Are any RTSs actually strategic?
- Thread starter Judgement101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
all games have a strategic element
for your FPS to your RTS
FPS if you run in guns blazing sure you might kill a few but the ones that think and deal with the problems that they encounter are the ones that usually end up winning
also RTS is ofcourse uses strategy correct me if im wrong but doesnt RTS stand for real time strategy?
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/how-to-play-rts-games-competitively-for-newbies/a-20100908111313943060
for your FPS to your RTS
FPS if you run in guns blazing sure you might kill a few but the ones that think and deal with the problems that they encounter are the ones that usually end up winning
also RTS is ofcourse uses strategy correct me if im wrong but doesnt RTS stand for real time strategy?
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/how-to-play-rts-games-competitively-for-newbies/a-20100908111313943060
This thread is severely lacking in the mention of real-time tactics games.
See Company of Heroes and Dawn of War...
Though I was always more of a fan of turn-based strategy games or hybrids like JA2 and X-Com:Apocalypse, there's plenty of RTS out there that are more than "spamming units" as you say, or more than an economic simulator.
See Company of Heroes and Dawn of War...
Though I was always more of a fan of turn-based strategy games or hybrids like JA2 and X-Com:Apocalypse, there's plenty of RTS out there that are more than "spamming units" as you say, or more than an economic simulator.
I agree. I really really agree. Supcom 2 should have been so much more. It was clear what happened though. They wanted to reach a wider market so they simplified it into oblivion.Legendsmith said:
It'll help if you explain what you mean more, that's why most people are taking it as a troll thread.Judgement101 said:
I'd be more than happy to discuss the strategical value of an RTS game with you, if that's what you're really looking for. Just have to supply me with information and examples that I can respond too. Like for example how I asked you for examples and you brought up zerg rushing and we talked about that for a short bit.
When you say it's mostly spamming units, what type of units are you talking about? In starcraft2, a marine, zealot, zergling, battlecruiser, Mothership, ultralisk, and even SCV's Probes and Drones are considered units.
To get a basic understanding of where you're coming from, what RTS games have you played? and How long have you played them? Do you play online or single player?
I don't really think most (f not any) RTSs involve -strategy- as much as -tactics-. As long as the game is based around separate missions in the campaign, there can't be any inherent strategic choices.
The only game in I have in mind that might fulfill the "strategy" aspect- Tom Clancy's End War.
I won't go into the mechanics deeper than that your forces are persistent, and that if a unit is killed, you start over with a green unit (as opposed to a perhaps veteran unit that you lost), and that the "mission hub" consists of selectable mission areas, which are as open to attack from the enemy as much as yourself.
"Strategy", in my mind, means "a series of actions that results in victory, and survival against an enemy force."
Tactics, on the other hand, means "a series of actions that results in victory, and survival against an enemy attack or completion of a mission".
Most RTSs are, in my mind, based around the latter, not the former. The problem with making a good RTS is the fact that if you want to make it realistic, you need to make a big game- to cover the necessary mechanics.
Mind you: I'm basing this post on the notion of campaigns, and have forgone the very touchy issue of multiplay.
I'm not going to open that can of worms, other than introduce this question to potential multiplayers reading this:
What if you had to, right after you defeated your enemy, had to face against another player, just as capable at fielding units as you, with no chance to recovering your units, or make new ones?
-THAT- is what a real strategy game would be about. Not a "arena", as most of us are used to.
The only game in I have in mind that might fulfill the "strategy" aspect- Tom Clancy's End War.
I won't go into the mechanics deeper than that your forces are persistent, and that if a unit is killed, you start over with a green unit (as opposed to a perhaps veteran unit that you lost), and that the "mission hub" consists of selectable mission areas, which are as open to attack from the enemy as much as yourself.
"Strategy", in my mind, means "a series of actions that results in victory, and survival against an enemy force."
Tactics, on the other hand, means "a series of actions that results in victory, and survival against an enemy attack or completion of a mission".
Most RTSs are, in my mind, based around the latter, not the former. The problem with making a good RTS is the fact that if you want to make it realistic, you need to make a big game- to cover the necessary mechanics.
Mind you: I'm basing this post on the notion of campaigns, and have forgone the very touchy issue of multiplay.
