Good RTS

[Unmannedperson]

Civ is an OK RTS.

Civ is NOT an RTS. It is a TBS (TURN based stratagy).

But to explain fully what I think are good mechanics of an enjoyable RTS, let me go through past RTS's and explain what I like or don't like:

Variable races: I think StarCraft wins the award here, as all 3 races are very different. If you don't know the importance this has to me, just look at Supreme Commander. The three races there are exact carbon-copies of each other, with the exception of the three "experimental units."

Average pace: AoE 2 takes way to long to complete a match. Supreme Commander is way too slow (the units take a few seconds to turn around and retreat if need be). World in Conflict is way too short. Probably the winner here would be Command and Conquer: Generals for having a nice pace.

Resources: Not a big fan of the "No-economy" mindset that has been emerging. To me, economies make the game more fun, and gives the player something to do other than fight. Do you ally him because he has what you need and you have what he needs? Do you fight for that last rocky outcrop of stone? Do you send out cheap, but poorly defended foraging parties, or build elaborate defenses so that you can gain the most out of a territory. StarCraft gets dinged here for the occasional unfortunate late-game running out of resources. To me, that should never happen. Sure, after awhile, your income should slow to a trickle, but it should never fully stop.

Don't skimp any of the three key areas (Air, Ground, Sea): I understand in a game like AoE2 why they wouldn't have air, but for say, StarCraft (and SC 2 by the looks of it) I'm personally kind of angered at the lack of a naval aspect. I also find it annoying that in say, CoH, you can only play as ground units, and not naval or air. And in AoE 3, the naval aspect sucks badly. It's expensive, you can only have so many ships, they count way too much towards your pop. limit, and are way too large. I'm kind of sad to say that the winner here would be (oh gawd, am I actually gonna let these guys win?) Empire Earth (ooh my insides hurt! ouch!). E.E. (the original only, not the 2nd or 3rd) has what I think the perfect balance between all three.

Well, that's my two cents worth. My personal Favorites include: StarCraft, AoE 2, CoH, and SupCom on occasion.

 

[Danny Ocean]

PS
WAAAAAAGH!

Silly orks always think they've broke our backs.

Red ones DO go faster.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

The reason that in CoH you don'y 'play' as aerial units, rather having them as supporting units are:

At a company level, even having a gunboat, let alone an airstrip or anything else would be quite unfeasible.

Aircraft would be impossible to control. Something moving at 3-500 mph can not be ordered about the map like a tank going at 20 mph. And since there were no helicopters in WW2 beyond in the alpine divisions of the Wehrmacht, the whole idea is silly.

Naval units are generally so bloody enormous their scale precludes any involvement in a small-unit game.

In fact, at most levels using any units but ground with serial support (like CoH) is simply more realistic.

 

[Theo Samaritan]

Civ is an OK RTS.

Civ is NOT an RTS. It is a TBS (TURN based stratagy).

I really need to finish the sentences I write -_-

 

[Samirat]

1. Starcraft

2. Games like Starcraft

3. Oh, I also like Rome: Total War, but that is only a quasi-RTS.

 

[Spidey78]

There's one that I have played that is extremely good. It's called Rise and Fall Civilizations at War, it's an RTS where you choose between being persian, roman, egyptian, and greek. All the races have unique units, there is a naval combat aspect, but the thing that draws me in the most is that you can personally control a unit to turn the tide of a losing battle.

Each race has a certain historical figure that is a "hero." You can control these units directly and it just adds that much more fun to the game.

Also the resource management is good in my view, there is only two resources. Wood and gold, wood is quite abundant and can eventually replace gold after certain research. There is actually one other resource called glory and is gained by building, upgrading, and killing enemy units. You use this for special upgrades and upgrading your hero.

 

[ReepNeep]

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

I suppose I just have a very low tolerance for peasant minding when there are tin-can humies to kill.

The meat of any RTS is in it's combat. Starcraft does that pretty well and I enjoy that aspect of the game. It still had far too much peasant minding. When a full 1/3 of your pop cap is spent on peasants, the game has a design problem.

Don't even get me started on AoE. Horrible pacing, boring combat and way too much time spent gathering resources rather than raping and pillaging (which as I mentioned earlier, this game made dull).

 

[Meshakhad_v1legacy]

What I don't like is the increasing use of "hero" units - single units that you get early in game, have tons of special abilities, and become more powerful as the game progresses. Most strategy games have these. Warcraft is the worst offender I've seen, with Dawn of War in second place. I don't like to micromanage a single unit constantly when I have other units that need my attention. And the glory should go to me, the master strategist, not to that showoff on the front lines.

As for resource management, that's an area where there is no "right" answer. From the simple one resource of C&C, to the intricate economies of Age of Empires, I prefer a variety of choices. The same goes for pacing - there is no right length for a strategy game. Some love to win quick, but other games (I'm thinking Rise of Nations) allow for huge wars that deserve to go on for over an hour. I approve immensely of the trend towards resources never fully running out.

 

[Ixus Illwrath]

They make enough RTS games that cut the mustard. Not to mention that the major titles that are out there these days play well off of each others strengths and weaknesses.

They do not make enough TBS games that cut the mustard, though. Bring back the TBS pls.

