Poll: Base Building in RTS Genre

[Adventurer2626]

If anything it might just be that people are running short of ideas or funds. The RTS genre is one of those things where I just wanna cram all the best elements from games I like into my ideal RTS. I enjoy the old Westwood Studios C&C games and Activision's Total War games the most. Great stuff. Then there's Stronghold from Firefly. They all have elements that I looove. I can't seem to tear myself away from those franchises. I never really got into the whole WWII thing either so there goes half the market. The RTS genre just needs some strong up-and-comers to stimulate some interest. Get some competition going.

 

[shrekfan246]

OT: I have to agree with the micromanagement thing. I'm really enjoying Starcraft (the first one, because I figured I'd play for the story of all things) but goddamn if the campaign just doesn't pull any punches to an RTS-newbie like me.

I don't really mind base-building, but when I'm moving troops into enemy territory I tend to forget about the base being there and often-times still needing to be actively defended. And I much prefer the Dawn of War II approach to troops being part of a squad rather than individual soldiers, or at least the Sins of a Solar Empire approach of being able to group them all up into specific task-forces. Starcraft and Warcraft III both have this issue with only allowing you to select up to a certain number of units at a time, and it really makes it frustrating to try moving large forces all at once. Probably the biggest part about them that shows their age, even held up against their graphics.

One bit of advice I can give for Starcraft is go into the game options and turn the speed down when the game is getting hectic. The slowest setting is almost a pause mode.

Other advice:
-Most maps have an expansion or two for you to use if you scout around a little. Use them.
-Make minimal use of unit queues. You have to pay in advance, which ties up an amazing amount of resources when you have eg two factories queued up with tanks.
-Don't let several thousand minerals sit idle in the bank. Make stuff. If your production buildings are running at capacity, make more production buildings. It is in no way unusual to have say 3-4 factories going.
-Avoid building static defenses. Build an army instead. When the enemy attacks, about 3/4 of your static defenses will be nowhere near the action, but all mobile units can be rushed to the defense. Plus, mobile units can be used to attack.

EDIT Also you can select a bunch of units then create a hotkey for them by pressing ctrl and 1-9. Pressing that number key will select those units. So it's actually not that hard to control 50+ units.

I actually didn't think about slowing down the game speed, that'll probably come in pretty handy. And I didn't know about the hotkey for units either. So thanks for that!

I already figured the stuff about build queues and using up resources, and it being more cost effective to build troops than towers and whatnot. There's a pretty high limit on the number of troops you can have, too, so long as you build enough depots, right?

 

[RandV80]

While RTS has the word 'strategy' in it, it really breaks down into two parts 'strategy' and 'tactics'. Developers need to understand the difference and pick the balance they want to focus on, and provide us gamers with a good variety of both. By the simplest definition strategy is about your long term plan, something you should be able to take your time with, while tactics is the battle at hand, where you need quicker thinking and reflexes.

'Base building' falls under strategy, Age of Empires II is a great example of doing it right. For strategy enthusiasts it was great, first you scout out your surroundings then it's time to start thinking about how to best use them. Where you can take advantage of high ground or natural barriers, where to setup a choke point, how far to expand and the resources you want to protect.

Starcraft is a game that leans towards tactics. A complaint I have about it is while technically it has base building, there's isn't much strategy to it because the map does the thinking for you: choke and expansion points are clearly marked out and you're opponent has a mirror copy of the same thing. The best I could do for my own unique thinking in Starcraft 2 is when using Protoss (I always rolled random) use my first few building placements to create a 'rush proof' barrier around my minerals and probes.

 

[Auron]

Blizzard's monopoly on the scene and publisher's sheer fear of publishing a doomed competitor is what's killing RTS, also Microsoft's retarded focus on consoles and closure of Emsemble which was a big name in the industry and the fact that Petroglyph's(ex westwood the founder of the genre.) last RTS failed miserably due to being the first pc gfwl game and having Sega as publisher which refused to fund patches. EALA churned out yearly releases of dubious quality but it moved a lot of money and players, it's death right before SC2 is somewhat sad but even the shortsighted EA knew that the rushed yearly releases couldn't compete with Blizzard. Victory games has been born now and might give us the next C&C or some ripoff, time will tell.

