RTS Games: Are they really that strategic?

MrSnugglesworth

Into the Wild Green Snuggle
Jan 15, 2009
3,232
0
0
My strategy is more or less "Click on resources, Click on waypoint at enemy base, Click on one unit type that I've upgraded immensely"



Pretty much works on all types besides "Defense" missions.
 

Twitchycat

New member
Jul 15, 2009
34
0
0
All games have a strategy and are in real time (lol, as opposed to what? fake time?). However, most games that fall into the RTS genre are not as dependent on complex and varied strategy as I would like. I prefer RTS games that require a person so adept to play that just upon looking upon a battlefield/map layout the player makes a accurate decision on how to vary their strategy so that it is better suited to the map. Unfortunately I am not fast enough to play Starcraft so that I am working to my potential.

I also like chess.
 

Ryank1908

New member
Oct 18, 2009
266
0
0
This is, for me, more of a debate about semantics. What do you call strategic? The use of strategies, as would probably be the dictionary definition, or simply a game which requires more thinking than others? The latter is more of a point of argument that's been fabricated by people who dislike the genre of TB/RTS' than an actual valid point.
To these people the term 'strategic' in gaming now refers to a game which uses more thinking and intellect, which, before modern games became more complex across all of the genres, would have been applicable; controlling a lot of units at once in an RTS or playing Civ or Alpha Centauri, for example, generally took more patience and not necessarily intellect, but a logical mind.

Modern RTS' are 'strategic' in the sense that most 'hardcore' (too many pretentious floaty air quotes, sorry) RTS gamers in games like Warcraft, Starcraft and C&C will have a plan in place for the game ahead, which is the dictionary definition of strategic. They haven't necessarily lost the need for intellect, but I'd say that other genres have gained it.

Okay so my point is lost, but I think I got the gist of it across.
 

Crapster

New member
Aug 6, 2009
315
0
0
The only RTS that I've really played have been Age of Empires and Warcraft and... I think you're right, they aren't really all that strategic! I always just make tons and tons of cavalry with a few ships and a few siege engine and then watch everything die... Every game kind of winds up being the same!
 

dreadedcandiru99

New member
Apr 13, 2009
893
0
0
I've only ever played, like, two RTSs, but I wound up doing pretty much the same thing in both: I built the biggest army I could, then told all of my guys to charge across the map at once while killing everything they saw. And that almost always worked. So...yeah, some strategy.
 

Nutcase

New member
Dec 3, 2008
1,177
0
0
Pendragon9 said:
Internet Kraken said:
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.

Anyway: Starcraft has plenty of strategy, but like in anything else, you have to be able to walk before you can run. You can't just start pulling off weird shit right off the bat and expect it to work against a resilient normal build: you have to identify a specific weakness and attack that, and you can't do that unless you have solid game to begin with. Subtle things like bluffs don't work on weak opponents, either.

See here, especially the Casy game:
http://sclegacy.com/feature/4-pp/354-pimpest-plays-2007
 

David_G

New member
Aug 25, 2009
1,133
0
0
There are tactics in some games, like the Total War games, they are the only game in which I pulled off an almost spartan-like victory.
 

MurderousToaster

New member
Aug 9, 2008
3,074
0
0
Kuchinawa212 said:
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
I agree with you there. About 2mins into the match and the enemy already controlled 3/5 of the Victory points and I couldn't move at all due to hthem having a Shuriken Cannon and a crapload of little units suppressing/molesting me. I was also caught off guard by DoW2, given it's differences to the original games.
 

thenumberthirteen

Unlucky for some
Dec 19, 2007
4,794
0
0
Spamming is the reason I don't play online RTS. Total War is more strategic than most (They even made a TV show with it!). In Dawn of War I find that even the AI spams you. It's a cheap move, but all's fair in love, and (Dawn of) War.
 

Jinx_Dragon

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,274
0
0
RTS have so many problems but the core:

The AI is just... well... it sucks. There is no way to say it nicely, the AI derived for RTS are so far below the learning curve it isn't funny. Units are just too damn stupid to operate efficiently without human interaction. I can't even leave defensive positions without them forgetting how to shoot at enemies! I kid you not. At times I have had to point out to my defences that you don't have to wait till the enemy is within half the effective range before you start opening to fire. That it would be possible to lob shells at them at maximum effective range and achieve the same thing before they get close enough to fire back.

Ok, exaggerating, but not by much.

Then you have movability issues. There is nothing more frustrating then military manoeuvres, and that is in real world! For every command to move from A to B there is a small army of clerks and logistic officers who figure out just how to do this marvellous act. Well in all RTS your the head of command, giving the orders, but... you don't have any logistic officers period! This means, again, you need to micromanage every little action of every person in your troop if you want them to do what you intend. That you can't even assign them to a group and expect them to function as one, which you think would be a reasonable expectation. Your units will NOT be able to work out how to move without exposing themselves to unneeded enemy fire... or even how to figure out the best order to walk through a bottle neck! Even when you assign a formation, in games that allow you, it is more a exercise in AI futility as you can not expect them to hold formation and move at the same time without some really big screw ups.

It is move in a straight line between way points as fast as you can and screw what might be in your way.

This effect means whenever you move a group of units it always seems the units with the most armour, heath and able to punch back end up all the way at the back of the column. At the front? Your lightly armoured anti-air units think for some reason why can successfully storm the beaches of Normandy by themselves. Then of course your big hitters all get blown up by the lightest of enemy anti-ground aircraft now they can't defend themselves...

So on and so on.

