Good RTS

[shufflemonkey16]

I believe that the Total War series is among the best of all RTS systems. Give me hundreds of soldiers that die realistically (no HP crap) and where real military maneuvers like flanking and correct positioning of soldiers in the ranks make huge differences.

It would be an interesting total war game that had the world map in real time too, but that would be harder to manage once your kingdom/empire got really big.

 

[TheKbob]

You guys have said, thus far:

Sins of The Solar Empire (approve)
Dawn of War (Approve)
Total War (1/2 RTS, but that's good)
Starcraft (Approve)
Company of Heroes (Approve)
AoE (eh...)
Civ (Not RTS)


So far you guys are lacking:

World in Conflict
Supreme Commander
Homeworld 1 & 2 (Seriously, cmon guys!)
Total Annihilation


Dawn of War ("...." - Necron Battle Cry!), SupComm, Rise of Legends, and Company are my current faves. I want to get Starcraft 2 and Dawn of War 2.

 

[OmegaTalon]

It would be an interesting total war game that had the world map in real time too, but that would be harder to manage once your kingdom/empire got really big.

This is why I didn't like Rome total war, its too tedious for me to enjoy, what was wrong with the way Shogun worked, simple, buildings / units, choose your forces carefully and engage when ready.

I took around 15 minutes to prepare some 5 cities for a single turn in Rome it was so confusing, and I refuse to have it all done by the AI because I hardly see any actual strategy in not being able to choose the units I want for a battle.

 

[Master Kuja]

In terms of the Console RTS, I thought Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath did the job nicely.

I've always been a firm believer that if you're going to play an RTS, do it on the PC, but I thought I'd give this one a try and surprisingly, the Radial Interface developed for Kane's Wrath made everything so much easier to control than your standard Console RTS.

So sue me, Kane's Wrath was a manageable and decent Console RTS that did the job very well, sure, it was short, but I thought it had everything a good RTS needed, good game play, AI with varying and adjustable degrees of intelligence for practicing, unit limits, resource management took care of itself easily, it had a decent pace and nice degrees of unit customisation.

Alright, so since the Red Alert C&C game tree, Water-Based combat has basically been given up on, but still, for a console RTS, C&C 3: Kane's Wrath did the job well.

 

[clarinetJWD]

You guys have said, thus far:

Sins of The Solar Empire (approve)
Dawn of War (Approve)
Total War (1/2 RTS, but that's good)
Starcraft (Approve)
Company of Heroes (Approve)
AoE (eh...)
Civ (Not RTS)


So far you guys are lacking:

World in Conflict
Supreme Commander
Homeworld 1 & 2 (Seriously, cmon guys!)
Total Annihilation


Dawn of War ("...." - Necron Battle Cry!), SupComm, Rise of Legends, and Company are my current faves. I want to get Starcraft 2 and Dawn of War 2.

I mentioned WiC, and Rise of Nations

Can't believe I forgot the Homeworld games though, they are truly the stuff of greatness

 

[lanostos]

I believe that the Total War series is among the best of all RTS systems. Give me hundreds of soldiers that die realistically (no HP crap) and where real military maneuvers like flanking and correct positioning of soldiers in the ranks make huge differences.

It would be an interesting total war game that had the world map in real time too, but that would be harder to manage once your kingdom/empire got really big.

Nothing like seeing your well disciplined cohort slowly approach the enemy unit, throw their javelins and then while the trumpets sound, break rank and charge while the background music changes to accomodate the moment. This I think made me wet my pants the first time it happened.

 

[DrHobo]

TA, hell yeah that game was amazing back in the day.


My vote goes to Company of Heroes and Sins of a Solar Empire. Both amazing games that streamline all the boring stuff and require varying tactics to win.

Sins has a certain epic elegance to it. The zoom funcion is great, and playing really large maps with multiple players can be truly epic and challenging

CoH especially is such a beautiful game. No unit ever becomes obselete. There are multiple uses and abilities for each unit, Terrain plays a massive factor and resource gathering is tied to your combat manouvers. There are so many different ways to play.

 

[L4Y Duke]

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.)

Kane's Wrath has helped with that somewhat. A large attacking force can be entirely nullified by the right combination of forces. I've had my armour destroyed by the right infantry, and likewise I've been able to clear entire cities of garrisoned troops with a single helicopter.

 

[KSarty]

I like a wide variety of RTSs, and i like them all for different reasons.

The old C&C games (Red Alert 2 and earlier) are at the top of my list due to the fact that the series introduced me not only to strategy games, but PC gaming as well. These games also get points for unique units/structures and while the games featured resource-gathering, it was not the be all and end all. Plus the absence of a pop-cap is always a plus for me.

