Star Craft 1, Star Craft 2, Supreme Commander, and Every C&C ever made besides Renegade since that was not an RTS.ThePirateMan said:
Are any RTSs actually strategic?
- Thread starter Judgement101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Wow, what a funny thread. Like "Are there any REAL bananas?".
May be it would be a good thing if you would define what you consider to be strategy and why you don't see that stuff in current RTS-games.
Cos, you know, people can't read your mind.
May be it would be a good thing if you would define what you consider to be strategy and why you don't see that stuff in current RTS-games.
Cos, you know, people can't read your mind.
Umm... every person I've heard of in Starcraft always does the same thing... zerg rush... whatever the hell that means...Deiphagia said:
IF you want strategy, as in "Sun Tzu's Art of War, Grand Strategy, I'm a General standing over my Wargaming Table," you want Making History, Hearts of Iron, practically anything from Matrix Games or Battlefront.com (Matrix Games makes the epic Close Combat RTS series, Battlefront.com makes the Combat Mission series of strategy games.)Judgement101 said: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.
All of those are going to be hardcore strategic games; Making History down to the point where you have to manage how much coal, how much aluminum, how much lumber is produced each month in each of the regions under your control in order to fuel your army during WWII.
Ruse is far, far, far away from the kind of "strategy" you're looking for, and frankly, most of these strategy titles are far, far, far from what you're looking for as well. Ruse is not the first "true strategy" game, and it's more real-time tactics like Company of Heroes and Men of War than it is a "real-time strategy."
That seems kinda biased...archvile93 said:
Company of Heroes was pretty good in the strategy department as opposed to unit spamming- sure you COULD spam tanks if you got the resources, but AT guns were damn hard to kill without infantry or a sniper- couple that with an AI that actually knows a BAR apart from, say, a King Tiger tank turret, and even the AI knows how to beat your ass if you just unit spam- that is, if you're playing on something more challenging than 'easy'
It bugs me when people say things like that but don't really give any examples for discussion value.Judgement101 said:
Zerg rush is a valid strategy, because you're able to counter it. I have never lost to a Zerg rush once I learned the correct approach to avoiding it. While I'm not really familiar with Rise of Nations, I must say that if there are RTS games out there where spamming units wins every time, then that is a severe balance issue and a poor RTS game.
I've beaten games with merely 5 or 6 units while the opponent had a massive army, and even lost games due to the misplacement of a single unit. While there are some poor RTS games out there, to say that most of them are army spamming games is a clear misunderstanding of the genre.
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.psrdirector said:
In Rise of Nations there is a way to spawn literally 2000 infantry units (5 infantry per unit) in about 25 seconds.snowfox said:
Is there a way to counter it without doing that same exact build? If not then it's a prime example of what I mentioned before as a severe balance issue and a poor RTS game.Judgement101 said:
However if there are ways to counter it that don't involve going the same exact route then that's where your strategy starts kicking in.
They all involve a kind of strategy, but not necessarily what we would recognise as real world strategy. Often it's just a case of clicking fast, building lots of troops and ordering them to places. Total War is the only one I've played which has legitimate strategy.
No really its not because it mainly involves complete and utter simple thought when spamming the one unit and secondly ive seen it played out so many times on games like Red Alert 3 and Supreme commander that i hardly see it as a strat because player can't be arsed to think of some unique strat themselves.Lukeje said:
I played against a friend who recently started playing Red Alert 3 and what does he do?, he spams up to 20 T3 King Oni's which are heavy armoured and can do quite the damage, but in the end he lost because i had a decent mixed army of 5 apoc tanks, 6 twinblades and 3 v3 rockets.
The spam loads of the one unit theory is bullcrap because it just shows the enemy player is not willing to even try to suprise you in any shape or form.
I suggest that you look at the paradox entertainment rts games http://www.paradoxplaza.com/games?genre=All&type=95&platform=1. They have a real strategic level to them as opposed to the tactical style of the warcraft/starcarft clones. Rise of nations and the total war games are more a half way house between turn based and rts. They both have the strategic level in a turn based mode and combat in a rts style.
Every RTS I've ever seen basically has you figuring out how to use the resources given to you in the best tactical manner whether it be to hinder the enemy or benefit yourself. Either way draws you closer to victory, so the challenge is in figuring out how to get the most out of your expenses in the fastest rate possible.
Off topic - Useless information about starcraft.
I don't usually post here, but with all the Starcraft 2 bashing I feel I must.
Spamming units in SC2 is the quickest way to defeat, yes there may be players that win
by doing this, but any decent player will counter it in a second. Countering a zerg rush
as Terran is as simple as 3 well placed buildings and a single marine.
I've played a fair few RTS's and SC2 is by far the most tactical: It requires you to scout
the enemy, know what they're using and come up with a counter for it as well as having an
attack force ready after that. All this done while attempting to manage resources and control
the map. And that's just for a 1v1 game. Yes the single player VS AI is a walk in the park
no matter what difficulty you set them to, but vs'ing another player is not (depending on their skill level.)
Rant aside (my apologies) if your spamming units in an rts game, you're doing it wrong.
I don't usually post here, but with all the Starcraft 2 bashing I feel I must.
Spamming units in SC2 is the quickest way to defeat, yes there may be players that win
by doing this, but any decent player will counter it in a second. Countering a zerg rush
as Terran is as simple as 3 well placed buildings and a single marine.
I've played a fair few RTS's and SC2 is by far the most tactical: It requires you to scout
the enemy, know what they're using and come up with a counter for it as well as having an
attack force ready after that. All this done while attempting to manage resources and control
the map. And that's just for a 1v1 game. Yes the single player VS AI is a walk in the park
no matter what difficulty you set them to, but vs'ing another player is not (depending on their skill level.)
Rant aside (my apologies) if your spamming units in an rts game, you're doing it wrong.
Actually, that is real world strategy. People are confusing strategy and tactics here. Strategy is just your overal battleplan. No more. And thus, spamming units is a strategy. Not necessarily a viable one but a strategy nonetheless.Valkyrie101 said:
Tactics on the other hand is the exact how you use your units etc. Since SC2 is being thrown around a lot here, in SC2 strategy would be your macro and tactics your micro. Not a perfect analogy but close enough.
So to the OP, I think you're looking for a real tactical game. Not a real strategy game.
P.S.: To those spouting SC2 can't be tactical (I know strategical was used but since it's being mixed up here), a good player can beat down a stronger and bigger army with less units if he controls his units well, so yea.
Strategy is merely tactics with the addition of logistics. In this case, almost any RTS possesses strategy in some form or another, because most if not all of them have a rudimentary economy. A really strategic game utilizes very limited resources to force a player into dangerous expansion. I would love to see an RTS like Age of Empires use the strategic points system of CoH to gain resources instead of building workers. It would make the game much more fluid.
Other than that... Hearts of Iron and the Europa Universalis series both use a fair amount of actual strategy. HoI in particular, but it's a ***** to learn.
Other than that... Hearts of Iron and the Europa Universalis series both use a fair amount of actual strategy. HoI in particular, but it's a ***** to learn.