Are any RTSs actually strategic?

[Spencer Petersen]

The only way I would say a game is not-strategic is when you can reliably win against an opponent by spamming 1 or 2 unit types or using 1 strategy without responding to the actions of the other player. If you could win every Starcraft 2 game you played by building nothing but zerglings then it wouldn't be strategic, but that's not the case
Sure you might be able to get a way with it a few times in the lower brackets but upper level players with have hellions waiting a choke points and air units flanking you to put you in deep shit. There is usually a counter strategy for every unit spam in that game and the only types with few weaknesses like Carriers, Battlecruisers and Broodlords/Corrupters can be countered with by strong players with relative ease.
So I guess the point is that the only way I would consider a genre nonstrategic is if a certain player strategy is simply impossible to counter.

 

[preybird]

I say most RTS's just depends on how you like to play 'em.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

The classic "dirt farming" RTS games favored unit spam, so tactics took a back seat to resource management. Modern RTS games, such as Dawn of War and Company of Heroes (my absolute favorite being Tom Clancy's EndWar) are built on rock-paper-scissors mechanics, so there is no penultimate unit equivalent to the Apocalypse Tank/Protoss Carrier that you can simply build a million of and mass-move them towards your enemy's base; rather, the emphasis is on troop movements and tactical deployment.

As previously stated, EndWar is my favorite example. It's really quite difficult to get the hang of at first, but once you've got a firm grasp on the mechanics, it's the only RTS I've ever played that makes me feel like an actual commander. Oh, and you have to be hyper-attentive, or else you'll be outmaneuvered by an opponent that isn't content to rest on their laurels (allowing myself to grow complacent has almost always lead to situations that end with me screaming some serious vulgarities).

 

[Dango]

TOTAL WAR.

This. Playing online, it involves tons and tons of strategic thinking.

 

[bojac6]

Just to be pedantic. The problem is most traditional RTSs (Command and Conquer, Starcraft, etc) are actually tactical simulators. To put it in real terms, building Marines to counter their Mutalisks is a tactical decisiion, not a strategic one. The closest a game like that comes to strategy is how many Barracks to build, etc.

A strategy is much more broad and over-arching. Homeworld single player required a strategy, because your resources were limited and you could screw yourself over in later missions if you didn't think the current one through. Was the most common successful strategy "Conserve resources and capture every enemy vessel possible"? Yes, but just because everybody did it, doesn't make it none strategic thinking.

Total War is also strategic, but only on the world map. Channeling resources, troop deployments, diplomacy, those are all strategies. Once you're in a battle and deciding to flank, that's a tactic. Only cavalry to be mobile so one army can defend more area is a strategy. Once you're in battle, it comes down to tactical prowess.

Think of it in terms of nukes. A tactical nuke is a smaller one used in a battle. This has never actually occurred. Strategic nukes are big nukes meant for deterrence or obliterating the enemy entirely. Bombing Hiroshima was a strategic decision, it was designed to force a surrender. Bombing a bunker so troops on the ground can advance is tactical.

 

[Phoenixlight]

Dawnn of War 2: Chaos Rising is a game that requires a lot of strategy to actually win.

 

[obliviondoll]

The classic "dirt farming" RTS games favored unit spam, so tactics took a back seat to resource management. Modern RTS games, such as Dawn of War and Company of Heroes (my absolute favorite being Tom Clancy's EndWar) are built on rock-paper-scissors mechanics, so there is no penultimate unit equivalent to the Apocalypse Tank/Protoss Carrier that you can simply build a million of and mass-move them towards your enemy's base; rather, the emphasis is on troop movements and tactical deployment.

As previously stated, EndWar is my favorite example. It's really quite difficult to get the hang of at first, but once you've got a firm grasp on the mechanics, it's the only RTS I've ever played that makes me feel like an actual commander. Oh, and you have to be hyper-attentive, or else you'll be outmaneuvered by an opponent that isn't content to rest on their laurels (allowing myself to grow complacent has almost always lead to situations that end with me screaming some serious vulgarities).

Agreed on your comments about Endwar here. Although maxing out on Infantry and Artillery and supporting with Transports can turtle or uplink rush pretty efficiently.

Homeworld is generally pretty good at having a counter for everything. The only exception is Heavy Cruisers, and if your opponent can afford to build one and get it to your Mothership, they've already won and are just toying with you.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Most 4x games have a strategic element. Examples of these are the Total War series, Star Wars: Empire at War or Sins of a Solar Empire.

In fact, most RTS games have some sort of strategic element. The management of a base, determining what units to build, deciding to expand to another base and so forth are the strategic elements of a game like Starcraft. The application of force, target selection, unit ability management and all that stuff generally classified as "micromanagement" encompasses the tactical element.