The Homeworld series was amazing to me as well. An incredibly wide variety of units to choose from, and while the game had a pop-cap, true 3D strategy more than made up for that. Homeworld also featured interesting things such as sensor probes and hyperspace that added extra levels of complexity to the combat.

Company of Heroes comes next for me due to its high level of realism and some unique features. This game is different to me in that base building doesnt really seem necessary and yet it doesnt feel like a chore. Things such as realtime physics that help generate cover when craters form, levels of vulnerability for each unit, and a variety of secondary abilities make thi games battle seem very tense and fast-paced. Unfortunately this game suffers from the aspect of each faction having a unit that makes most other units obsolete in their tanks.

Empire at War gets a mention mainly because I am a Star Wars fanboy, but I did love the idea of being able to send out multiple fleets to start offensives on different fronts in realtime.

After these I'm afraid that the rest of them just blend together. While I have played all the Warcraft/Starcraft games and Dawn of War, they didnt hold my attention for very long and I really only continued playing them so that I would know that I finished them.

 

[Bling Cat]

And no-one mentioned Age of Mythology. I always enjoyed them, even if they may not have been as good as others, I liked the ideas behind it (possibly because im a sucker for greek, norse and egyptian mythology).

 

[goodman528]

For Realistic RTS:

1) No resource "gathering", it's boring and unrealistic, and too much micro. Resource assignment, or some form of logistics model would be nice though, maybe base on probability.

2) Pick a scale and stick to it, like Hearts of Iron does entirely grand strategy on a divisional level, or Company of heroes does only squad based combat. (Total war does single battles in RTS only)

3) Realistic unit types, i.e. not rock paper scissors, which most of the RTS genre is based on currently (including Total War). And include morale as a modifier.

4) Realistic damage modeling and cover, different weapons have different damage / accuracy / Reliability / characteristics at different distances

5) No "blobs", i.e. it should be possible for a couple of well placed defence positions to easily take out massive blobs of enemy units attacking without thought. (yes, total war battles do disintergrate into a massive "blob" after 5 mins, for single player it's awesome, for multi-player it means there's no skill involved)

6) Limited "superpowers" Fly dropping a platoon of tanks is cool, but not if your team can do it every 5 seconds. Maybe once, and only once in an entire multi-player game; then it's cool.

7) I would say balanced multi-player sides, but that is impossible. So No mirrored sides is the best we should ask for.

For Fantasy RTS, Warcraft and Starcraft are pretty good, but still very much just a massive game of opposing blobs with super heroes and super powers every 5 seconds. So, maybe a squad based 5 or 6 men Fantasy RTS like the movie Aliens 2 ? Think like Baldur's Gate, only awesome graphics, and real time.

 

[Sib]

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.

I refute all of your points by saying: Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander.

Take your time, mull it over.

 

[7thRain]

Ground Control 2. very very solid game, little in the way of resource management, units carried over to later missions and gained veterancy. Every unit had a solid function and could be used to great effect but not in isolation. If it hadn't released at the same time as one of the Total War games I believe this would be in most peoples "classics" list

 

[FrankDux]

I'm going to stay tuned for Endwar on this front. Granted the consoles really haven't had anything to offer on the RTS front but the stuff I heard about this game coming from E3 was really promising.

By they way, I'm new here. I just took a desk job doing marketing for an entertainment company so I joined this forum to chat it up when I have some free time.

 

[Credge]

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.

Console and RTS go hand in hand about as well as keyboard and force feedback.

RTS need a few things to make them fun. A small list.

1. An economy that doesn't take much away from the action but can be the main focus of your game (AoE3 did this fairly well, much better than any other game). CoH is a good example of how your economy can be the main focus, but it's a mediocre game because of the following reason.

2. Game needs to revolve around different fronts. CoH is all about economies, whether it be through cutting off your opponents or making your own insanely strong via map control. Other than this, there are very few ways you can win (2) in one game which can be fine, but how you go about this is the exact same way anyone else would go about it. Very few games actually do this and so far none have done this well.

3. Each side is unique but can be played how the player wants to play. Can you imagine what Starcraft would be like if the Zerg could only Zerg rush, the Protoss could only tech and the Terrans could only turtle? It would be dull and this is what most RTS games have given us. It's bad and boring. Knowing what strategy your enemy is using before the game has even finished loading is dull.

