Good RTS

[Reasonable Doubt]

What to you makes a good RTS is it the easy control scheme (Console RTS) the resource management (If it has any), the graphics, the story, or what ever it may be, just say (Would type be a better word?) what your opinion on the matter is.

(Please tell me if this type of thread has already been done)

My personal opinion is that it has to have a good story, and a good way to manage resources without constantly watching your workers harvest what ever you need to build in said RTS.

 

[ReepNeep]

Since good console RTS games don't exist, I will address the PC platform exclusively.

1. The game needs to have an economic element, but it should consume no more than 33% of your attention. 10% is ideal and as little goddamn peasant minding as possible. (Warcraft, Starcraft, Age of Empires, Rise of Nations, out of the pool NOW!)
2. The game needs to be fast paced. It should be reasonably possible to complete a game in 5-10 minutes with an early game offensive (distinct from a rush), and the game should almost never last more than an hour regardless of the number of players.
3. The game needs to offer at least limited second chances. If one player gets the better of the other in 2-3 skirmishes in a row, the game should be over, but if you lose only one you should still have a chance to turn the tables.
4. How well you lead your troops should be more important than their number. A mid sized well ballanced force should walk all over a large force of one or two unit types. (Clean out your desk Command and Conquer, you're fired.)
5. It should have Orks with machine guns.

In conclusion, Dawn of War is the best RTS ever made. Thank you for your time.

PS
WAAAAAAGH!

 

[SilentHunter7]

I've never played a console RTS, but for PC's; Close Combat. Period. The only resource you had to watch was the fuel and ammo of your different regiments, which were always at 100% if they had an open route to a supply base. The emphasis was on tactics, and rushing your infantry and tanks out of cover was suicidal. An ambushing 2-man bazooka team placed near a critical crossroads can cause hell with enemy armor. The soldiers weren't mindless drones, and the game kept track of their morale, health status, and how physically fit they were. I loved it, and would still be playing it, if it didn't have so many problems with Windows XP.

If I remember correctly, the company was actually contracted to turn it into a training program for the Marine Corps.

 

[shatnershaman]

PS
WAAAAAAGH!

Silly orks always think they've broke our backs.

Dawn of War is the best action RTS. If you want Console RTS wait for Halo Wars.

 

[LordCraigus]

I prefer RTT to RTS, the biggest difference being you're given your units at the start and left to develop your own tactics to win, and if there is reinforcements they're usually triggered on events or a timer. Resource gathering and unit building really is not my thing, especially if I'm playing a game with say, a WWII setting where it's just unrealistic to be training new units just behind the frontline (Company of Heroes being a prime offender).

 

[Rolling Thunder]

CoH I feel represents your increasing successes on the field resulting in you being alocated new and more troops to expand your offensive, rather than them actually being trained, they are called in from reserves. In fairness, the 'barracks' that they emerge from might be a bit silly, but arguably all that represents is the squad getting together and moving out of it's holding area.

Nevertheless, economics should be a minor or nonexistant part of a RTS game.

CoH is one of the best I've played- it's highly tactical.

 

[dukeh016]

I think a RTS thread that begins by removing Starcraft and Age of Empires from the "good" category of RTS games deserves closer examination.

1) Economics should define the geography of the battle. Does this mean that the user is micro-ing their economy? No, and that's not the case with Starcraft or AoE. But it means that the competition is for resources rather than a blatant killfest. When resources have importance the game earns the "strategy" title. Without this varience in resources, the battle loses definition and objective.

2) Every action should have a reaction. Any unit selection combination can be responded to effectively. Again, strategy is the key. One needs to predict their opponents moves and react accordingly. Offensives have to be well planned and have elements of surprise.

3) Micro still has a place. My problem with games like Starcraft is that Micro control of your units doens't have much of a reward. Unless you are Korean. I suspect this a problem most people will have with RTS's, as most games just turn into an expensive match of rock, paper, scissors. Games that respond and respect proper micro-management techniques, like Homeworld, deserve extra credit.

4) Graphics. Considering the most succesful RTS of all time has 1998 graphics and a 2-D interface, this may seem a bit silly. But RTS's are special in the scope and size of the battlefield, and I think the game should show off this unique ability. Its awesome to have an intense battle with a friend, but its also awesome to have the ability to turn the replay of the game into a cinematic event. (ex. Supreme Commander)

I'm not against RTT's or low-economic games at all, Ground Control being one of my favorite games. But games like Supreme Commander or AoE only have one classification; RTS. They deserve to be top of the line because they combine Macro and Micro into a constantly evolving and challenging world that becomes immensly satisfying to play.

Just my humble opinion.

