Hmm... Armies of Exigo was pretty good, but total Warcraft rip-off. But it was ridiculous hard on the other hand 
And I agree with Dawn of War.
And I agree with Dawn of War.
I Need a New RTS
- Thread starter MajWound
- Start date
Recommended Videos
When I think "macro", I think workers, resources, economy, construction, expansion. All I ever seemed to do was move my pricks from one wall to the next. I felt like all the "big picture" strategy was broken down into the territories you had to take, so all I had to do was get to the capture point and hold it. Then, if I lose my pricks, all it takes is click click and more pricks are dropping into the field. All the economic shit was done behind the scenes, so the ticking resource counter was the only indication of how I was doing on that front. My favorite part of the game was the mission where you need to hold out in the city so you have to build bunkers and minefields to protect you. That was awesome and really kept me going.SL33TBL1ND said:
Pick up Homeworld. The original is the best, but Cataclysm and Homeworld 2 are both awesome.
Sins of a Solar Empire is good, but it's purely skirmish/multiplayer - no campaign involved - and can get boring after a little bit.
Also, maybe more along your lines, pick up Command and Conquer: The First Decade. Every game in there is awesome, although I found Generals to be wanting, and it'll take you through the golden days of Westwood Studios before EA ruined my childhood. On that note, however, don't bother buying the new C&C games. C&C3 is decent, as is RA3, but they're not exactly great, and C&C4 isn't worth its weight in piss.
Sins of a Solar Empire is good, but it's purely skirmish/multiplayer - no campaign involved - and can get boring after a little bit.
Also, maybe more along your lines, pick up Command and Conquer: The First Decade. Every game in there is awesome, although I found Generals to be wanting, and it'll take you through the golden days of Westwood Studios before EA ruined my childhood. On that note, however, don't bother buying the new C&C games. C&C3 is decent, as is RA3, but they're not exactly great, and C&C4 isn't worth its weight in piss.
Ah. I see, we just have differing definitions. That probably comes from the RTS's we both played first. Since the first one I played seriously was Dawn of War, where resource gathering meant owning territory and holding points I've always defined macro as strategy and micro as tactics.MajWound said:
In other words, my plan to win (macro) and the movements/moment by moment actions I take to get there (micro).
I would definitely try Dawn of War if I were you.
My roommate and I broke the hell out of Civ V. As it turns out, if you refuse to ally with anyone for any reason, even economic reasons (basically become Switzerland), nobody will attack you and you're virtually guaranteed to win with non-violent goals every time.Merkavar said:
Also, it's paced like molasses in deep space. I refuse to apologize for not having the patience to play a single match in the time it would take me to beat 5 other games.
I'm glad we got that settled. For reference, I define macro as the process of building an army/base and micro as the troop movements individually. What you call macro I call strategy, as an entirely separate concept.SL33TBL1ND said:
I completely missed this post. I've heard nothing but good things about the Total War series, but which ones really shine?[/quote]
It pretty much depends which period of history you're interested in. The first two (Shogun and Medieval) were good, but the later games made huge improvements in the mapping. Each game makes improvements of course, but all of the games are well done and functional. Empire introduced naval battles, and either Empire or Napoleon introduced technological research. I've heard someone say that Napoleon was a bit sticky due to its era (muskets and cannons being primarily used) but I found it to be alot of fun.
I personally like Medieval II, but I played Napoleon alot too.
It pretty much depends which period of history you're interested in. The first two (Shogun and Medieval) were good, but the later games made huge improvements in the mapping. Each game makes improvements of course, but all of the games are well done and functional. Empire introduced naval battles, and either Empire or Napoleon introduced technological research. I've heard someone say that Napoleon was a bit sticky due to its era (muskets and cannons being primarily used) but I found it to be alot of fun.
I personally like Medieval II, but I played Napoleon alot too.
Oh, man, if you like scale and insane economic management, you have to get your hands into Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander. Most people hated them because you never stockpiled anything and you could never really afford to buy anything outright. It was always managing resources in versus resources out, and if you messed up that flow and got glutted or shorted, you were right fucked. Also, the AI was good enough (and TA was in 1997, mind you) that you didn't have to supervise every little thing that your units did, so you could really consider what was going on with the big picture.
Men of War: Assault Squad!MajWound said:
One of the best RTSs I've ever played, it's pretty realistic, you need to use tactics and a fair amount of micro-managing.
Oh and fully destructible battlefields which can range from 1v1 to 8v8
If you feel like trying something different with loads of different gameplay outcomes, you could try:
Earth 2150 (and it's standalone expansions "Lost Souls" and "The Moon Project")
Excellent storyline, huge tech tree, and completely custom-built units with highly detailed AI modes (not just aggressive and defensive, but also settings like "flee at x% health", "lights out" makes them less visible at night, platoons allow organised armies that really act as an army should...). Also the three playable factions are actually vastly different in terms of resource gathering, unit specialities and construction. Compared to them, Terrans, Protoss and Zerg seem like palette swaps.
Earth 2160 isn't bad either, but extremely dumbed down compared to 2150. Still a great storyline, though, and, like its predecessor, excellent voice acting (at least in German. It's an "old-European" production after all).
The War Of The Worlds (What I usually refer to when I say WoW, since it's much older than World Of Warcraft)
The best comparison might be the Total War series. You get a "world map" (actually an "England map"), where you move your units around, and at any time you can switch to local map view to build structures, and of course to fight battles.
BOth factions are completely different in terms of economy, research, military and of course design, and I never ever managed to complete every research item in one playthrough on either side. No (officially supported) multiplayer though. It's in the code, but hidden. Probably because a multiplayer game of that kindwould take ages.
Earth 2150 (and it's standalone expansions "Lost Souls" and "The Moon Project")
Excellent storyline, huge tech tree, and completely custom-built units with highly detailed AI modes (not just aggressive and defensive, but also settings like "flee at x% health", "lights out" makes them less visible at night, platoons allow organised armies that really act as an army should...). Also the three playable factions are actually vastly different in terms of resource gathering, unit specialities and construction. Compared to them, Terrans, Protoss and Zerg seem like palette swaps.
Earth 2160 isn't bad either, but extremely dumbed down compared to 2150. Still a great storyline, though, and, like its predecessor, excellent voice acting (at least in German. It's an "old-European" production after all).
The War Of The Worlds (What I usually refer to when I say WoW, since it's much older than World Of Warcraft)
The best comparison might be the Total War series. You get a "world map" (actually an "England map"), where you move your units around, and at any time you can switch to local map view to build structures, and of course to fight battles.
BOth factions are completely different in terms of economy, research, military and of course design, and I never ever managed to complete every research item in one playthrough on either side. No (officially supported) multiplayer though. It's in the code, but hidden. Probably because a multiplayer game of that kindwould take ages.