 

[the_tralfalmadorian]

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.

this. In my mind, the total war series stands head and shoulders above all other strategy games. I have wasted more time in Rome: total war than i'd really like to think about. It's the only strategy game series i know of where it's entirely possible and not uncommon to best an army 3 times larger than yours in battle (without having them outclasses technologically), so it is my favorite.

 

[RetiarySword]

I would say Company of heroes, as the units are smart(ish), and the rescource management is easy, the population cap is a good size, and it changes depending on how much territory you hold. The units have to have certain weapons to damage stuff, like a machine gun won't damage a tank, there are weaknesses in armour, play it and see.

Also sins of a solar empire is a good one. Quite new, you might of seen it in shop windows. Its probably the biggest RTS going, can span up to 5 star systems, up to probably, about 600-700 ships, other RTS's fail to compare to the magnitude of it. The game is also about colonisation, you have to inhabit other planets and asteroids to gain resources, amazing tech trees. Only thing is the game, on a small skirmish can take up to four hours, me and my friend started a large map, played it for 8 hours, and are about half way finished if all goes to plan. But you can save this, skirmish, or online. So you can play for a couple of hours, save, call your mate and load up!

 

[Imperator_2]

The Total War Series IS Strategy.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

true- RTW and BI are the epitome of awesome. Nothing like parking your roman army on a bridge and wiping out an entire race of people as they try to cross.... MUHAHAHAHAHA

 

[L33tsauce_Marty]

Wait, console RTS? You mean Real Time Strategy? For consoles?!

Eh.... there really hasn't been any good ones yet. I am waiting for End War, which might be good for consoles considering that it wont use the crippled controls and just use voice command. Halo Wars is going to fail for 360 no matter how hard they try, I just don't see it happening. Even though its being made by the guys that made Age of Empires which I played since the first one which was freaking awesome. Who knows, they might pull it off.

 

[Reasonable Doubt]

Wait, console RTS? You mean Real Time Strategy? For consoles?!

No not just consoles but RTS's in general.

 

[L33tsauce_Marty]

Wait, console RTS? You mean Real Time Strategy? For consoles?!

No not just consoles but RTS's in general.

My favorite RTS was starcraft. Then Age of Empires. I can't really think of any good new ones except for command and conquer.

 

[needsmosleep]

Just to address some off the things I've read above in the forums, personally I never enjoyed sea battles because even if your armada won, you still didnt gain any serious advantage unless the maps were seperated by water. Also, I can't play and rts that have more than 3 types of resources, its just becomes so specific that have a standard game plan is impossible.
And regarding starcraft, it is without a doubt the best competative rts to date. And, as far as I know, the only one with distint (not just 1 or 2 unit difference) races without racial imbalances. And whoever says micro is unimportant in starcraft below the korean level hasnt played on iccup. Thats all

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Cossacks had four resources: food, iron, gold, coal. And was awesome.

I dislike the resource aspect of Starcraft, mainly because it was a pig to harvest vespane and minerals and not eat up enough population. You need either 3+ resourecs or just one. Two is a worthless half measure.

 

[OmegaTalon]

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

C&C3 was a good console RTS, for once one that is user friendly and easy to play, but the game itself isn't that good.


1: Resources: more than 1, preferably 2-3 sets, 4 if your pushing it (Age of mythology) 5 is too much, having a limited set of resources means the game wont go to the side who can hold a single resource type, it also pushes people to add variety to their forces and not focus on a single unit.

2: Unit Limits: go ahead sue me, this should be a vital part of any strategy game, else it will simply boil down to whoever has the biggest army, also a nice addition is to have to build something in order to increase it, and it adds another element of depth.

3: Spells and Abilities: something that when used in the right position and the right time can change the course of a battle, nothing that can instantly win, but nothing so weak it's useless, it adds micromanagement which I think is vital to and it RTS persuades players to time their build orders to get the spellcasters units out at the right time.

4: NO "all purpose tank" style of unit: I will aim directly at C&C3 here (this was early on so I don't know if it has changed), every game with GDI has always ended with the spamming of mammoth tanks and there was no counter other than spamming your own, and since they could flatten lower tanks, you could effortlessly steamroll your units right through a base

5: Every unit with its purpose: From the basic infantry to the nuclear missiles, every unit should be useful in the right situations throughout the game, nothing becoming obsolete after 2 minutes.


This is of course subject to change for different style of RTS such as Supreme Commander or the Total War series
(Am I the only one who hates Rome: TW)

I can go on but I can't be asked to think of anything else right now.

 

[GloatingSwine]

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

Actually, I think you could make a fairly strong case that dialling back tedious base building, varying territory capture rewards, massively improving cover and the use of cover, including armour facing and vehicle system damage making vehicles feel like more like vehicles than just a big fat infantryman, that Company of Heroes is better than Dawn of War.

Of course, since it looks like it will finally destroy the shambling corpse that is RTS base building (moving closer to fluff in the process), and include all the rest of the CoH improvements, and making things like jump troops even more tactically valuable (seriously, I always found that anything I ever wanted Assault Smurfs or especially Chaos Raptors to actually do, they'd jump in, dive into combat, and then morale break. In the end, Assault Smurfs ended up just being a Melta Bomb delivery service, and Raptors were a way to pop a surprise Bloodthirster at the back of an enemy force or base), Dawn of War II will be the best of the lot.