Dawn of War 2 also has a strategic element, though it is greatly reduced. One's build order becomes of supreme importance (thanks to very small unit caps and the relative value of any particular unit) and would qualify as a strategic choice. The basic way one approaches a particular match (a convervative approach where you try to claim your natural portion of the territory and simply cause more casualties, an agressive strategy where you risk over extending your forces in order to damage the enemy's capacity to fight later and so forth) are also strategic choices. The management of any particular battle, an act that will consume the vast majority of one's time and energy in a given game, is the tactical element.

The basic difference between a 4x game and a game like Starcraft is in the clearly defined separation between the strategic element and the tactical. In Total War, the strategic element takes place using an entirely different system than the tactical element. The strategic choices made will determine the status and disposition of the forces in any given tactical engagement.

 

[Nouw]

Every game requires strategic thinking.

Most RTSs are just spam units.

And if you did that, you'd lose.

You have to adapt your way of 'spamming units' to win.

For example, spam all your damn tanks in COH, artillery will smash your armour.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Every game requires strategic thinking.

Most RTSs are just spam units.

That's a strategy.

I mean REAL strategy.

What counts as `real' strategy? I'm pretty sure unit spamming is a legitimate strategy in the real world.

"looks up both World Wars".... I do believe you're right!

 

[RandV80]

Personally I think the fundamental issue here, asides from what someone's definition of 'strategy' is, is that while it certainly exists in RTS games often you have to dig through and master certain gameplay elements before it becomes a factor.

Starcraft 2 for example, drop a chess master or a real general into a random game, and despite all that strategic prowess they'll lose every time to some kid who has no special gift for strategy but has refined his build order over hundreds of games and through repetition and twitch reflexes pulls off a few hundred APM. This is where the pro's play at, and while all things being equal the one with a better strategy wins, no matter how good at strategy you are if you don't have the experience through repetition and high APM you'll never be able to play at a pro level. In other words, a pro Starcraft player is more likely to find success in a tetris tournament than a chess tournament.

Also, kind of unrelated but does Total War really fall under the RTS genre? I know it's a hybrid having real time tactical battles, but as much of the game including RTS fundamentals such as resource gathering, building, and teching is all turn based. They're great games that can stand on their own but I'd think you're more likely to find a Civilization fan picking it up than you are a Starcraft fan.

 

[Dogstile]

I know this thread was done a while back but since then a bunch of new RTSs were released sooooo yeeeeaaaahhhhhhh....

Basicallyo any RTSs involve straegy? So far I think RUSE is the only one, please correct me if I am wrong.

As you said to please correct you.

Every RTS game has strategy. It starts with how you start off. Are you going to focus on your resources or build a quick army to get a chance at locking them down, at the expense of resources later. Are you going to build a few vehicles to make them build counter units to your vehicles and then build counters to the counters or are you going to work on just not letting them see your base and its units at all?

Then you've got distraction tactics. There was a swarm of tanks in halo wars coming towards my base so i used a couple of warthogs to get behind them and start hitting the base. It gave me time to create a small force of anti-armour aircraft to take out the armour, and i ended up spending about 6000 less resources to do it

Another experience i had was rushing the guys base early on, and not spending any money on upgrades or new buildings, but on infantry and the means to transport them to the front. I won that game through a combination of keeping them locked down and ensuring that i had a reserve force behind so that i could finally finish off the buildings and units rather than harassing them. This game was actually rather tense because he started building counters but keeping them locked away and releasing them all in one big swarm. Nearly took me out.

So yes, that's just one game that i enjoyed, and that's regarded as a dumbed down RTS.

 

[demoman_chaos]

Yes. Build-Type RTS games like C&C and Starcraft require build order perfection, but it isn't much strategy once you know what build order to use where and which works against the enemy faction (Anti-Zerg won't always be anti-Protoss).
Combat style ones like the Total War games require a lot more strategy. You get a set army to use to defeat the enemy's set army. Your tactics must change depending on the enemy force and your own. You can't use the same tactics when using a skirmisher army that you can with a cavalry army. Basics stay the same, but there is a lot more to take into account since no 2 battles are every truly alike (even if you use the same forces, a change in tactics on one side will force the other to change their plans as well).

 

[TheTim]

comapny of heroes, its the only one i can think of that isn't winnable by building many of one unit.

 

[Talon Julius]

Ever played a long game in SC2? If everything isn't decided early, it gets pretty fucking crazy. Go look up HD starcraft on youtube. Long pro games can be pretty crazy.

 

[Dogstile]

Every game requires strategic thinking.

Most RTSs are just spam units.

And if you did that, you'd lose.

You have to adapt your way of 'spamming units' to win.

For example, spam all your damn tanks in COH, artillery will smash your armour.

I had 10 anti tank guns against 4 tanks in COH, they won.

Seriously, tank rushing in company of heroes is horrible. Allies have almost no counter to it.

 

[Free Thinker]

Lord of the Rings BFME2 community on the 360 was just mass and steamroll, I single-handedly threw in strategy with how I played as Isengard which involved covering chokepoints and paths with siege mines with a tower nearby. Where's your Attack Trolls now?!?!?