4. AI. I'm not talking about the CPU player, although it would be greatly appreciated if the AI actually used things like tactics, build orders, and strategies instead of just building units and cheating. What I'm talking about is pathing for units and unit behavior. I'm so tired of units hugging walls when I order them to go somewhere. Stop that. It makes micro management absolutely retarded. I shouldn't have to walk my units to every place I order them to go. Give us different styles of movement, something like EFFICIENT and SAFE.

5. Depth. Lets get some depth to the game. It's getting dull playing these RTS that focus on one aspect or another. Cool, map control is the most important aspect. Cool, micromanagement is the most important aspect. Cool, build orders are the most important aspect. Cool, the economy is the most important aspect. Cool, teching is the most important aspect. Cool, what unit you pick is the most important aspect.

It's so dull to have a game focus on one or two of these. Why not focus on them all and let the player decide how he wants to play? A person who focuses on his economy should be rewarded with a superior economy but doesn't have access to late game techs. A person who focuses on micromanagement to win battles isn't going to have the time to do other things (Guerrilla Warfare as an example). Things like this make player playstyle matter much more than whether or not I've picked the right faction for what I want to do.

I think these 5 simple steps make a perfect RTS. Grabbing 3/5 makes it a good FPS (while taking 5 and two others would make it amazing).

 

[Credge]

I refute all of your points by saying: Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander.

Take your time, mull it over.

TA was great but SupCom was not. The reason TA was great was because you could play how you wanted within either faction, it had a great economic game, and contained a good degree of depth. SupCom did not retain just about any of this. The economic game conisted of building hex's while the rest of the game dwindled down to simple numbers and teching. Not very interesting.

Pathing was understandable with TA due to it being an ancient game but in SupCom? Not so much.

 

[BBLIZZARD]

There is yet to be an awesome console RTS, mostly because all of the controls can't be mapped to a controller conviently, at least for the time being. For me, the best RTS is Warcraft III or Dawn of War

 

[Ixus Illwrath]

Sins of a Solar Empire or Supreme Commander are both quite good, along with Kane's Wrath, those are the 3 newest in the genre, and all have a completely different approach.

Medieval 2 is still an AMAZING game as well, especially if you want your TBS fix...

Consoles will always struggle in the RTS demographic because there's usually no mouse to highlight units quickly, nor are the familiar controls (ctl+1-9 for grouping, etc.) present.

Computers have always had the advantage in these type of games, just like consoles have always had a leg up on driving games.

 

[IronMuck]

This post was originally a gigantic beast of words... So i've decided to try and streamline.
I love defence in a strategy game; BFME walls, C and C (the orignal) turrets whatever, I want defence to be a viable option. No uber rush, every game is a race to rush the other first; defensive structures are all pointless.

Economy is a must, I don't care for the number of resources but I need base building and unit building. I liked tiberium and ore in C and C and red alert, i'm not fond of DoW style capture points but i will admit that I think DoW is a great game and they work very well for it's style of play.

I don't like CoH at all, I know I should, but something about that game is intolerable to me.

Rome total war annoyed me, I loved the world map and everything about it (My ideal RTS would nearly always involve one... but this is another issue) but the second the battle's started I couldn't bring myself to play it: prehaps i'm simply a dumbass but my units would become knackered in the process of casually marching to meet the enemy forces. My 50 horsemen would be struck by a single arrow from a squad of 2 archers, panic and flee the field of battle. something seemed broken to me. (PS: Should someone point out I am a retard I would actually greatly appreciate it, I wanted to like the Total War series so much).

Hero units... Can be used well, I do like me some hero-age (Woo Farseer, you may get raped by the other teams heroes but i'll always love your squishy ways), unless your entire army can be destroyed by about 4 heroes, I'm looking at you BFME and tutting disapprovingly.

Micro management... jury is still out. DoW is ok for it, though I still forget to unleash insta death spells from time to time. C & C 3 micromanagement drives me insane, each unit had loads of special abilites, so every battle was a race to use each units one before it was over (I dislike the new C & C's for destroying my first RTS love).

Console RTS, C and C on the playstation was good (Possibly because it was my first RTS and I knew not the joys of grouping units, possibly because I was small boy discovering a new style of game but in mind, it was awesome)... every 360 RTS is shit... i bet thats easily extendable to all modern console RTS's.

Bah so much else i could ramble about, but my post has again reached essay proportions and it jumps about like an ADD sufferer on red bull; my apologies. Quick list of RTS's I like: DoW, BFME, Early C & C's... and Chaos league

 

[gamebrain89]

Homeworld 2 is my definition of a awesome rts. easy to learn, fun to play, awesome story, its just one of my favorite games of all time. I still sit down and play it every once in a while.