That's kind of a silly question. RTS games are a sort of simulation of war (note that i say sort of) from a generals/commanders/warlord/alien-overlords point of view. And noone in that position ever cares about the underlings.
Why is RTS so heartless?
- Thread starter Miles Maldonado
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Some games, like Dawn of War, have a morale system where if you lose troops, your army becomes demoralized and less effective.
There are also games with veterancy systems, like the C&C games, where units get stronger the more enemies they kill so you have an incentive to keep them alive.
There are also games with veterancy systems, like the C&C games, where units get stronger the more enemies they kill so you have an incentive to keep them alive.
To be fair, I think the Total War games come close to evoking the kind of feeling you want. If you lose mass amounts of forces, even if you win the fight, it does put you at a big disadvantage until you can train more troops, which takes several turns to do in any useful capacity. I'm playing a run through of Medieval 2 at the moment, and started as England. During my (still ongoing) quest to beat back the Scottish, my main priority, I ended up having to attack Dublin in waves to draw out my enemies, and I did feel quite bad about that. Caernarvon was using up all its reinfocements being ferried across the Irish Sea to bolster my troops, and although I did eventually take Dublin (and Ireland) it was a hollow victory. Unfortunately, I may have to do the same with Edinburgh now, which will leave me at heavy risk of a seaborne attack from those pesky Holy Roman Empire types...Miles Maldonado said:
But yeah, I see what you mean. I personally try to win RTSs with as few casualties as possible, but a lot of the time that's not very feasible (I'm looking at you, Dawn of War. And the first C&C, too...). I would love to see a non-Total War RTS game where keeping your troops alive is as important a priority as completing the regular objectives as well...
Well the only game that I've seen which comes close to this is Medieval 2 Total War. It doesn't make you care about the little guys so much, but because of 'Hero' units being recruited from within your ranks, and the interactions of your family, you end up following this long epic saga of a Dynasty, you get cases of a peasant ilitia who holds the line against impossible odds, the only survivor of that regiment got promoted to Captain, and through victories in battle over the next decade, eventually became a well known and feared general of the Irish Empire, who catches the attention of your princess, and eventually, through luck and wit, ends up ruling the Empire through a glorious Golden age.
Or maybe that only happens to me. Anyway, as much as it'd be cool to have a game focus on the little guys, I don't think we'll see it any time soon, but if someone pulls it off, I'll be handing them all my money.
Or maybe that only happens to me. Anyway, as much as it'd be cool to have a game focus on the little guys, I don't think we'll see it any time soon, but if someone pulls it off, I'll be handing them all my money.
Actually, now that I think about it, in Command and Conquer 3 Tiberium Wars, the soldiers were groups of men, and their health was measured by how many of them there were.
You got a 10 guys for the basic infantry squad, and less as they got more elite. The GDI snipers operated in pairs, and had really plucky lines... until one of them got killed. Then the quotes of the remaining one became really panicky. I usually went to quite a bit of trouble to get the single snipers back to base.
And when you had a fully promoted unit you always took good care of it, although that was more to do with it's better combat abilities than characterisation.
You got a 10 guys for the basic infantry squad, and less as they got more elite. The GDI snipers operated in pairs, and had really plucky lines... until one of them got killed. Then the quotes of the remaining one became really panicky. I usually went to quite a bit of trouble to get the single snipers back to base.
And when you had a fully promoted unit you always took good care of it, although that was more to do with it's better combat abilities than characterisation.
Why? Just why? How they hell would you be able to micro manage and effiecently go to battle when your squads stop to mourn a fallen comrade every time somebody died? It's like shedding a tear every time somebody in your squad died when playing BF3. Becuase replacing them is so easy, there's no reason to get worked up about it.Miles Maldonado said:
Besides, as the commander of an army it's your job to send me to die. Your job will always be to send them to places where they can die. Never be afraid to spend men, but never waste them.
Cookie for reference.