I'm not going to open that can of worms, other than introduce this question to potential multiplayers reading this:
What if you had to, right after you defeated your enemy, had to face against another player, just as capable at fielding units as you, with no chance to recovering your units, or make new ones?
-THAT- is what a real strategy game would be about. Not a "arena", as most of us are used to.
After reading a few of your posts...I don't think you really understand strategy. Spamming units can be considered a real strategy, albeit a weak one, but still valid. Nobody gets by on spamming one particular unit in an actually balanced RTS anymore. Its more about deploying the counter to the opposing unit. In these cases, thats where the real strategy comes in. You really can't deny the strategy that are used in games like the original SC and SC2. Or any Blizzard RTS really.
I don't usually double post, but...C'mon, man...Sartan0 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_tactics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Real-time_tactics_video_games
^ Just take 10 off that list, they've sold for a reason...
This is why I love SupCom and SoaSE.gl1koz3 said:
Even Total Annihilation was way ahead of its time with the ridiculously high amount of unit queues, multiple-building select, attack-rally points, an economy that was renewable so you can focus more on the units and combat rather than trying to start a new base every ~10-15 minutes because your first one ran out of tiberium/minerals/gold/whatever, infinite unit select (yes, I know C&C had that, but Starcraft ended up being the standard, and 80% of the game's competitiveness comes from working with a bad UI), etc etc.
It removes the "I can't get my units to do what I want them to do" and allows the experience to be more of a pure thought-based game.
No, button mashing is NOT a strategy. A strategy implies DELIBERATE thought to achieve a GOAL. Button mashing has no thought, does not establish any goals, achieves nothing, and the player mashing is either apathetic of the game, or doesn't know how to play said game. And if a player continues to mash, not only do they not improve, but also makes others that play with them worse players.meganmeave said:
Button mashing is the opposite of strategy. It is random to even the player controlling the actions, has no goal, tactics, or adaptability to changing circumstances. It's like approaching a game of darts wearing a blindfold, after 10 shots of vodka, and throwing your darts at whatever makes noise. Even if you hit the bullseye, it was simply luck and had almost nothing to do with your intentions of making a bullseye save for throwing the dart in the first place. Saying that button mashing is a strategy clearly shows that you don't even understand what strategy means.
Though I agree with the rest of your statement, that one pissed me off a lot and was a major flaw in what you where trying to say.
Not many, and the strategy tends to be quite rudimentary. This is because of how contained they are. The most common objective is just kill the enemy.
Europa Universalis has quite a bit of strategy to it, but is lacking on the direct and organizational levels.
Total War has strategy, but not in the RTS components of the game. The meat of the battlefield is in organization.
Rise of Nations had management on the battlefield along with some tactics, but it did have strategy on the world map. I know as China I always shot for India for the delicious wonder card.
Starcraft and other base builders have management thrown into the mix.
Company of Heroes and DW2 get rid of the management and are left with tactics.
Europa Universalis has quite a bit of strategy to it, but is lacking on the direct and organizational levels.
Total War has strategy, but not in the RTS components of the game. The meat of the battlefield is in organization.
Rise of Nations had management on the battlefield along with some tactics, but it did have strategy on the world map. I know as China I always shot for India for the delicious wonder card.
Starcraft and other base builders have management thrown into the mix.
Company of Heroes and DW2 get rid of the management and are left with tactics.
CoH, this far down? I really thought it would be in the top 5 answers at least, it being the most challenging RTS of all time.BlindTom said:
Sure, there is a kind of strategy in Starcraft. But it's just infinitely more realistic and generally awesome.
At least it was just before the release of Opposing Fronts. After that, the balance was never as great again.
You can't get away with just spamming units in any RTS (playing against a decent opponent).
Tactics is just a better word for it than "strategy", but that's not what the OP is looking for.
Some people just won't get ever past the micro and the command rate required, to get to he level where the tactics/strategy can be appreciated.
If you're too slow you lose even if your plans are perfect, so the first step is learning to be fast using the UI.
Tactics is just a better word for it than "strategy", but that's not what the OP is looking for.
Some people just won't get ever past the micro and the command rate required, to get to he level where the tactics/strategy can be appreciated.