 

[ReepNeep]

PS
WAAAAAAGH!

Silly orks always think they've broke our backs.

Dawn of War is the best action RTS. If you want Console RTS wait for Halo Wars.

Its being made by Ensemble Studios, the Age guys, so its reasonable to expect 80% peasant minding and 20% combat. It it will most likley fail the first and most important rule. It would be nice to be wrong, however.

In the end if I wanted to play Sim City I would, you know, play Sim City.

 

[bodyklok]

I've never played a console RTS, but for PC's; Close Combat. Period.

If I remember correctly, the company was actually contracted to turn it into a training program for the Marine Corps.

I think the company that made it was Atomic games.

 

[SilentHunter7]

CoH I feel represents your increasing successes on the field resulting in you being alocated new and more troops to expand your offensive, rather than them actually being trained, they are called in from reserves.

Still, I doubt an army would respond to a commander getting overrun by cutting off his reinforcements.

I think a RTS thread that begins by removing Starcraft and Age of Empires from the "good" category of RTS games deserves closer examination.

...[list cut off to spare us from massive quote]...

Just my humble opinion.

Welcome to the Forums


I never liked resource management in tactical* games. I don't know, but it always feels like the other guy is somehow pulling in more resources than I do, even when I have more than half the map taken.

I totally agree with your action/reaction statement, you can also apply it to the consequences of troop placement in RTT games.

I think most issues with Micromanagement are due to shoddy UI design. Sins of a Solar Empire let you manage fleets, resources, and trade across multiple star systems with multiple planets, and thanks to a good UI, I never really felt truly overwhelmed.


*By tactical games, I mean any game that just involves singular battles.

Aside, The strategic level of warfare is defined as the level of war where alliances are negotiated, objectives are stated, resources are allocated, and overall strategy is drawn up. Basically what George Bush didnt do world leaders do during war. So when you think about it, most games don't deserve the 'strategy' title.

 

[lanostos]

I don't know if you can consider it RTS but: Rome total war and Medieval II total war.
They're Grand startegy game by Sega that incorporate tactical aspect: Real time combat with armies with thousands of units grouped into units of dozens.
A strategic aspect: a campaign map in which you manage the movement of your armies, the construction of forts the capture of resources. And a city building aspect with the managemant of multiple city on the campaign map(not micromanaging) The battle aspect is awesome because you start the battle with the units your army has and you can only be reinforced if another army is in the vicinity and if they arrive in time.
I really recommend it.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

...Nobody here has said Civilisation yet...hmm...

 

[Theo Samaritan]

Civ is an OK RTS.

But whenever anyone mentions RTS I still go back to the original homeworld...

 

[clarinetJWD]

...Nobody here has said Civilisation yet...hmm...

Most likely because the topic is Real Time Strategies.

There are two main groups of strategy games that I've seen, the actiuon based ones, and the all around ones. The action ones usually put you in the shoes of a military commander, and require little attention to resource management (World in Conflict). These can be very fun games, but to me feel like their missing a piece of the RTS puzzle.

The second group is the all around ones, where you have to be able to split your focus on keeping up with your home base, resources, and battles. This is where the majority of RTS's fall, and my favorite category. My all time favorite is Rise of Nations, because it takes the civilization style ancient to post-modern timeline, and makes it real time, and does it well. The resource management isn't too difficult, and most of the time it's a bit set it and forget it...until you need faster gathering.

Age of Empires was the first game that really got me into strategies, so I always look for a grerat balance of resource management, as well as the battles. The splitting of your attention on many things at once is where the fun lies in RTS games for me.

 

[Archaeology Hat]

I'm not sure how much it fits the "RTS" genre but the total war series, particularly the real time battles are the defining strategy experience for me. Other games are good. But Total War is the only franchise that comes close to my imagined perfect strategy game. Now... if only they could fix siege AI and allow multiplayer-real-time campaigns... and it would be perfect.

 

[Ultramarine Peon]

While i agree with Reep Neep that DOW is the ONLY RTS ive ever enjoyed, i must respectfully disagree with him in the fact that the orks do not make the game. In my eyes the space marines are killers and while having a small amount of variety in unit type, the vehicles and unit customizability are very accurate to the 40K original idea.


In the name of the emperor!!!

 

[Johnn Johnston]

...Nobody here has said Civilisation yet...hmm...

Most likely because the topic is Real Time Strategies.

I've always thought of the series as an RTS.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

Yeah, I see your point.

The Stronghold series is a medieval RTS - in story mode, sometimes you are building a castle and a surrounding town from the ground up to either gain a certain amount of resources or to survive an invasion from an antagonist, or you will be the ones sieging a castle. I like it, and the reviews I've read are all good.