It's pretty sad but all we've got is Blizzard for now, Relic died to me after laying off the dow2 team and damning it to perpetual imbalance, coh2 isn't looking very good to be fair but that's my opinion after playing the beta and alpha. I actually like SC2, to say it lacks strategy is misguided to say the least, the pro matches are fantastic and there's a lot, albeit less than in the first, that you can do with the units. I just wish it wasn't practically a monopoly. AOE II HD's release might foreshadow a revival of the series under Microsoft if it garners enough interest, I'd like to think so but it's nothing but speculation right now.

 

[Frankster]

I dont know if the RTS genre is dying (then again..i havent bought a new rts in a while or been excited for any rts since...dawn of war 2? xD) or if base building contributed to its demise but can give my 2 cents on base building:

I usually dont like it. If i want to play a city builder, i got plenty of those games, when i play rts, its to control swarms of little men to kill the other players little men.
Its why i prefer relic rts to blizzard rts as relic games tend to emphasize the actual fighting.

But then again, some rts work better with base building, i cannot imagine an age of empire game without base building.
Or heck, what about the crusader series? Crusader:stronghold is one of my favorite games and yet turtling and building up your base/castle is the main draw of it.

So yeh in conclusion feel base building is an element to be manipulated and used or discarded as demands the needs of the game, but is not something that should be shoved in just so to fill a checklist of what a game needs to have in order to be considered an rts.

 

[Professor Lupin Madblood]

Base building is what defines RTSs as RTSs. Without base building, they're Real Time Tactics games, where you're given a squad and have to work with what you have (XCOM, Final Fantasy Tactics, etc.). There's overlap and the genre borders aren't strictly defined, of course, but you can't have an RTS be an RTS without base building.

That was my thought as well. A real time tactical or strategic game without base building is an entirely different type of gameplay.

We haven't seen many new RTS games lately, but I think that is because evolution has brought it as far as it can go, and maybe because developers are wary about competing with Blizzard. New games go in different directions in terms of genre for instance tower defense and MOBAs.
The general decline in PC exclusive games probably also matters. The RTS genre was designed with Keyboard and Mouse in mind.

I agree with a lot of the others in this thread that micromanagement can put the skill ceiling too high for us players of average skill. To me it sometimes feel like I'm only playing 25% of the game, and that I'm not really capable of thinking strategically, because macro and micro skills have too much of an impact. Slower game speed and better AI, or unit automation could help out in this regard. Maybe thats one direction new RTS games could take, in an attempt to make them less action-oriented.

Yeah. That micro-intensive style of gameplay is why Starcraft is a spectator sport for me.

Oddly, I just got done playing a stint of Civilization V, and I really enjoyed how the military combat in that game was about thinking strategically instead of just throwing units at other units. The changing time periods also meant that you had to keep your units up to date (not sending archers against musketmen, etc.) in addition to a number of other factors.

I mean, sure, it's turn-based, but something like Civ V in real-time would be a pretty healthy direction for the genre.

 

[Xanadu84]

There are very few, if any, bad mechanics, just bad implementation. Base building emphasizes very specific places as a resource, and enables a number of strategies related to defense and management of a specific location. It offers trade offs in terms of investments of funds, and clear feedback of where that investment has gone in the form of a shiny new building. Removing bases doesn't make RTS better, it makes it DIFFERENT. More focus on placement of units, more focus on minutia of combat, faster pace, fewer options to invest in non-direct combat, more action...not better, not worse, just different.

Way I see it, RTS brought base building in as a way to add strategy and planning to combat. That was awesome because it added something new. Later, games like Warhammer 40K II and Company of Heros took those mechanics, and streamlines them into a more action and terrain focused game that was different, and therefore worth the investment. Now, as MOBAs have caught on, you get games like Starcraft reminding us of the intricacies of base building, and thats exciting again. It's not better or worse, its about adding variety.

 

[RicoADF]

There has been talk for quite some time about the RTS being a dying genre and some people point to it as things like base-building being the problem. There have been many attempts in recent RTS's to try and remove the base building or making it stream line such as one building that performs everything that it would take 9 structures to do in a different game.

I, as well as others, believe that base building however is an enjoyable thing and I think there is a point missing in why people like base building. To me at least, is the joy of taking time to try and create the "perfect" defense. To sit there and and calculate where should I place the Siege tanks in starcraft, How dense should I set up the Machine Gun nests company, or even how should I set up my Chevau-de-friese empire:total war. It is also the joy of taking someone's elaborately designed defensive line and turning it into a highway.

