Are any RTSs actually strategic?

[elvor0]

I cant think of one that isnt, this seems trolly

If you say its trolly then have fun in your own little reality

wow offended much, just commenting seems like it could be there just to make angry rts fans.

I just hate how ever assumes this is a troll thread even thought it isn't. I'm trying to find a REAL strategy game but everyone is just trolling me about how Starcraft 2 is great.

Starcraft 2 IS strategic, watch high level replays, games are down to your micro management in encounters, otherwise you will die horribly.

Now this is not ment to be insulting, but I'm a assuming you're a bronze league player, where spamming units may work, but gold+ (maybe even silver) that will NOT work, I'm quite capable of repelling any form of rush without it even interrupting what I was planning, lets be honest here, Bronze players are Bronze players for a reason, because they're not very good, now thats not an attack on you, some people just arnt as good as others at some things, that's the way it is with every competitive sport.

Building the right unit to counter, kiting Zealots with Marauders, pulling back injured units, SCV combat management, abilites, movement, sneaking round the back are all strategic moves, and thus are strategy.

 

[The Stonker]

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.

you ever heard of Starcraft 2

All you do in that is spam units

Every game requires strategic thinking.

Most RTSs are just spam units.

That's a strategy.

I mean REAL strategy.

Strategy is a plan before we go into the battle.
Tactics is what we use on the battle field my friend.

 

[Sartan0]

Exactly but a "Real time Tactics" game would not sell as well.

 

[SilverZ]

Every game requires strategic thinking.

Most RTSs are just spam units.

Go on any RTS multiplayer match and spam the basic unit, we'll see how far you can get.

in ruse you can do an all or nothing barracks rush( 1 barracks 20$/ 10 GIs/volksgrenaders. 5$ each) which can catch your opponent off guard while he/she is building eco. allowing you to take the HQ and the fresh supply depos for your self giving you free eco and +1$ a second so you can go ahead and gangbang his buddy with your new tanks or artillery or w/e your opponent made a base to produce.

 

[preybird]

might be real time but to be fair it never gonna feel real.There is to much coding to be done to incorporate all the micro and large scale tactics. Along with trying to make them feel real e.g. a group run by a single unit that can act interdependently and survive with out your tactical or input make them feel more human or alien.. still lot of it rolls down to> How many hards 6's can the AI throw to make the game fun/hard.

 

[Liberaliter]

Yes of course, in Blitzkrieg for example you have to use all different types of armour, artillery and infantry to win against the enemy. It is very strategic, far more than most games.

 

[FURY_007]

Yeah, I mean at the core you're spamming units, but its all about resource management, defense, and knowing all the units. For instance in a recent game of SC2, an opponent tried to just mass marines, and went against my base, didn't even rush me. by the time he had his 35-40 marines, I had 2 upgraded bunkers filled with 2 marauders and 4 marines, 3 tanks, and a thor, with more stuff coming. Needless to say he got his shit wrecked. In Warcraft 3 heroes' spells could change the tide of battle, so timing and placing is key, and company of heroes introduced buildings and a automatic cover system, which were key to surviving battles, so yes its a fair bet that every RTS is "strategic" it just depends on how you play.

 

[Bradfucius]

Every game requires strategic thinking.

Most RTSs are just spam units.

That's Russian Military strategy. Also if games like Starcraft 2 were just spamming units then players would not build anything except Command Centers and Workers.

 

[Dyme]

Every game requires strategic thinking.

Most RTSs are just spam units.

Go on any RTS multiplayer match and spam the basic unit, we'll see how far you can get.

I never said basic unit and I said Most RTSs not ALL.

Yea building units is part of many RTS. Building more than one unit also is helpful. Spamming only one type of unit will make you lose, unless your enemy is horrible. I can't think of any RTS where spamming one kind of units was the best thing to do.
And if you understand neither RTS nor strategy, you should not be posting in this thread.

Answer to thread: Yes.

 

[Tetranitrophenol]

Im sure you are talking about the point where you make a LOT of units and point them at the enemy base, the units overwhelm the enemy and you win! (no strategy required)

that is something I have done in the past with previous RTS, but that is because I mostly played against the computer.

Lately I have been playing SC2, usually PvP games dont last more than 20 minutes, meaning that you dont have time to amass enough resources to make a retarded armada (and I play Zerg). Most of the times I end up trying to mess with my oponnetn's economy to win, making a handful of Mutas to pick out their workers. Then moving in some Zerglings to pick out his ainti-air turrents while his army is running behind my other units.
Other times I spend my good ammount of resources making 2 or 3 Ultralisks(very big roach) so I end up using them to attack key points in the map before sending them back to base to get healed, and so on. My point is that once you get to play against really tough opponents is the time when you have to make every resource count if you want to win, you have to make a strategy in order to spend the little resources you have into something that is really useful, because you wont have enough to win just by overwhelming your opponent.