If you're too slow you lose even if your plans are perfect, so the first step is learning to be fast using the UI.
Maybe on Some level, but you still have to know which units to produce and when.Judgement101 said:
Zerg Rush...nuff said.Deiphagia said:
But, all RTSes involve some level of stategic thinking...even which unit you build, which tech you research next, that is all strategy that should be carefully laid out in your mind.
Which route your army takes to attack, if you split it to create a diversion.
The problem today is that people think, just because the option exists to amass units and spam the enemy, that it is unstrategic...that´s bullshit.
Even spamming units is a strategy...altho a very simple one...
Like people thinking that an FPS like Modern Warfare is "untactical"...actually, people use tactics and strategies all the time...
For example, the use of grenades in most FPSes is a tactical option.
Camping is, in fact, a tactic and a very old one to boot.
Even Sun Tsu describes something that can be considered camping...altho with an entire army.
Camping is the tactic of the weak, the tactic of those who cannot take the enemy head on, either because of resources, or because of skill or whatever.
It is also called "ambushing" in the real world...you lie and wait for your enemy, then strike him when he is in a disadvantage.
Guerillas do this all the time...the Vietcong won because of it, the Mujaheddin too.
So the next time you think about strategy and tactics in a game, consider what these terms actually mean...then you´ll find them everywhere.
Also, for those unused to the military slang:
Strategy is the term for the path to a desired goal...IE: winning.
Tactics is what you do to get there...the small steps that make up your strategy, if you will.
If you strategy resolves around capturing and holding a certain chokepoint, you use tactics like a rush to get there before the opponent.
If you loose said chokepoint, what tactic do you use next? Do you rethink your entire strategy or do you continue with the plan?
Most RTS games require you to play strategically. If you're finding that spamming units is a straightforward way to win, I suggest you turn up the difficulty from "Easy".
I suggest any of the older Command & Conquer games. Or if you're looking for something different and obscure, look for Conquest: Frontier Wars. It's a sci-fi RTS, and all the action revolves around control of star systems connected by wormholes. It limits the amount of units you can control based on the size of your base (which is limited by the amount of planets in your system) and focuses on commanding fleets. It's a good buried treasure in my opinion.
I suggest any of the older Command & Conquer games. Or if you're looking for something different and obscure, look for Conquest: Frontier Wars. It's a sci-fi RTS, and all the action revolves around control of star systems connected by wormholes. It limits the amount of units you can control based on the size of your base (which is limited by the amount of planets in your system) and focuses on commanding fleets. It's a good buried treasure in my opinion.
Most people seem to be finding it very confusing that the word strategy has a very different meaning in terms of a military campaign than it does in more general use. Of course, you can have a strategy when playing tetris, a tactics game or an RTS.
The strategy in something like Starcraft is more about using your time efficiently and guessing and responding to what other players will do. In the military sense, Starcraft is a limited Tactics game.
In the context of a military game, Strategy is the plan of action of a campaign. If a game has a linear series of missions or unlinked mutliplayer battles then it cannot be called a military strategy game since you have no control over the strategy or, generally, no strategy is needed. X-COM has an, almost, real-time strategy game and turn based battles but mostly it is the other way around. Maybe Sins of the Solar empire qualifies. Strategy isn't suited to pure real time gameplay because nobody wants to decide on a plan, give orders, then wait in real time for weeks for the first battle to happen. Some sort of time acceleration, pausing and slowdown is needed. Or just go with turn based since it's a lot less hassle for the player.
The strategy in something like Starcraft is more about using your time efficiently and guessing and responding to what other players will do. In the military sense, Starcraft is a limited Tactics game.
In the context of a military game, Strategy is the plan of action of a campaign. If a game has a linear series of missions or unlinked mutliplayer battles then it cannot be called a military strategy game since you have no control over the strategy or, generally, no strategy is needed. X-COM has an, almost, real-time strategy game and turn based battles but mostly it is the other way around. Maybe Sins of the Solar empire qualifies. Strategy isn't suited to pure real time gameplay because nobody wants to decide on a plan, give orders, then wait in real time for weeks for the first battle to happen. Some sort of time acceleration, pausing and slowdown is needed. Or just go with turn based since it's a lot less hassle for the player.