What say you escapist

There are RTS games that work well with no bases (eg: World in Conflict), some that work well with few base structures (eg: Universe at War) and those with full bases (eg: Company of Heroes, Dawn of War, Command and Conquer series etc etc).
None are better than the other, it comes down to the style the devs are going for, the theme of the game and how it's executed.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

IMO I think the focus on micromanagement is a bigger problem. From someone with low APM, it is kind of frustrating to lose a match cause of slow hands and not worse tactics. I want to command a battle, not babysit Marines all the time.

This. It's why I detest trying to play Starcraft at any kind of ladder level.

The biggest difference, regardless of base building, is resource collection. There are two ways to do it, Starcraft style active resource collection or CoH style passive resource collection. Passive collection doesn't require a base building or any dedicated unit. Active collection requires a main building and units to do the mining. Passive collection can, of course, be boosted by doing certain things, either controlling territory or by building outposts(minor, weaker buildings). Passive resources can't run out, but the impact of having a lot of territory can be dulled by units requiring upkeep. The more territory you have, the larger the army required to hold that territory, the higher your upkeep. It's a balancing act. I much prefer passive resource collection as it requires less micromanagement. It's one less thing you need to think about and can allow for more developed tactical systems. It's why Starcraft doesn't have units EVER disobey commands and all units fight at maximum effectiveness(barring an enemy debuff) until their HP runs out completely, CoH has the possibility of vehicle modules getting damaged, infantry getting pinned down, and a cover system for infantry, and the Total War series has the best tactical combat of any RTS, with any of a dozen factors effecting combat effectiveness at any time. Seriously, I've never had another game make me consider the terrain, the weather, how close my general is, the state of the unit(tired or fresh), being in the snow or the woods on top of the usual unit type and their stats.

 

[Signa]

IMO I think the focus on micromanagement is a bigger problem. From someone with low APM, it is kind of frustrating to lose a match cause of slow hands and not worse tactics. I want to command a battle, not babysit Marines all the time.

So much this. All my friends play Company of Heroes, and I just can't micro worth a damn. Put me on Supreme Commander, and I can macro like a ************. I think Supcom is the pinnacle of RTS UI design. I never feel like I'm not in control of all 500 of my units at the same time. CoH leaves me wondering where my guys went because something off-screen killed them when I wasn't looking. I don't know how you can build any sort of strategy like that, if the game just boils down to how many things you can look at and order across a map that isn't designed to be looked at fully.

 

[Auron]

The next CnC is being made into a free to play MMO, so I wouldnt hold your breath on that series anymore..

That's completely wrong except for the free to play part their monetization strategy seems to be leaning towards customization not pay to win, there was some talking about selling extra generals though but the game will be free if it's badly implemented it will die, there's a possibility it won't. The community summit was very interesting from the videos and testimonials of community members at various sites I visit from time to time.

If publishers go in trying to take down the king (Star Craft) they are doomed to fail, but if they go after the audiences that Starcraft doesnt serve then they will have lots of money to be made.

RTS is/was mainly a competitive genre. Starcraft swept away every tournament from every other game, this is why it killed everything else. Every semi-serious player migrated to Starcraft and the other games became casual at most, dow2 for example died before sc2 even released there's still a very dedicated following working on balance mods and what-not but it didn't get that much exposure. Everyone wants esports and yet no publisher has made any significant investment to match Blizzard in the last 3 years, EALA tried back in 2006 and 7 but they realized quickly that the games needed to be constantly patched and fixed and gave up. And Relic hasn't been trying since Winter Assault.

 

[Doom972]

I don't enjoy the base-building much, but then again, I'm not the RTS playing type either. Those who love the genre (I have many friends like that), like this element.

The problem with RTS (as far as major publishers are concerned), is that RTS isn't console friendly and not simple enough for the average gamer. I don't know why they choose to let Blizzard have all the money with StarCraft 2, while trying to compete with Call of Duty, but that's just the way things are right now. In short, I don't think that the genre's decline has anything to do with base building.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Base building is not killing nor holding back nor forwarding the genre. It's a case by case game basis. Games about wide map control like CoH, are really great. Games that require the player to intelligently design a base like Wc3, are great. It just depends on how the coders want to swing it.

IMO I think the focus on micromanagement is a bigger problem. From someone with low APM, it is kind of frustrating to lose a match cause of slow hands and not worse tactics. I want to command a battle, not babysit Marines all the time.

