Are any RTSs actually strategic?

[illas]

Firstly, "Ground Control" always stuck me as the most "strategic" of top down RTS games, since your initial army was what you were stuck with; and thus had to use what you possessed wisely since there was minimal room for losses.


However IMO, the "RT" aspect of "RTS" has always been an intrinsic cap on potential strategies available.
For complex, deep, varied strategy you by-and-large play a turn based game, since they have no real time action, and thus are wholly tactical affairs. The developers can thus bias the depth of strategy accordingly. Try managing a Civilisation level of complexity in real-time. Or imagine running an entire country on your own (without a cabinet, advisors, specialists, etc)! The depth of available options would be disproportionate to your ability to control said options to any degree of success.

RTSes like Starcraft and it's rather disappointing sequel (sorry) are a *hybrid*. They possess elements of strategy a la turn-based games; and combine it with a level of action inherited from... action games. Thus creating a game that is more tactical than an action game, and more action-packed than a turn-based game. However, because it combines the (I'd argue intrinsically opposed re: game design) elements of action and strategy it is diluted. Thusly, while RTSes can do both action and strategy to a fairly basic standard, it is the fact that they have both that make them good games.


Apologies for any inconsistancies, I rather began typing the Ground Control paragraph and then didn't stop. A quick re-read and it seems cogent... but....

 

[ryai458]

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.

Well in WW2 it was ... seriously, "your all looking a little tired, time to go over the top and run at machine guns!"

Actually that was WWI, but I forgive you.

 

[nightazday]

depends on whether you are talking about in a multiplayer scenario or a campaign scenario

in multiplayer saying RTS is just about spamming is just like saying Fighting games are just about button mashing, though that is true for many inexperienced players a pro probably knows a way around it (especially in Starcraft where there are unit specially design to take down the spamming of a particular unit)

in campaign there is not that much strategy involved because... well... devs are not strategist. problems in an RTS is like the problems in the Mystery genre. There is a lot more things that a character in an entertainment medium has that a person in real life doesn't (like unlimited units, abundance of resources, the fact that there usually are no civilians in the warzone), and as a strategist the character will use it anyway despite the fact it won't be realistic (and probably not even moral) and the only thing the dev can do is make a unit or environment that discourages a particular tactic (like firebats and reavers to a zergling rush)

 

[Yojoo]

Ever play Stracraft 1? Just building masses of soldiers is a quick way to bite the bullet. You'll be fucked without defenses and strategic choke points.

Zerg Rush...nuff said.

"Zerg Rush" was, and is, easily countered. Any given race in SC1 could employ rush tactics with potential success, but successful rushes consisted of much more than simply building a dozen cheap units and suiciding them against the enemy base. There are elements of scouting, map knowledge, build orders, resource management, and micro/macromanagement in even the simplest of rush victories in SC1.

I'm not a huge RTS player, but I've played both SC1 and SC2 quite a bit and can easily see the strategy in them. Low-level play may see simple "mass one unit and win" victories, but these are hardly indicative of the strategic potential of the game or the genre. Starcraft is a complex mix of resource management, building strategies, scouting, counters, misdirection, and calculated risk. When two players who know what they're doing go head to head, things get interesting fast.

 

[Iron Lightning]

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.

I find that Dawn of War II is the best RTS for strategy. In the single player mode, it's sorta a RPG/RTS hybrid where all your units are pre-deployed. It simply requires small-scale strategies and wise use of special abilities to carry the day. It multiplayer mode, it's closer to a normal RTS but with the very important difference that there's no base building (all units spawn for a single starting structure) and resources need to be captured out in the field. Multiplayer games are won by holding on to at least two of three victory points for quite a long period of time. It's all about defending your points by utilizing superior tactics and not superior numbers.

Most RTSs are just racing games wherein one has to race to get superior numbers before the other guy. Dawn of War II is the only strategic game I've found with strategies that go beyond your build order.

Of course, if you really want in-depth strategy than I recommend a turn-based strategy game.

 

[SyphonX]

The Total War series as stated, and Company of Heroes, in my opinion. Though at times, COH can get a little zergish.

 

[FightThePower]

Yes, obviously.

I like how people claim Starcraft 2 has 'no strategy' but spamming marines all day will not help you win. Company of Heroes is much more strategic though.

 

[obliviondoll]

Strategy:

1. The science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.
2. the use or an instance of using this science or art.
3. skillful use of a stratagem: The salesperson's strategy was to seem always to agree with the customer.
4. a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result: a strategy for getting ahead in the world.

Tactics:

1. The art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.
2.( used with a plural verb ) the maneuvers themselves.
3.( used with a singular verb ) any mode of procedure for gaining advantage or success.

Reasonably accurate oversimplification follows: If you plan ahead, it's strategy. Or, if it involves logistics (base building, etc.) it's strategy. Also implies that "strategy" is only an appropriate term where multiple battles or large-scale combat is involved. Otherwise it's tactics.

Covers it pretty well in terms of dictionary definitions, but, OP, it depends on what YOU, PERSONALLY, want out of your strategy game.

RUSE has deception built into the game mechanics. The best players in a lot of RTS games find ways to deceive their opponents without needing such help. Homeworld is a great example. Early on, the best players took advantage of the 3D space to launch surprise attacks from above, below or behind the enemy mothership AFTER the main fleet has been engaged, and usually led away from the actual line of attack. Things like having a hard-to-kill ship in the distraction fleet focus fire on the mothership so they don't bother checking the "mothership is under attack" alerts too closely were common, as was use of cloak generators to help conceal the proper attack until it's too late.

