The biggest issue with RTS.

[Credge]

Play style. I'll be using CoH as an example but also reference other games such as SC, WC3, C&C (all of them) and maybe a few others.

Play style plays the biggest role in if you are a successful player in an RTS or not. Skill level matters very little if your specific play style is not present in the game, or if the play style you have chosen does not fit into the faction you are playing. This, for me, is one of the biggest reasons I stop playing RTS after a short period of time. Trying anything besides the norm almost always results in your defeat.

In Company of Heroes, a WW2 RTS, the Americans are seemingly forced to spam Riflemen. They are a cost effective unit that is very decent at medium ranges. They can be upgraded to use BARs, to throw grenades, and to use sticky bombs. They're great. The reason why the Americans are forced to spam Riflemen is because it is their only viable start.

Every game, if you want to win against anyone with some form of skill, will have you queue up an engineer, build a Barracks with your engineer that is already on the field, and start building Rifles ASAP. You then use your 2 engies for early point capturing power.

It's. Very. Typical. And after doing it 10,000 times you start to wonder "Hey, why isn't the Weapon Support Center a viable start?" And then you begin to examine the issues with a WSC start and the WSC as a whole.

The American factions strength (and really, their only strength) is that they have a great early game point capturing power... that is to say that they can grab most of the map quicker than your opponent. "Great!" you've said to yourself. "It sounds like this side techs up!"

No. This side extends the Tier 1 game as long as they can or goes for a very quick Tier 3 for a vehicle that is great against infantry and other light vehicles. That is it. That's all the Americans can do. This play style is very poor and reminds me of the AoE series where, in order to win, you had to tech up to Chariots ASAP.

I really miss games like Starcraft where you could adjust your play style based on what type of unit you liked. For example, if you played the Zerg, you could use the atypical zerg rush strat, play defensively, or do just about whatever you wanted. There is balance to be had.

In WC3 you could specialize in a certain kind of unit, such as Mages for polymorph or those Orc bird shaman guys that had the tornado. The variety to the strategies is what made the game fun. However, there is still an issue with these RTS as well.

If your play style just so happens to not exist in that game (In SC it was fast-teching and early base harassment) then you're simply not going to win against any skilled opponent. More recently we've seen RTS made where they divided the factions up into different play styles a-la C&C Generals but this, again, has a major flaw. If you go against what your faction was designed for then you've probably lost.

This is terrible game design. I shouldn't know what my opponents strategy is simply because he's a certain faction. I shouldn't know that my enemy is going to G43 (CoH Panzer Elite upgrade on a their Panzer Grenadiers) spam simply because he is the Panzer Elite. I shouldn't know that my enemy is going to play defensively because he is the Wehrmecht. It's just not fun.

RTS makers need to start addressing the issue of play style and I think they are starting to do so. Battleforge (http://www.battleforge.com/) seems to be capitalizing on this and I'm fairly happy about that. I really wish that cookie cutter builds that we've seen in RTS since the dawn of time (this faction rushes, this faction techs, this faction plays defensively) gets tossed out the window and play style plays more of a role than what side you choose.

Also, stop making maps where one side and strategy is always going to dominate. Stop it.

 

[Monarch of Greenwich]

Micro Managing and Macro Managing, it gets my base wiped out every time on Normal mode...

 

[7thRain]

Interesting thoughts there. I'm not sure I agree that its " terrible game design" to have races that focus on one primary strategy, although this approach is quite often badly implemented. CoH is a prime example, one the Germans get rolling with their elite troops and tanks not much is going to stop them. I think its more a "way of designing". Different strokes for different folks.
Knowing that certain factions play in certain ways allows players to formulate strategy's to defeat them, it offers a base line to from which to extrapolate your actions. From the controlling players perspective it gives them a basic knowledge of how to most effectively use their forces.
Having said that I do agree that having each faction effective at only one form of operation is "terrible game design", if you are going to design factions to behave in a certain ways make sure they have a few options open to them. Being able to fight effectively with all of the units in a faction allows for emergent strategy.

My biggest problem with RTS is the resource systems. An inefficient start to a game in terms or resource production gets amplified as time progresses. What is a tiny gap in ability 5mins into play is a gaping hole after an hour that quite simply can't be closed unless your opponent makes a mistake.

 

[Aries_Split]

Try playing World in Conflict. COMPLETELY changed the way I look at RTS'...

 

[Erikaiht]

That's why I like Well balanced RTS, Turn based combines, such as the Total War Series. Prevents tanks from taking a 3 minutes to build, yet major epic battles.

 

[7thRain]

Also check out Sins of a Solar Empire. Tackled the whole resource problem by....just giving you tonnes of space. In nearly every game I have played even if I mucked up my early game I was able to shore up a defences while I expanded my production ability away from the front lines and get back in the game.