There's a lot of strategies to get around that, you just aren't tailoring your tactics for it. I almost always have a substantially lower APM than my opponent and I almost always win. For example in Wc3. Building some 10 towers in your base and then quick teching to orc raiders, upgrading damage, then run into the enemy base when their army is not there, and kill the main before using a teleport scroll to escape. You avoid their army and just focus on tanking their economy and whittling them down long term. For sc2, I never really played past the first season, but I was 37 wins 0 losses with zerg by simply over controlling the map, refusing to let my opponent expand to their secondary and then building a gigantic behemoth of an army and the ability to replace that army. Once you have 6 bases and 15 hatcheries, whatever skill my opponent has with APM is irrelevant to my unending waves of zerglings hitting them.

Company of Heroes is only just alive because someone bought it after THQ went bust.

And what does that say about a series, that someone is willing to spend millions of dollars to secure the rights to a game IP? THQ went bust because it invested into uDraw, not because one of its best performing IPs wasn't good enough.

One title a year plus Starcraft does not a vital and active genre make.

The simple fact is that people don't make RTS games nearly as much as they used to, and that's because they're amazingly easy to do badly and their core loop isn't as intrinsically compelling as, say FPS. Even an actually bad shooting game can hold a glimmer of interest because of the core "shoot mans until they fall over" loop which is inherently more player engaging. An RTS that's badly balanced or simply doesn't have interesting factions with different feel and character to them isn't going to draw a significant audience or keep them for long.

2013 RTSes:
Wargame
CoH 2
Might and Magic Heroes Kingdoms
Planetary Annihilation
Command and Conquer
End of Nations
Wildman

There are as many RTSes being produced yearly as there were in the past. And honestly out of those the popular ones that will sell well are going to be Company of Heroes 2, Planetary Annihilation and your aforementioned Starcraft games. And is that so different from any other genre? There's maybe 3 FPS games released yearly that anyone gives a shit about, Call of Duty, Battlefield, maybe like... ARMA? There's only a handful of RPGs anyone will give a shit about. This is how game production works. A ton of games are made, most of them aren't really heard from or cared about by most people. Just because random CoD clone like Warfighter gets bitched about on blogs more doesn't make it any less of a waste than an RTS game barely anyone will play like End of Nations.

And since much of the micro elements of RTS have been replicated in MOBAs they can't even hope to draw a crowd based on that.

I have played RTS games on a professional level, against professional level players. I have also played MOBAs. You're making a false argument, they are nowhere near to the same level as APM a top notch RTS. Simply on the basis of unit quantities alone, what you can do with high skill by jumping from battle to battle harassing the enemy in multiple locations is something a MOBA simply does not do. Multiplayer Online Battle Arena's are for noobs who can't keep up to compete in proper RTS games where you can be forced to micro manage 5 or 6 battles going on simultaneously.

 

[Gali]

Micro and macro (base building) are the essence of the RTS genre for me. Having both aspects is great because it allows a broader range of players to compete. For example, since I'm coming from games like AoE2, my micro in SC2 is not top-notch, but I can mostly balance that through a better economy and map control. On the other hand, it opens a wide range of tactics and a more challenging gameplay on higher levels.

What I can approve is streamlining base building like Halo Wars did with specific locations for your buildings. I think on the PC, the Battle for Middle Earth games did it too. But I wouldn't play such a game that much.

The formula used in Starcraft, Warcraft and the like is my favorite, even if one aspect is still hard for me to learn.
It's also what it makes so interesting to watch those games as an eSport. I love the tension when players scout the opponents base to see what builds they are going to use. I love the harassment and pushing on the enemies bases. The fact that having one or two upgrades more, because you managed to have the better economy, can change the whole match, or the fact that one player with amazing micro outweighs that sometimes. In short, much variety and there's always something going on.

I tried to watch and play MOBAs, but it was quite boring for me. Some people like to focus on a few things, some on more. And that's why there will always be a place for RTS games. Some relying more on one aspect than the other.
The RTS genre is not dying. It's just the fact that publishers think you can make more money with FPS games or a WoW clone.
There's no perfect pasta sauce, remember?

 

[SadisticFire]

I don't think Nouw said, base building doesn't feel like the problem (Infact I play RTS's sometimes just for base building), it's more of micromanaging. I started playing Starcraft 3 with my friend and I realized that it's a LOT more micromanaging then I expected, because you can only que so far, and you need to constantly move your units, or else they're not as effective. I can't micromanage that much, on top of having to keep an eye on unit production and building.

I think if there were something that made soldiers more effective so I don't have to micromanage, that'd be grand.

 

[lacktheknack]

Turtling is my favorite strategy!