Many games have stealth abilities for certain units, which can add that deceptive element to the game fairly effortlessly. RUSE just expands on that and makes it a core mechanic rather than requiring lateral thinking to make it work.

If you want "I have this invisible tank, which is decent against most units, but fragile, and exposed when shooting", go for the Command and Conquer games. If you want "I click twice and a massive chunk of my forces become invisible to the enemy until in combat", then buy RUSE.

Honestly, though, a good amount of RTS games have demos, if you're unsure, try before you buy.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, Relic combined both the RTS approaches I mentioned above in the Homeworld games.

 

[MeTheMe]

For RTS games I've always been a fan of StarCraft. Yeah, you can spam units endlessly and pull a win, but I think there are real strategies and tactics in the game. Each race has it's own set of them. Maybe you want to build a fleet of invisible ships for a stealth attack. Maybe you just build all your most powerful units. You can use unit abilities to hurt, hamper, and even turn your enemies units against them. And mixing and matching these ideas and strategies is part of the game! It's why I prefer StarCraft to any other RTS, because the unique abilities add an extra depth to your strategy and require thinking to use properly.

Yeah, I think they require strategy.

 

[DarkDain]

Every game requires strategic thinking.

Most RTSs are just spam units.

Well most FPS's require you to be good at aiming, unless you 'spam bullets', but every RTS still has strategy, you need resources for those units and you need to decide on unit compositions. How much or how little strategy you use or NEED to use depends on you and your opponent. Spamming units can still be your strategy against more skilled players but you need to adapt alot of skills to do this, just like in a FPS, you can still just spam bullets if your a bad shot, but with good map sense and patience you can make it work on any level.

 

[sageoftruth]

I once played Grim Grimoire. It's not as deep as most RTSs (Fewer units and a 2D plane) but each and every unit had its own special abilities, and just about everything could be countered somehow, making it important to see what lies ahead before deciding what structures (grimoires) and units to create. Sadly, I don't think there was a multiplayer option.

 

[oooooooooooooooooooooooooo]

The Total War Games, Company of Heroes games, Dawn of War games and Star Craft 2 are all games that I can say, from personal experience, are strategy based games. All of them require a good knowledge of the game, coupled with a strategic mind if you want to get any good at them.

 

[zidine100]

watch some of the great multiplayer starcraft matches, youll change you oppinion.

 

[Layzor]

Strategy is a pretty broad word, I'd argue that almost all game involve strategy.

I just read the word strategy so many times that it seems like a very silly word now.

 

[NuclearPenguin]

Insert Trololol Here.

 

[Chrinik]

Ever play Stracraft 1? Just building masses of soldiers is a quick way to bite the bullet. You'll be fucked without defenses and strategic choke points.

Zerg Rush...nuff said.

"Zerg Rush" was, and is, easily countered. Any given race in SC1 could employ rush tactics with potential success, but successful rushes consisted of much more than simply building a dozen cheap units and suiciding them against the enemy base. There are elements of scouting, map knowledge, build orders, resource management, and micro/macromanagement in even the simplest of rush victories in SC1.

I'm not a huge RTS player, but I've played both SC1 and SC2 quite a bit and can easily see the strategy in them. Low-level play may see simple "mass one unit and win" victories, but these are hardly indicative of the strategic potential of the game or the genre. Starcraft is a complex mix of resource management, building strategies, scouting, counters, misdirection, and calculated risk. When two players who know what they're doing go head to head, things get interesting fast.

And you tell me that, because?
I am aware that even a rush can be countered, as it can be prevented, or result in utter failure, leaving you at a disadvantage...
Sure it´s hard to tell through the Internet and without Emotes, but I thought that the Zerg Rush is a common Star Craft joke<.<
Also, a rush is a strategy, what you listed where the tactics required to pull it off...scouting is tactic, Build Orders are tactic and micro is more tactical then anything else in any RTS...
The Strategy is your plan to win...if your plan is to spam units fast and rush your opponent, you use the appropiate tactics based on enemy race, the terrain and other details.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I imagine they probably could, but in every RTS I've played my strategy has been pretty much, build a whole shitload of my most powerful unit (usually some sort of tank) and bulldoze anything and everything that looks at me funny. ...or as Yahtzee said in his Halo Wars review,
"Build enough tanks to embarrass General Patton and steamroll them from one side of the map to the other, hoping that the objective is one of the things that dies along the way."

 

[Vhite]

Yep, mostly Blizzard RTS games.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

As easy as it sounds, building a massive HAMMER OF DEATH style army isn't as easy to do as people give it credit for.

The strategy comes in the form of finding ways to hinder or stop the production of your oponent's massive army whilst building yours (capturing their resources, tactical attacks on thier base to take out production... etc)

Also, i've got to agree with many people and say the Total wars are definitly tactical, because you very often start with similar numbers of troops and then it comes down to how you use them.

 

[jultub]

While spamming units and fast paced micro gaming are core gameplay elements in most RTSes. You still need to keep track of what your opponent is doing, and you need to make the right moves to counter that. The people who claim that there are no strategic RTSes do not look past the relatively fast paced gameplay.