in my experience, the strategy part of an rts is optional, you could use strategy, or u could build enough tanks to embarrass general patton and steamroll from one side of the map to the other.
Are any RTSs actually strategic?
- Thread starter Judgement101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ummm...Just working off of what I understand the definition of "strategy" as I know, but most Real-time "Strategy" games do not, in fact, contain any sort of strategy whatsoever.
Strategy- A plan or process of winning a war.
Tactics- a plan or process of winning a battle
Most Real-time strategy games focus on a single battle at a time, and therefore, are actually Real Time Tactical games, but that doesn't sound as good.
Strategy- A plan or process of winning a war.
Tactics- a plan or process of winning a battle
Most Real-time strategy games focus on a single battle at a time, and therefore, are actually Real Time Tactical games, but that doesn't sound as good.
Very true for example Spamming vikings in SCII will get you fucked up but if you drop a few nukes first it can win you the game.Crimson_Dragoon said:
OT: Supreme Commander and the Total War games in sense of scale but Starcraft is a little more hectic. All require strategy.
Starcraft 2 requires no strategy????
OH. MY. GOD.
What have I been doing with all my carefully timed build orders and defined tech paths? Why have been bothering to scout the enemy at all? For that matter, why have I been making workers or maintaining a good economy at all? I should obviously just use my 6 initial workers and just make lots of the first attacking unit I can!
No need to fast expand, no need to do timing pushes and contains. Why would I harass the workers when I could just mass units? No need to counter the enemy army composition or draw his army into a favorable choke or concave, I can attack his defenses head on with my massive army of units! Watchtower control is for pussies just like scouting, I'll just beat them over the head with my massive di- I mean ARMY.
/sarcasm
If you aren't playing an RTS with strategy, you aren't very good at it. And being able to beat low-level opponents with simple rushes does not qualify you to make any sort of judgment about strategy.
OH. MY. GOD.
What have I been doing with all my carefully timed build orders and defined tech paths? Why have been bothering to scout the enemy at all? For that matter, why have I been making workers or maintaining a good economy at all? I should obviously just use my 6 initial workers and just make lots of the first attacking unit I can!
No need to fast expand, no need to do timing pushes and contains. Why would I harass the workers when I could just mass units? No need to counter the enemy army composition or draw his army into a favorable choke or concave, I can attack his defenses head on with my massive army of units! Watchtower control is for pussies just like scouting, I'll just beat them over the head with my massive di- I mean ARMY.
/sarcasm
If you aren't playing an RTS with strategy, you aren't very good at it. And being able to beat low-level opponents with simple rushes does not qualify you to make any sort of judgment about strategy.
I think it's kind of absurd to question if a strategy game has strategy. I think you're mistaken in your pretentious thoughts.
Pretty much this. You won't be managing logistics, maintaining morale, or dealing with the leader of your country, who may want you to things purely for political reasons, but you'll still be using strategy of some kind.Baby Tea said:
Any game with more than one option available at a time has strategy.
Strategies are over-arching plans to win a game. Call a "game" the war in this scenario. My strategy could be to achieve a better economy than my opponent and eventually use this to either A) Starve him/her of resources or B) be more capable of strengthening and and reinforcing my army with better units than my opponent. The "tactics" I use to execute this could be things such as denying expansion through map control, expanding early and often, harassing his economy (This one alone can have several different tactics depending on the RTS).Kingemoney said:
All RTS players have "tactics", but not many translate their tactics into overall "strategies" for an entire game. In this way, lack of strategy is a failure of players, not games.
Not at all. It's just make group A attack group C and protect group B. Real strategy requires precise planing and making every move count. Like in Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn.
They didn't have much of a choice if they wanted to progress. All those damn campers just sitting in the bunkers and shit.
The brits had a pretty effective attack. I believe it was in Waterloo Belgian. 455 tonnes of explosives in a complex tunnel system underneath a German fort. The best offensive k/d rate in the whole war
Also biggest man made explosion EVER =) People thought it was a earthquake and the explosion was heard in Ireland
The brits had a pretty effective attack. I believe it was in Waterloo Belgian. 455 tonnes of explosives in a complex tunnel system underneath a German fort. The best offensive k/d rate in the whole war
Also biggest man made explosion EVER =) People thought it was a earthquake and the explosion was heard in Ireland
HAhAAhaaah Honest answer: Generally some not many Usually just what you focus on(money upgrades units etc and how you fight ((Surpise attack,rush ,attrition,annoyance steamroll etc.)))
There is more tactics involved then strategy in SC2, most RTS games are all tactics with very little strategy involved.Steel Ronin said:you ever heard of Starcraft 2Judgement101 said:I know this thread was done a while back but since then a bunch of new RTSs were released sooooo yeeeeaaaahhhhhhh....
Basically