I remember turning one match of AoEII into a hilarious war of attrition. By turning my fort into a giant farm and forcing the market, I was able to buy ludicrous amounts of stone and gold, which allowed me to make four fortified walls with towers between. The other guy was swearing freely, because half his army was killed by the time he broke through the third wall, only to find ANOTHER WALL. He retreated.

 

[Johnny Impact]

Two sides of one coin. I enjoy the base-building in Starcraft, but I also enjoy the feeling in DoW2 of being free from the tether, not having to hotkey back to the damn base every couple seconds to make sure it's still there. Both games fit in the RTS genre.

My complaint has always been about reaction time. I prefer games like Sins of a Solar Empire, where if your planet is attacked you have more than 0.1 second to mobilize a defense. Starcraft is all about APM. If your number is low, like mine, it doesn't matter how sound your strategy is, you're going down.

 

[Nepukadnezzar]

There could be a lot of advantage in games without base building. I always liked the choice in Battle for Middle Earth 1 where each base had 6 slots for buildings and so unit variation (and income) was a finite resource that had to be spent wisely with sacrifice.

That!! That is base building for me. Managing your finite resources without it getting out of hand.
I actually dislike micromanaging a lot. And if base building gets as complicated as micro-managing units I see no difference.
I actually liked the rock-paper-scissors system of Empire Earth. And does anyone know Rise of Legends? Only 3 units tops needed micro-management, everything else was just strategy. And the base building system was similar to Battle for Middle Earth 1.

But ... actually ... I liked DoW 1 though. I do not think you had no choice to tech up. It just was not limited to buildings, but also to conduct research and reinforce single units. I liked those decisions and I do not think you give it enough credit. (Do I Zergrush them? Do I tech up? Do I reinforce my starter units? Do I tech up my starter units? Do I use infantry with the risk that it gets blown by a single machine or vica versa? .. I really loved that game^^)

 

[Thyunda]

IMO I think the focus on micromanagement is a bigger problem. From someone with low APM, it is kind of frustrating to lose a match cause of slow hands and not worse tactics. I want to command a battle, not babysit Marines all the time.

This. It's why I detest trying to play Starcraft at any kind of ladder level.

The biggest difference, regardless of base building, is resource collection. There are two ways to do it, Starcraft style active resource collection or CoH style passive resource collection. Passive collection doesn't require a base building or any dedicated unit. Active collection requires a main building and units to do the mining. Passive collection can, of course, be boosted by doing certain things, either controlling territory or by building outposts(minor, weaker buildings). Passive resources can't run out, but the impact of having a lot of territory can be dulled by units requiring upkeep. The more territory you have, the larger the army required to hold that territory, the higher your upkeep. It's a balancing act. I much prefer passive resource collection as it requires less micromanagement. It's one less thing you need to think about and can allow for more developed tactical systems. It's why Starcraft doesn't have units EVER disobey commands and all units fight at maximum effectiveness(barring an enemy debuff) until their HP runs out completely, CoH has the possibility of vehicle modules getting damaged, infantry getting pinned down, and a cover system for infantry, and the Total War series has the best tactical combat of any RTS, with any of a dozen factors effecting combat effectiveness at any time. Seriously, I've never had another game make me consider the terrain, the weather, how close my general is, the state of the unit(tired or fresh), being in the snow or the woods on top of the usual unit type and their stats.

No kidding, dude, I've managed to take most of North Africa from the Barbary States in Empire: Total War with nothing but four regiments of Irish Brigade. The demoralising effect of muskets is...well it's just unparalleled. Numbers don't count for shit against well-organised line infantry. No men lost yet, and one Barbary city left to take. I'd never really considered anything below total annihilation as a victory, I always used to continue fights even after the whole army was routing just to capture or kill as many as I could. With Empire, though, it's perfectly fine to drive the army away rather than totally destroy them.


As for the topic - Basebuilding is a great idea. I love it.

But most of the RTS games I've played with it featured are too small in scale. They're too short and action-centric. There are exceptions, I already know which ones people will suggest to me. But for the most part, while it's good to have the pressure of a nearby threat to have you balance offence and defence, you're really left to follow the quickest upgrade path and then explore during the five minutes or so it'd take your horde to reach the enemy gates. Then after that, all your hard work disappears with the Victory screen. The only recent RTS I played that really rewards base building is Dawn of War: Dark Crusade, because base upgrades performed during the invasion of a region remain during every subsequent defence, meaning that if you take your time with the first assault, you never have to worry about defending your territory again.