent. Theres plenty of strategy in most RTS, people just don't wanna use them, when theres a more simple way.

 

[APPCRASH]

I call it giving them a bit of the ol' Blitzkrieg. There is merit to being first to the fight with the largest numbers.

 

[vietfighter]

admittedly, i combine tactics with spam rushing. i build a large (yet well balanced) army, then flood an enemy base in at least 2 directions.

 

[Blurbl]

I don't tend to play RTS games since, to me, they have too much focus on Macro and Micro, which I don't really think as strategy.

A RTS game to me would be chess. In realtime.

 

[demoman_chaos]

Build-Type RTS games are not strategic. Its all about learning what order to build what building and train what dudes varying only slightly between factions you are and are facing.

Only RTS games I've played that handle differently are the Total War games. Actual battlefield tactics apply. In the build-type RTS, hitting an enemy from the rear is generally the same as a frontal charge. in TW games, rear-charges or flank charges are more effective.

 

[Emphraim]

I understand "That's the way the games roll", but it would be nice to see an RTS where it actually focuses on being more strategic than spamrushy.

What games are you playing? A good RTS, like Company of Heroes, or (though this is much slower) the Total War games will prevent spam. In fact, the best players in Company of Heroes are the guys with only 30 CPM but who use their brains to make godlike plans.

 

[Pimppeter2]

I have to agree with the guy above me (assuming its still demoman).

Thats why TW games are my preferred RTSs

 

[DazZ.]

Recently got Company of Heros, and I have found myself thinking of tactics and strategies of how to get things done. (Only played single player once, then once I had the buttons hit the multiplayer)

I've found with the army I am (brits) I need to rely on my defensive weapons quite alot so I need to work out ways of getting those up to the front lines and defending them.

I've had quite afew tinkers with my main strategy so far, and I'm winning about 50:50. After more tweeks and ideas and I'll be getting that up.

In my opinion, yes they do. I used to play Age of Empires with a good friend of mine 2v2 alot, and we worked together on quite afew strategies of how to take down a certain army or what to do if we are playing defensively etc. Got good at changing on the fly aswell.

 

[Ph33nix]

yeah most games are like that but sometimes its a lot of fun to have an army thats huge and romp

 

[MurderousToaster]

I understand "That's the way the games roll", but it would be nice to see an RTS where it actually focuses on being more strategic than spamrushy.

What games are you playing? A good RTS, like Company of Heroes, or (though this is much slower) the Total War games will prevent spam. In fact, the best players in Company of Heroes are the guys with only 30 CPM but who use their brains to make godlike plans.

Dawn of War and (not very much, though) Starcraft.

 

[Clashero]

How about the Total War games? You have to think about where your cannons are positioned, how many ranks and how many files each unit has, what kind of firing drill to use, what kind of shot your artillery is using, telling your musketmen to stop firing when your cavalry charges, maneouvering your skirmishers to attack from the rear of an enemy. A good player can fight with 500 men and beat a relative newbie using 1200 men.

 

[MaskedMori]

How about the Total War games? You have to think about where your cannons are positioned, how many ranks and how many files each unit has, what kind of firing drill to use, what kind of shot your artillery is using, telling your musketmen to stop firing when your cavalry charges, maneouvering your skirmishers to attack from the rear of an enemy. A good player can fight with 500 men and beat a relative newbie using 1200 men.

I'd have to agree with this, the total war games were realistic enough and are very stratigic. Though I still like to do full-peasant charges... Just for the laughs. ^_^

 

[101194]

What rts are you playing?
It really means that you don't understand how the game works, FI In Rome: total war, You could defeat a larger enemy by investing time and ambushing your enemies, This works and you strike where there archers are vulnerable through tree cover, It really just what type of strategy you are using.

 

[awsome117]

I use strats in my RTS games, but I don't use them often. As I love gigantic battles, and love to play with either a teammate(s). So, my plans never really seem to connect with theirs, and we just attack with whatever units we have.

 

[FightThePower]

I was thinking about this the other day; Tank spam seems all too viable in a lot of RTS games, particularly C&C, although Red Alert 3 dealt with that problem pretty well.

 

[danielje]

Havent played a really good RTS in a while. Tried that Order of War demo, thought it was pretty bland.

Hopefully something good comes out soon.

I think anything can be strategic really, it just takes a whole lot of micro managing.

Too much for one single person to do because of the way we play games, when things are neurally interfaced we should see some interesting games. But until then, its mostly build what first, amass which unit first.

I always went with tanks. Just lots and lots of tanks.


I'm looking for a game that is a RTS/RPG hybrid. Think something Akin to Majesty 1 & 2. But remove the ability to individually control units. You build the base, then you train commanders to command certain types of units and battalions.

Then you just issue orders for your units to follow and they organize themselves and fight on their own. Some people might not like that, but I think it could be fun with enough diversity.

Then as they fight and survive, they gain levels. And they recruit new soldiers to boulster their ranks and all that.

OH MY GOD, someone needs to make this game ASAP.

 

[toapat]

I'm a big fan of the RTS genre, but whenever I play online and try and take a measured (i.e strategic approach to playing them, it's by people who have simply learned which button to spam and then charge me with.

I understand "That's the way the games roll", but it would be nice to see an RTS where it actually focuses on being more strategic than spamrushy.

yes there is, so long as the name is a contraction beginning with Star, and ending with Craft
otherwise strategy decided to go fuck itself for every other RTS

 

[Pendragon9]

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

 

[pakker]

The fun part of this is, the top players are making up new strats to use, and the "regular" gamer tries to mimic that, but just isnt fast og good enough... Alot of games actually requier you to have a strategy (eg. a plan) and follow it, adapting along the way. The problem is just that most strats become way too tricky to perform for the "regular" gamer (writing regular in quotations to illustrate that i mean pretty decent/good but not the pro dudes)