If the intelligence was better the whole realm of RTS games would be strategic and even better to play. If each unit could figure out how to respond to an assault appropriately, without it either being standing around doing nothing or blindly following into ambushes, it would be nice. If they could figure out how to manoeuvre over terrain without either becoming stuck in the bottle necks or exposing themselves to needless destruction by sending through the easily destroyed units first I would be happier. If they where not so damn stupid I have to watch every unit then maybe we would see less mass-spamming of a single type of unit, cause at least you know all those units are going to be moving at the same pace.

But hell, this lack of intelligence has been the only 'real' challenge to overcome with RTS. If it wasn't for the fact you had to micro manage all your units the computers lack of understanding military tactics would make even the hardest setting boringly simple. Already it is too simple to figure out that they will always attack in style A or down path B. Removing the fact I have to watch path B, defending against attack style A while carrying out my own invasion force C, all simultaneously, would make the game so simple.

Mass spamming seems to eliminate a good chunk of the bad AI problem, maybe cause they all move at a given pace and are able to overwhelm the enemies defences if they where not designed to repel an attack of identical clones.

PS: Even the RTS games that have decided NOT to do the arcade system of C&C or starcraft, and focused on large scaled battles with well balanced units all have this same AI problem and it sucks. These ones are more strategic but without the means to ensure all you have to deal with is the macro level planning they fail in all the same places. Doesn't matter if you have a dozen types of tanks to choose from if all the damn things keep getting stuck in bottle necks and blown apart by a single enemy sitting a inch out of their effective range. All while your too busy making sure the anti-air don't out pace the tanks they are assigned to defend while trying to get them into position to pincer attack as well.

Only differences is these non-arcade style RTS is that you are allow you to suffer from AI related failure over battlefields measuring 100's of square KMs.
 

JohnSmith

New member
Jan 19, 2009
411
0
0
In virtually all cases games labelled RTS are actually real time tactics games since they aren't broad enough in scope for strategy.
 

Hurr Durr Derp

New member
Apr 8, 2009
2,558
0
0
In strategy games, the 'strategy' bit (though really it's tactics, not strategy) usually only comes into play when two opponents are of roughly equal skill. If one player is significantly better than the other, he will steamroll the opposition without much need for tactics. But if two players both know what they're doing, it's the little strategic decisions that decide the outcome. If you've got a favourite game, try looking up some replays of matches between pros, and you'll see what I mean. If you're not very familiar with a game you'll probably miss it, but looking at replays of, for example, StarCraft or Supreme Commander games between two good players, you'll usually be able to pick out where a player got outplayed by the opponent, or the tiny tactical errors that lead to a player's eventual defeat.

It's like seeing two pro-level Street Fighter players go at it: If you're not very good at the game, it'll often look like they're just throwing out attacks. If you are at a decent level yourself, you'll recognise the traps, setups, mindgames, and specific tactics used by the players. Sure, a significant part of it is still being able to throw out the right move, or being fast enough to parry an attack at just the right moment, but there's far more to it than just that.
 

NBSRDan

New member
Aug 15, 2009
510
0
0
'Rushing' is a strategy. Some games may be a bit too rewarding of its use, but you still have to strategize in order to use it.
If you wanna talk about spamming a button, try replacing "RTS" with "fighting".
 

Pendragon9

New member
Apr 26, 2009
1,968
0
0
Nutcase said:
Pendragon9 said:
Internet Kraken said:
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.

And when it comes to toss or terran rushing, what I meant is you can't rush with them like you can with ling rushes. You have to wait first. They're more balanced that way.
 

theonecookie

New member
Apr 14, 2009
352
0
0
most are not to me most of the time rts=real time spam

but the odd game changes it most CoH is good if the other player is spaming your doing it wrong

rifle spam is a bit of a pain but it comes down to rifles being a bit to good compared to axis basic infanty but that gets fixed by a nice half-track mounted mg
 

orangebandguy

Elite Member
Jan 9, 2009
3,117
0
41
Yes, spam rushing is the only quick way of beating RTS games. Provided you gather enough resources.
 

JoshGod

New member
Aug 31, 2009
1,472
0
0
short answer no
long answer nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
 

DesertHawk

New member
Jul 18, 2008
246
0
0
educatedfool said:
Another vote here for Men of War, it makes Company of Heroes look like a childrens game.

If you make a mistake you will get punished for it. If you send a squad out infront of a gun implacement they will die in seconds, there's no retreat button here. That nice tasty King Tiger you just spawned will die in one hit to the rear if its exposed, it will die to a lowly rifleman hiding in a bush nearby with an AT grenade. This game has no 'Rock-paper-scissors' type gameplay, it's all about how you use your troops, not how many you have.

If you are looking for an indepth RTS I highly recommend this game, its hard and the learning curve is near vertical as you'll have to figure a lot out for yourself but once you do it is brilliant.
I really tried to get into this game, but I just couldn't. Of course, everything you mentioned is true. It is a very in-depth RTS. Definately one of the best out of those games seeking to represent units accurately, and realistically. However, I found managing all of the untis beyond tedious. Too many units to keep track of considering what they are, what items/weapons they have, etc. I found assigning, keeping track of, and ording squads around quite awkward as well. Units would often "forget" orders I gave them as well. Now, despite all of these problems, this game can be fun and very intense. I remember a mission early in the game where you needed to defend a train station against a German force. This has to be one of the most intense RTS experiences I have ever had. You would fight tooth and nail for every inch of that battlefield, trying to defend your precious few AT guns and tanks. As you said, one little slip could lose you a very important unit easily.

Unfortunately, I can't comment on the multiplayer, as this feature was not even working during the time I was playing the game. Granted, the developer had, at the time, released a patch that would let you play multiplayer. However, they stated that that particular patch would break single player (or something along those lines), so I never tried it out. Perhaps managing your forces is a little easier in multiplayer, as you don't have to worry about a ton of units. Let me know if this is the case.