Are any RTSs actually strategic?

[Shilkanni]

Yeah, pretty much every RTS is a mix of Strategy, Tactics, and Interface/Control skill.
Of course Starcraft 2 has Strategy involved, but it is has a higher percentage of these other elements: Tactical play, like knowing what to do to get the most out of Unit X vs Unit Y and selecting and issuing commands to your units very fast.

Certainly strategy/tactics come into play in FPS games as well, but generally the skill in moving & aiming is more of a factor.

In my opinion, I like RTS my games with more emphasis on Strategy, where the decisions matter more than the clicking speed and reaction time. I prefer Total War games, Ground Control 2, Rise of Nations, Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander to Warcraft & Starcraft because I think there's a little more emphasis on strategy.

 

[David_G]

Being a fan of Korean pro Starcraft I'm a bit offended whenever someone says that it doesn't require strategy. Spamming units will get you no where, I mean no matter how much Zerglings you have if you throw them at Siege Tanks surrounded by mines (which most terrans do) they're going to get melted.

 

[TerranReaper]

I really disagree with you on RUSE, but that's just me.

All RTS games can be and not be spam fests at the same time, it just depends on the level of play you are on. Even in Company of Heroes, the so-called proclaimed RTS that requires a lot of tactics instead of "spamming" or "clicking" can turn into one.

The problem is soft counters and hard counters, let's take Starcraft as an example. In Starcraft, the game is mostly soft counters, which means you can spam 200 marines and practically win the game that way. This only happens if you let your opponent spam 200 marines, which means there is skill involved to stopping this from happening. The natural hard counter against marines would be lurkers, siege tanks, or anything that inflicts splash. Naturally, you would think 10 to 20 of these would stop 200 marines, but it isn't usually the case. Since there are so many marines, their numbers makes up for their lack of strength, each individual loss barely has any impact while every tank/lurker lost is a big deal. In Starcraft, you need a certain ratio of a unit to counter another unit in order to win (Discounting any terrain or positioning of course). However, this ratio can be different depending on the situation, it can be different depending on the unit's position on the terrain or "micromanagement" of those units.

In other games, there are hard counters, this is where if you spam 200 aircraft units, the opponent can destroy you with just 10-20 anti-aircraft units (And very quickly too). Therefore, spamming units is almost impossible except in rare cases. However, the problem with RTS games that uses hard counters is that the hard counter system does most of the work for you, which means the real emphasis is on build order poker (One thing that Command and Conquer is notorious for and hated in the competitive scene) and unit composition. In a lot of cases, build order poker means that if you slip up in the timing and execution of your build order, you automatically lose, this isn't always the case in RTS using mainly hard counters. Otherwise, if the RTS game manages to evade build order poker, then unit composition is the key to victory, which means whatever your opponent is building, you have to build the counter to it AT ALL TIMES. If you do not build counters, then you will lose. In most cases, in these games, there is very little room for micromanagement and terrain usage.

 

[Thedayrecker]

Total War

 

[SlayerN]

Starcraft 2-all leagues gold or above(or the campaign on hard or brutal) require tons of strategy to win and spamming units is one of the hundreds out there and it does still work if you do it right.
Age of Empires-it has map strategy where you NEED to scout and move your base to get the land and water to be to your own strategic advantage. (Cant wait for AoEO!!!)
RUSE-you need to use all of your tactics if your serious about winning fake bases don't cost much and the strategy is getting the enemy to think your doing something and hope he over-thinks it enough to give you an advantage.
this list could go on and on but these are my 3 favorites.

 

[mrdude2010]

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.

didn't work out so well for the russians in WWI though

all of the total war games require battlefield strategy, giving you diverse unit types to serve various functions. you enter the battle with whatever units are in that battle group at the time, so the entire game is focused around commanding your particular troops in such a way as they kill the shit out of the other guy's units

 

[The Ambrosian]

Every game requires strategic thinking.

