Poll: Base Building in RTS Genre

[Toy Master Typhus]

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

 

[FourCartridge]

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.

 

[Nouw]

I don't think base-building is to blame. The genre has been thriving with it its entire life and if Dawn of War 2 indicated anything, it's that we want more base-building!

No, something else is to blame for the decline of the genre. Many things actually, but I don't think base-building is one of them.

 

[Tom_green_day]

I prefer it when base-building is kept to a limit, because in games where you can just build anywhere it gets a bit dull when your opponent has a turret right outside your door.

 

[LtWigglesworth]

I don't think basebuilding is the problem, if its done correctly. I do think that CoH has a very good balance, where the basebuilding is subordinated to the combat.
I want the basebuilding to consist of structures necessary to tech, and emergent defences and creation of chokepoints.
A game that encourages the creation of a fortified sim fucking city that leads to trench warfare is no fun.

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.

Have you tried the Wargame series? Wargame European Escalation/ Wargame Airland Battle?

You command a battalion-regiment sized force in a fictional WW3 between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. There is no basebuilding, and you have a choice between hundreds of authentic units. The game is all about selecting the correct force composition and planning and executing a strategy to win. The micro required is very low, as all your decisions have a sort of weight and inexorability about them. The victor is generally the one who has the best tactics, not the one who can click the fastest. Some of the top players have an APM of under 10.

 

[karma9308]

I didn't know the RTS genre was dying. Pretty sure it's still going strong, it's always been a niche audience since it doesn't really translate to console well.

I personally like base building so I don't want RTS to go away from that unless there's some new idea that is a bigger improvement over it.

 

[Pink Gregory]

I'd suggest that base-building and combat tactics have slowly been separated as they've become more refined.

Take a title like Stronghold (not 3 so much, I've been led to believe that it's plagued with problems and bugs), in which there's both a strong economy/castle building aspect and a combat aspect, but the latter is somewhat lacklustre in terms of depth; although not lacking in variety. Compare that to a newer RTS that doesn't encompass base-building e.g. DoW 2 (can't think of many others) and CoH, to a lesser extent: the tactical game is tight n' refined, with a lot of potential depth in management of individual units and the cover system, but with very little or no base-building aspect beyond 'building allows deployment of unit' or a pre-deployment troop selection system a la Total War.

Really the kind of game that combines the two is fairly ambitious and therefore not guaranteed to work in the modern market, after all at that point you're competing with Starcraft. Though Planetary Annihilation (spiritual successor to Total Annihilation) may be one to watch.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Base building is my favourite part! It's why I'll begrudingly play as the French on RA2 so I can get their tasty grand cannons.

As far as I'm aware there's still quite a few RTS games out there, although they're not as big as Startcraft. Perhaps it's just because they don't really get made for consoles (with good reason) that it seems that way. So long as there's a good indie market I think RTS games are safe.

 

[BrotherRool]

It depends on the game, I think the RTS has room for a lot more flexibility than we've seen so far (even with things like World At War) and that there are actually very few hard and fast rules of the genre.

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.

And macro is probably the hardest thing for a new player to get their head around and the least visible thing for a spectator, so there's plenty of reasons for removing it.



But equally there are games that benefit from it. Being able to have such a thing as an Artosis pylon, watching the zerg struggle against a tight wall off, seeing Terran float away or the joy of a Zerg tech snipe. Those are all interesting forms of play. Base building creates and varies conflict and can be used as such.



So it's not killing of RTS' but plenty of RTS' could also do without it

 

[ThriKreen]

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 is my issue as well, having to jump around and maintain tabs on all my units and such. Often I end up focusing too much on one group and forget others. No way to zoom out all the way, having to rely on the minimap which isn't as detailed. Some way to have a mid-level zoom between the regular view and mini-map might help.

My idea is to migrate from the standard click unit(s), give order to more of a command structure where you'd draw lines or zones and the units would arrange themselves automatically - this is a supply line, so your army units would travel along it to the front line and distribute themselves equally along it (so you run into the long line but spread out vs. short dense line for better defense decision.

This is a scout and would go along this patrol path to see where the enemy is, but if encountered, either alert you and stop, or fall back.

Basically better automation.

Like if my force <50%, or on attack for a trap, fall back to this other line. Or just looking at units and prioritizing targets, and letting the units do what they can to kill it, and if not able to, take the closest target of opportunity instead. Either during the battle, or general behaviour. Instead of having to select your units and target one, and having them ignore all the other enemies as they try to move around to the target.

Like you said, command, not micromanage. I want to command like Ender Wiggin in the first novel.

Sigh... One day... I still need to look up how to handle lines in general, nevermind splines.

 

[Saviordd1]

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.

That's why I love command and conquer 3 (Not the fourth, never the fourth). It had good base building and your army was generally competent enough to not need constant babysitting.

It's also why I can't play Starcraft multiplayer, its too damn boring for me.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Base building virtually defined the genre; Dune, Command & Conquer, and to a lesser extent KKND. The shift away from base building is killing it.

 

[Flunk]

I think the biggest problem is the publishers constantly spending more money to make more brown and olive FPS games. That and RTS not working well with console controls. The combination leaves little space for new RTS franchises and EA is screwing up C&C royally.

 

[Araksardet]

Base building virtually defined the genre; Dune, Command & Conquer, and to a lesser extent KKND. The shift away from base building is killing it.

Exactly this. Without base building, it isn't RTS, it's RTT. I can't stand the new-fangled RTS "sequels" that strip the RTS out of them (C&C4, DoW2, etc.).

Now, the base-building mechanics could be improved upon, certainly - but "improvement" doesn't have to mean "removal".

 

[Blunderboy]

I love me some base building. I'm looking at you AoE2. I once spelt out "Fuck you" in houses when I was playing against a buddy who always researched the 'Spies' technology.

Though you did have to watch those pesky lumberjacks.

 

[CommanderL]

I love base building its the best part there needs to be a way to set all your tatics up so your units are smart

 

[shrekfan246]

I didn't know the RTS genre was dying. Pretty sure it's still going strong, it's always been a niche audience since it doesn't really translate to console well.

I personally like base building so I don't want RTS to go away from that unless there's some new idea that is a bigger improvement over it.

I think it depends on where and how deep you're looking.

I mean, sure, there's Warhammer 40k - Dawn of War II, Sins of a Solar Empire, Anno 2070, Supreme Commander 2, and so on, but what does everyone tend to immediately think when you say "RTS"? Starcraft. It's pretty much dwarfed every other game on the market, so combined with lackluster marketing for the other titles, people tend to think Starcraft II is the only RTS really around these days.

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.

 

[Entitled]

There is no reason why every RTS needs to have the same mechanics just for the sake of being a proper RTS.

If some of them want to, that's fine. If others don't, that's fine too.

Just by making your own game without base building, you are not "removing an element of the genre", and by keeping it in your game, you are not "holding back the genre", you are just making a particular game.

 

[Sandernista]

I mean, sure, there's Warhammer 40k - Dawn of War II, Sins of a Solar Empire, Anno 2070, Supreme Commander 2, and so on, but what does everyone tend to immediately think when you say "RTS"? Starcraft. It's pretty much dwarfed every other game on the market, so combined with lackluster marketing for the other titles, people tend to think Starcraft II is the only RTS really around these days.

But that's not just true now, that's been true since Starcraft came out!

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

I love me some base-building too! Shoot some of my favorite games are the Anno games, and some Settlers.

That said I like different games for different reasons. There is definitely a different level of tactics going on in AoE 2 compared to Company of Heroes, or the Total War games. Or compare any of those to a Paradox grand strategy game, completely different.