WiC and the Total War series are awesome games, also oldie's but goodie's are Ground Control 1&2.

 

[dukeh016]

I must admit I was a bit worried when I saw this title. After reading it, however, I think you make a very interesting and intelligent point. Of course I'm not intelligent, so who knows what my opinion counts for.

To the point at hand: It is my belief that no matter the RTS, balance is the core issue for extended gameplay. Things blowing up, awesome bases, and true strategy are awesome factors, but they lose meaning if the game isn't balanced. I haven't played CoH, but the issue sounds familiar. I must say, though, I don't think the issue is necessarily RTS's. The issue is the developer's inability to balance their game correctly.

I think that saying "If your play style just so happens to not exist in that game then you're simply not going to win against any skilled opponent" is a bit too much for me. Think of it like chess. (RTS, eh?) You have lots of freedom, a variety of tools, and no clear advantage. That said, if you refuse to use your bishops you are going to lose. Thats just part of strategy, I think.

 

[LordCraigus]

This is why I much prefer RTT over RTS games I've played; you're given your units, the enemy has theirs, and you've got to complete your objective using what you're given. The enemy may have an advantage in position, better or more tanks... etc. but as long as you keep in mind the strengths and weaknesses of your units and think tactically about the way you approach your objective, there's no one strategy to use depending on what side you're playing because the map maker is forced to balance the opposing sides one way or another if he wants to make even a remotely playable map.

I understand that tactical use of units is present (in one form or another) in all types of strategy game, but never playing one of my RTT titles have I felt that there is only one way to win against the enemy depending on the units I have, I think it leaves room for much more experimentation and adaption on how the mission plays out, and depending on what your objectives are in the first place. Just like if you're playing against someone else, you'll have to adapt to how they go about accomplishing victory, not simply on what faction they're playing as.

Multiplayer example - Your enemy is tasked with capturing your village, you know his unit strength is roughly equal to yours, do you:
Mass your forces in one defensive line at the front...? What if they attack from the flanks? Do you spread your forces all around...? What if your enemy does go for that large frontal assault? Do you keep some units behind then counterattack quickly...? What if he's already accounted for that? Endless possibilites of how it might turn out, which sounds very unlike what you describe with CoH (a game I only played briefly a couple of years ago).

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

that's what i hate about RTS games also. they don't design multiple optimal ways to play each faction.

there is always one maximum efficient method of play and you either do it or suffer.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

Weird, each faction is unique and is pretty much designed to fit different play styles in CoH (and there are those "doctrine" things), the only thing I see is a "must do it this way" is how the game starts off, and so does Dawn of War - World in Conflict takes a different route...then there's games like Total War and sins of a solar empire - and supreme commander has a more "balanced" type of gameplay..

I can't relate, so I don't know what to say... sorry :|

 

[Danny Ocean]

Unless you play singleplayer.

 

[goodman528]

Play style. I'll be using CoH as an example but also reference other games such as SC, WC3, C&C (all of them) and maybe a few others.

In Company of Heroes, a WW2 RTS.........

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!

CoH is by far the most innovative multi-player RTS ever made. In every other RTS all you do is click your mouse really faster to gather more resources than the other guy, then build a massive blob of the most imbalanced units in the game and rush the other guy. In every other RTS micro management is a chore, often meanlessly tedious; in CoH micro is fairly minimum, and real tactics do win games more often than faster mouse clicks.

Imbalances in CoH

Yes, CoH does have its balance issues, but take a look at Blizzard forums and you'll realise this game is a lot more balanced than Starcraft/warcraft. If you consider the money Blizzard, Valve, etc has compared to Relic... I think the ppl at Relic are doing a good job. I don't know how long you've played CoH, the imbalances roughly go as follows:

patch [1.1 -- 1.4] Sherman rush spam VS constantly respawning 2 Tigers, no infantry support, no repairing, no veterancy
patch [1.5 -- 1.6] Rifle spam + Airborne AT from the heavens VS T3 --> Respawning Tigers
patch [1.7 -- 1.71] Rifle spam VS T2 vet grenadier spam, Terror, --> Tiger Ace / Pioneer spam

Opposing Fronts:
[Early patches] Rifleman + Jeeps + M8 VS PE light vehicle rushes
[Later patches] Infantry "blobs" on both sides.
[A bit later] Infantry blobs on both sides, AND artillery abuse / Return of Pio spam
[A bit later still] Rifle spam VS Anything works on the german side
I haven't played in a while, so I don't know what it's like now.