Most RTSs are just spam units.

Spamming units Is still a strategy. Just a very basic one.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

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.

There's 5 pages so I'm going to just assume that nobody has yet said this - if they have then forgive me. Men of War can be very strategic. Spamming units pretty much never works and every unit needs to be used to it's best. There's both a ton of micromanagement, strategy, and tactics to be done, and all-in-all it's very satisfying.

 

[Freshman]

Most of them = build as many of your super unit as possible and then attack move across the map, or bum rush depending on how cheap your cheapest guy is.
Halo wars = build as many warthogs as possible and micro them
Starcraft = scout and react. like RTRPS (real time rock paper scissors), only a bit more complex
Not sure if you count civ as an RTS per say, its kinda strategy-ish (can spearmen still kill tanks in number 4?)

 

[TerranReaper]

Also, the thing is in ALL RTS games, is that people discover the optimal thing to do in order to win. Meta-game and all, unless you enjoy losing a lot, you're usually going to go under a few certain strategies and nothing more, there might be room for variation but not that much.

 

[ionpulse2]

If you want good strategy games, play the following:

-Starcraft
-Command and Conquer
-Command and Conquer Red Alert
-Command and Conquer Tiberian Sun/Firestorm
-Almost any Total War game
-Empire Earth
-Supreme Commander

That should give you a good filling of strategy for a long while. A word or warning, however: AVOID ANY COMMAND AND CONQUER GAME NEWER THAN TIB SUN LIKE THE PLAGUE. THEY SUCK.

 

[Flac00]

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.

Yes, they do involve strategy. It might not be the same strategy as say a tbs or a game like RUSE, but it still is legitimate strategy. This strategy is doing smart, tactical, and precise movements quickly and with heavy but fast thinking thinking. Aka: thinking on your feet. Anyone playing an RTS has to think on their feet and be flexible otherwise they will easily get destroyed. It takes a definite amount of strategy as you have to think about unit/building positioning, what upgrades are best, how to get your economy running faster, etc. All while having to move troops around the field in complex manners. That takes a certain level of strategy to do that all, not just multitasking. Really, RTS's are TBS's in real time.

 

[Voodoomancer]

AI War. It's real time, and its strategic!

 

[Wicky_42]

Every game requires strategic thinking.

Most RTSs are just spam units.

Tell that to my frinend and I after a 2 hour struggle match in Coh where every move coasted us a win. The enemy was spaming units, but couldn't break our defense. We managed to pull in some light artillery and do a quick swep and clear of their defenses then dig in near some buildings tight enough to keep pushing them back. It was one carfuly planned stragey.

So yes RTS do requier stragies, sometimes its about rushing in and wreaking havoc on their ecomcomy or buiding defenses and digging in. Those who just rush and spam quickly get taken out by more experianced players.

I said MOST, not all. (If it seems like I'm being agressive its because YOUR scary thread mentally raped me.)

You could play many RTSs like that, but against someone who's playing STRATEGICALLY and TACTICALLY you will lose. That's the point.

Every RTS has strategy, be it as basic as building units really fast or as complex as matching your unit composition to the weaknesses of your enemies, timing upgrades to kick in just as you need them and luring your opponent into fights on favourable terrain whilst managing resources, expansion and reinforcements. To assume that 'just spamming units' is a) the only way 'most' RTSs are played and b) not a valid strategy in itself is foolish.

 

[Battenbergcake]

You may wish to consult Murhpy's Combat Law
Law 8. No plan survives the first contact intact.

 

[Amerikhan]

Every game requires strategic thinking.

Most RTSs are just spam units.

In the old days, games like AoEII and Warcraft II put emphasis on correct city building and proper resource management. Empire Earth does the same.

 

[YouBecame]

The homeworld games were very very heavy on strategy. Since a win could only be achieved by a sustained attack, you really had to play the longer more strategic game, as opposed to the shorter more tactical games.