 

[Jackhorse]

My personel favourite was Shogun total war especially in defense. You could position your troops at the top of the hill with a small detatchment of cavalry hidden in tree cover to your far left to sweep down on their rear when they came into attack. Have your archers at the front so they wouldn't be getting cheap shots in while your archers idled 50 meters out of range then bring your heavy infantry forward in a quick march when they started their charge. You had to take into account weather conditions, morale, the tiredness of the troops after running halfway across the map and wether their retreat was real or just staged to draw you into a valley where you would be massarcarred. Different troops behaved very differently, moved at different speeds and were strong against different opponents. It was pretty damn tactical and lord forgive you if you try and invade across a bridge.

TLDR version: Shogun total war was tactical.

Edit: oh and you couldn't build troops once engaged in battle so their was also difficulty in deciding how heavily you should reinforce this region or the next while still avoiding having the next one over taken. Spam tactics impossible.

 

[WolfLordAndy]

If it has unit caps (Dawn of War games, Age of Empires, Settlers) then it tends to have more stragey elements as you have limited number of troops, and which troops to choose from, this means you have to use your better troops against different targets, and use the rock/paper/nuke mechanic inherrent in all these games.

Those that have no caps (Red Alert for example) mean you can just mass as many of the top units as possible (be they blimps, supertanks, or hordes and hordes of infantry) then charge em at the enemy and they'll win through sheer firepower and numbers.

Although you could also argue that true stratergy are less the real time ones and more the turn based ones, as you only move so much before the oposition gets to counter, thus leading to a slower but more intelligent way of gaming. Turn based stratagy has sadly totally died off these days, with the closest to TBS being RPG combat.

 

[Legendsmith]

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.

Supreme Commander Forged Alliance.
I ahve Played R.U.S.E
Yes, it is strategic, but SupCom is even more so.

I don't consider games like Starcraft to be RTS games, they're more like RTT games. Real Time Tactics.

 

[Jzolr0708]

Try playing the mission in WC3 where you kill the 7 Orc bases with the dragons, solely by using the unlimited Lumber/Gold cheat, the Fast Unit Creation Cheat, and then just spam Frost Wyrms at the enemy base

It will take FOREVER, and you still might not win.

All of Blizzards RTS' so far have required decent strategy. The only instance not of this is the infamous Zerg rush, but you can call it strategic as long as you spam "KEKEKEEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEK" over the chat.

 

[Legendsmith]

Check out the total war series. Also Sins of a Solar empire, it's addictive as hell. Civ 4 obviously. Supreme Commander (the first) but thats more economy based.

Agreed, though Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance took the focus away from the economy,

EDIT: Why do people get so touchy about sc2 anyway? It's just another unimaginative bog standard RTS with 90's style rock paper scissor gameplay.

Because it shouldn't have been!
Supreme Commander 2 should ahve been Forged Alliance,, but better. Better graphics, better pathing, more units, more options better UI and better story.
It was none of these. Square Enix destroyed all that Supreme Commander was.

 

[Dexiro]

I can't think of an RTS that doesn't involve strategy.

 

[RoachMill]

It depends on your definition of Strategy. Most of them require some thought as to how and in what order to build things, so in the strictest of sense they have strategy, the problem is most of them are not DYNAMICALLY strategic. In essence there is a distinct build order and a set way of deploying or using your units which means that ultimately most RTS games have only one or two correct ways to play them.

Almost all RTS games out these days have such a strict set of gameplay dynamics that you might as well just play chess. Star Craft 2 is a perfect example of this sort of play.

 

[dark707]

Sins of a Solar Empire, anyone, anyone, no, damn. (Sorry if someone did post it, I only read the first page).

That requires a huge amount of strategy, especially as a small game is 2 HOURS LONG.

 

[GiglameshSoulEater]

Sins of a Solar Empire.

This.

 

[greenflash]

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.

you ever heard of Starcraft 2

All you do in that is spam units

Every game requires strategic thinking.

Most RTSs are just spam units.

That's a strategy.

I mean REAL strategy.

AHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH...no really...AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH.
yeah you are the WORST Starcraft 2 player in the world.there is no RTS where spamming units is effective you sir are a dipshit and need to shut up before you embarrass yourself even more.

You need to stop fucking trolling.

You talking in the mirror?Also i'm not responding anymore to your bullshit claims whatever you say so don't waste your time anymore.You are just confusing macro with massing units and miss the whole strategy element in the game if you mass say Colossi and go up against a couple of Vikings then you'd be pretty fucked now wouldn't you.

starcraft 2
have anti spam units like the colossi or helions or bainlings