I've seen lots of "exploitive" things in CoH over the years, here's a few examples: Pio Spam; Double Tiger Respawning; AT drops from the sky multiple times; PE Panzer IV rush; British casualty clearing station exploit (previously Wher defensive medic bunker exploit); PE Grenadier Shrek blob; PE Gren G43 blob + infantry HT; Rifle/Ranger Spam; etc, etc....

Why is CoH imbalanced?

The point of ^ this, is to show you the reason why there are the imbalances you see in the game today.

The early tank only games where USA rushed to shermans and built nothing but, and Germans respawned Tigers, were balanced through patches.

Americans got buffed up AT guns dropped from the sky, and better rifleman. This then lead to the Infantry base Americans VS heavy tank centred Germans.

1.71 was the most balanced version, but it suffered from pio spam, which was caused by trying to balance out the fact no German players used veterancy, so veterancy was buffed up. Germans only allow 1 Tiger instead of 2.

Then Opposing fronts was released, and PE scout car rush OR PE half track rush killed rifleman very effectively; so rifleman "spam" was out for a while. The rangers were buffed up, tactics involving M8 rush envolved.... Wher infantry veterancy, and infantry combat system was changed, then changed back, then modified, etc.

Then, these infantry changes created the imbalance of infantry blobs on both sides. Despite the artillery abuse in opposing fronts. So the so called zero second artillery came about...

Then we go full cycle back to pio spam (?) or go to a really balanced game? I don't know, 'cos I haven't played it in a few months.

What is Strategy

As for playing style, I think you are missing the point of the game. RTS, the S stands for "strategy", not gimmicky large variety of units. It's not about all the different unit types that makes a RTS good, it's the ability to place these units in good positions, and win through clear thinking and good intelligence. If you want to play rock paper scissors, there's a society for that, no need to play RTS. If you want to play a game where you truly have strategic decisions to make, and real tactical actions, like setting up ambushes with storm troopers, setting up your MG to cover your advance, covering your squads, thinking where your fall back point is, simultaneous assults from 2 sides, etc, etc, then you play CoH.

Riflemen are the bread and butter of every army in the 40s, it would be extremely wrong if they introduced gimmicky unit types. Building nothing but infantry (Rifleman / Rangers / Paras) is a bad way to play this game, against any decent player, you will loose, and loose very faster. BTW, I suggest you play the British [without exploiting the casualty clearing station], or the Wher; they have definitive styles. British has emplacements OR fast tech to fireflys, OR a combination of cromwells [with engineer tree] backed by infantry, OR Artillery supported slow tech with commandos. Wher has T2 Terror, OR T3 Blitz, or go T1 --> T4 if you think you are playing against someone not very good, OR T2 Defensive --> T4, in fact even T3 terror works on some maps.

Strategy is not about having gimmicky units which are different from each other, not about gimmicky unit types, not about having air units, hero units, rock units, paper units, scissors units, etc...

The REAL problem with RTS or RTT (another gimmick to sell games), is there is no tactics, or strategy in these games. It's a contest to see who can click their mouse faster than the other guy, and a game of rock paper scissors, where most players just throw all three into a massive blob and rush you with it. CoH is the exception to the rule, a flower on the pile of crap that is the RTS genre.

Conclusion

CoH is not a game of rock paper scissors, it's about cover, positioning, movement, real strategy.

Playing style? Or just rock paper scissors? Think what is strategy? Is flying tactical aids all over the map "playing style"? Or isn't that just another way to play rock paper scissors?

Relic stuck to realism, and they should be applauded for it.

 

[mark_n_b]

I can't believe no one has said the second most dull genre in existence today.

 

[TomNook]

I can't believe no one has said the second most dull genre in existence today.

Whats the first?

 

[improbable]

I can't believe no one has said the second most dull genre in existence today.

Whats the first?

MMORPGs.
My main issue with RTS is that every game plays out essentially identically. You determine which is your faction's Only Viable Strategy, play that out the same way every game, and either you or your opponent follows the scripted example more closely and someone wins. Watching TV is more mental exercise.

 

[Alex_P]

I think the biggest issue with RTS games is control. Even with some of the fancier control features introduced over the years, I've always found making your guys do exactly what you want them to do to be really cumbersome.

Also, many RTSes have you devote more time to managing "economies" than actually fighting. Nothing wrong with that per se but it is kind of a letdown if you're really more interested in the battle than the building.

I guess RTS is really just not my genre, even though I've played a whole bunch of 'em.

-- Alex

 

[L4Y Duke]

Although it is true that some factions are better equipped for certain tactics than others, it is not true that the tactics the faction is leaned against cannot be undertaken.

Quite the opposite.

If you're a faction well-known for your aerial prowess, a well-informed opponent will spend much more money upgrading their air defences. As such, a ground attack, although nerfed by your faction's stance, may surprise the enemy and gain you significant ground.