It's amazing how much political backstabbing an epic journeys can play across a game of Total War with the player none the wiser, unless they know where to look.Valanthe said:
Few.... FEW!? THERE WERE THOUSANDS OF GUARDSMEN ON TYPHON! Good men, servin' the Emperah, and you let them all die!MercurySteam said:
Actually, I'm pretty sure it's "Good men, servin' the Emperah, all gone, because of your incompetence."Soviet Heavy said:
.
.
.
"You think I'm incompetent?"
Warhammer: Dark Omen. You lose a squad and they are gone for good. Replacing each man in a squad is horribly expensive.
But eh, its war. You job is to send men to die. Their job is to die for the Emperor and hold the fucking line.
But eh, its war. You job is to send men to die. Their job is to die for the Emperor and hold the fucking line.
Nono, its "You killed them all Castor, ALL OF THEM, because of your incompetence!"MercurySteam said:
The OP should try out Original War and the Earth 2140 series. Both were true & proper RTS' with units that were persistent between missions and leveled over the course of the campaign. They gave you a real incentive to care about unit survival - much more than the more common morale factor.
Playing another Imperial Guard campaign tonight so I'll confim it then. Have played it many times but still don't know it word for word.Soviet Heavy said:
Story driven RTS? Halo Wars.
I know some people may not see it as a true RTS because it was Halo or it was on Xbox, but I felt attached to the main character, supporting characters and the fair few Spartans you get, they even tell you their names! I cared immensely if they lived or died, I protected them at the expense of other nameless units.
As for the not caring about sending waves of pixels to head butt more pixels it's because... well you know what I'm going to say.
I know some people may not see it as a true RTS because it was Halo or it was on Xbox, but I felt attached to the main character, supporting characters and the fair few Spartans you get, they even tell you their names! I cared immensely if they lived or died, I protected them at the expense of other nameless units.
As for the not caring about sending waves of pixels to head butt more pixels it's because... well you know what I'm going to say.
I always wondered why the troops wouldn't eventually refuse to walk directly into enemy cannon fire just so your artillery could shell the entire place. I was not the most careful of general's for Age of Empire 3. Those poor redcoats I had such rediclous casualty rates, I was always expecting them to revolt or something.
OP because no studio wants to risk making such a game because if they get any of it wrong their already small audience will turn to nothing.
OP because no studio wants to risk making such a game because if they get any of it wrong their already small audience will turn to nothing.
I guess because for a traditional RTS, it wouldn't have that big an effect on game play. Unless it's tactics based with persistent squads, gives you a special Hero unit, or has some type of Morale system, it doesn't Matter.I think a game with killable hero units would be interesting. Maybe just actual morale based on how badly you are losing.
The game Endwar comes close. It's focused on tactics, the only real strategy being what upgrades you purchase. These apply to all the units, so no customizing individual squads sadly.
Each squad or vehicle unit is persistent, and losing one requires your enemy to target a second time after it's been defeated (down to one vehicle out of 4, or one squad out of 3) basically killing it twice. It sucks to have that happen, since you'll need to train up a fresh unit that is significantly underpowered when compared to your enemies.
R.U.S.E is a slight example. Your units route when badly damaged and will completely heal on their own when out of combat. So you're encouraged to save them if they take too much heat. Though, the Russians usually spam elite infantry any way.
The game Endwar comes close. It's focused on tactics, the only real strategy being what upgrades you purchase. These apply to all the units, so no customizing individual squads sadly.
Each squad or vehicle unit is persistent, and losing one requires your enemy to target a second time after it's been defeated (down to one vehicle out of 4, or one squad out of 3) basically killing it twice. It sucks to have that happen, since you'll need to train up a fresh unit that is significantly underpowered when compared to your enemies.
R.U.S.E is a slight example. Your units route when badly damaged and will completely heal on their own when out of combat. So you're encouraged to save them if they take too much heat. Though, the Russians usually spam elite infantry any way.
That. I actually feel a little bad when the lone spotter dies. I seriously once put a whole advance hold just so I could clear the way for the poor bastard. The voice acting in that and Kane's Wrath (the expansion) is great.Hero in a half shell said: