I refute all of your points by screaming For The Slaughter! and chopping you up with a chainaxe whilst you're still laboriously plodding through endless tiers of builder units trying to get at something decent and fun.Sib said:
Good RTS
- Thread starter Reasonable Doubt
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Just a thought, has any of you played "Go" before?
It's a board game. It's the simplest and most addictive strategy game out there. Takes less than 5 minutes to learn how to play it, since there is only 1 type of piece/unit; and it takes a life time to not even begin to master it.
It's a board game. It's the simplest and most addictive strategy game out there. Takes less than 5 minutes to learn how to play it, since there is only 1 type of piece/unit; and it takes a life time to not even begin to master it.
Fun is subjective. I enjoy both Dawn of War and Supreme Commander. Well, I did enjoy Dawn of War before they fucked it to hell with expansions and retarded patches, but that's a different thread. Dawn of War less strategic, more tactical. Supreme Commander is less tactical, more strategic. The resource system is exactly the same in both of them, so that's not an issue.GloatingSwine said:
Dawn of War is the game I play when I want to outmaneuver the enemy forces by taking tactical advantage of cover, heavier weapons, precise unit mixes, etc, and then watch them cut the enemy to shreds in the most literal fashion possible. It provides a visceral, bloody catharsis.
Supreme Commander, on the other hand, is what I play when I feel a need to step back and play something a bit more abstract. When I'm not in the mood for up-close slaughter, and I want to engage in a game of map-control and efficiency, relying on advantageous use of land-, air-, and naval forces, I play Forged Alliance. It's more cerebral than Relic's 40k RTS, and I like it because of that.
That is to say, when you forget about the absymal balancing in Dawn of War, both are great games.
And, as others have said, Homeworld 2 for the glorious, sweeping win.
Anyone who enjoyed Dawn of War (the original) and not the expansions, but still has them should try the DoWPro modification. It aims to improve on existing DoW gameplay and balance, while adding the new content, graphics, audio, maps from expansions. Its played in tournaments like ESL - they're going to soon make the alpha for Soulstorm Pro. Worthwhile try. 
Rise of Nations
The relic stuff
Red Alert 2
C&C3 for consoles (PC version is better but its more impressive on consoles because it works)
The relic stuff
Red Alert 2
C&C3 for consoles (PC version is better but its more impressive on consoles because it works)
Command and Conquer is okay, I've only ever played the early ones. Did they ever realize that the two sides should be different? It always seemed like both sides were nearly the same, except for their uniforms. And maybe one kind of tank, and their super attack. But there really isn't much difference between a nuke and a satellite cannon.RoieTRS post=9.66972.630594 said:
True, the first C&Cs were pretty much copy-'n-paste affairs when it came to designating sides. The later ones are a definate upturn from that, though. RA2, in particular, only had engineers and hover transports identical for every side (not including voices), everything else was either unique or had a significantly modified enemy alternative. Allied MBTs for example lacked the armor of the Soviet Rhinos, but could easily outrun one.Limos said:
well from what ive read there are two minds about this.
some people (i believe) have mixed the words Tactical and Strategy.
Here i will explain the difference in reference to gaming.
Tactical: can be set from any genre(from FPS to RTS), usually has no need for in game "backline management" e.g resouces(AoE2 etc.). these games tend to be much closer to the action where you controll a small portion of troops over a smaller period of time. places much more emphasis on troop placement, troop support etc.
Pros: much more personal gameplay
usually simpler
faster gameplay (no need for "backline management"
Cons: some people find too simple
some aspects of generalship is lost
Strategic: more scope and bigger picture of gameplay, much more "backline Management" (as shown before). using economies as well as might to overcome enemies. a good example of this can be AoE/Starcraft. you cannot just spam your strongest unit straight away, it will deplete on resouces making you need more.
Pros:more realistic in a big picture
much more room for replayability (usually)
Cons:learning curve is usually much higher
games usually last much longer(ive seen an 4.5 hour AoE game.)
much harder to "get right"
a better way of summing it up maybe if we talk in terms of a battle itself:
if you tactically suprise your enemy, they do not see your troops comming, they are ready for an attack but not where you are attacking forcing them to change their plans
if you strategically suprise your enemy: they did not expect an attack. comes from a much more political background than military.
hope i made some sense
The two minds have been mostly about what you should be looking for, realism in the action or realism in the broader picture. Some think of this in terms of simplicity but that is not so.
personally i find that through those definitions RTS/RTT games are more enjoyable in the short term but true RTS give a much more satisfied feel when something as achieved.
But as i said RTS are much harder to get right, take AoE or C&C for example, one of the deciding factors was who could make the 1st strike (while a good stragegy it should not be a deciding factor[starcraft got this balanced by the team who could bullruch did not have the most powerful units at the end of the game as well as the start]and this is the problem often overlooked by designers), which ment if someone was in a bad starting position they were doomed from the start, maps need to be well thought out and this generally takes alot of time and effort away from the production so many of these things are skipped to create a game faster.
so i believe that a good RTS game, a true RTS game should have the following.
1) rely a good deal of resouce management, while not creating an almost text based game of resouce management
2)no ability to "bullrush" without consequences
3) no Mirror image teams, every unit should be different to the other teams
4)A DECENT STORYLINE
i will say that even though ive been mostly about true RTS i will say that Blitzkreig should be on the top lists. not many people like it though mainly because of its very steep learning curve.
some people (i believe) have mixed the words Tactical and Strategy.
Here i will explain the difference in reference to gaming.
Tactical: can be set from any genre(from FPS to RTS), usually has no need for in game "backline management" e.g resouces(AoE2 etc.). these games tend to be much closer to the action where you controll a small portion of troops over a smaller period of time. places much more emphasis on troop placement, troop support etc.
Pros: much more personal gameplay
usually simpler
faster gameplay (no need for "backline management"
Cons: some people find too simple
some aspects of generalship is lost
Strategic: more scope and bigger picture of gameplay, much more "backline Management" (as shown before). using economies as well as might to overcome enemies. a good example of this can be AoE/Starcraft. you cannot just spam your strongest unit straight away, it will deplete on resouces making you need more.
Pros:more realistic in a big picture
much more room for replayability (usually)
Cons:learning curve is usually much higher
games usually last much longer(ive seen an 4.5 hour AoE game.)
much harder to "get right"
a better way of summing it up maybe if we talk in terms of a battle itself:
if you tactically suprise your enemy, they do not see your troops comming, they are ready for an attack but not where you are attacking forcing them to change their plans
if you strategically suprise your enemy: they did not expect an attack. comes from a much more political background than military.
hope i made some sense
The two minds have been mostly about what you should be looking for, realism in the action or realism in the broader picture. Some think of this in terms of simplicity but that is not so.
personally i find that through those definitions RTS/RTT games are more enjoyable in the short term but true RTS give a much more satisfied feel when something as achieved.
But as i said RTS are much harder to get right, take AoE or C&C for example, one of the deciding factors was who could make the 1st strike (while a good stragegy it should not be a deciding factor[starcraft got this balanced by the team who could bullruch did not have the most powerful units at the end of the game as well as the start]and this is the problem often overlooked by designers), which ment if someone was in a bad starting position they were doomed from the start, maps need to be well thought out and this generally takes alot of time and effort away from the production so many of these things are skipped to create a game faster.
so i believe that a good RTS game, a true RTS game should have the following.
1) rely a good deal of resouce management, while not creating an almost text based game of resouce management
2)no ability to "bullrush" without consequences
3) no Mirror image teams, every unit should be different to the other teams
4)A DECENT STORYLINE
i will say that even though ive been mostly about true RTS i will say that Blitzkreig should be on the top lists. not many people like it though mainly because of its very steep learning curve.