Poll: Defense or Offense?

[Hosker]

One doesn't win by defending! I try to strike some kind of balance. Although I only play one RTS game.

 

[Doneeee]

Oops that's what I get for not reading the pole properly.

 

[NeutralDrow]

These are chips:

Heresy. Those are potato wedges.

AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW?

THAT'S RIGHT. NOTHING.

 

[Tayh]

I'm a turtler.
I always give the most priority to defence and research, building only a few high-end units for token offence.
I mostly lose too, unless it's against an AI.

 

[Ryotknife]

In SC2 i will turtle up while pumping out reapers to harass while my teammates start building up. It is also one of the two strategies ive found to work against the AI on the hardest possible difficulty (the other being to rush right after an assault)

What about vs zerg? Queen buff makes it pretty hard to reaper/hellion harass now.

OT: Offensive. Until I got sc2, I would have said defensively, but playing defensively gets you nowhere but bronze on ladder. And I play zerg, and zerg units are so fun to attack with and our defensive structures suck ass.

Any other rts or against AI, I'll go defensive. But playing defensive on starcraft really doesn't work too well, because they end up getting complete map control and when you try and expand it always gets shut down.

havent played in awhile. A year ago or so, zerg were probably the easiest to harass. Protoss were the hardest due to colossus and due to the AI spamming the frick out of templars. I would create my marine/thor army, start attacking their base and literally 5 seconds into the fight im in full retreat back towards my base with about 30 templars chasing me leaving a trail of psi storms behind me. PSI STORMS EVERYWHERE!

 

[teebeeohh]

in RTS very aggressive in an out-eco kinda way, be fast, lock down resources and just roll the advantage aver the enemy.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Defend and then counterattack after static defenses have broken the back of an enemy assault. Even if your troops are outnumbered the fire support from defenses helps a lot.

 

[Woodsey]

These are chips:

Heresy. Those are potato wedges.

And this is the kind of sick shit we get when we let a bunch of colonists form their own country. 'Potato wedges' my arse.

OT: Not a RTS player, but used to be a pacifist in Civ 5 - then Ghandi kicked my arse and I changed my tune a little.

 

[Rack]

These are chips:

Heresy. Those are potato wedges.

AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW?

THAT'S RIGHT. NOTHING.

Ahem, you were the one who said calling *chips chips heresy.

*Or Steak Fries or Fat Chips whatever you want to call them, I'm not sure you have them in the US at all.

 

[winginson]

I build enough troops to hold off the enemy in a bloody meatgrinder whilst I quietly research away. Then I attack them when I'm several research/tech levels higher than them.

 

[Naeras]

I usually play aggressively, but I almost never play recklessly. Instead, I tend to play a style where I'm overall in control of the game. I love pressuring my opponent without putting myself at much risk. It's pretty much a win-win-scenario: the pressure means it's more likely that he cracks and gives me an advantage, and I'll probably be in a better position to capitalize on that mistake than if I was playing defensively. Also, it's easier to learn the thin line between "this is safe to do" and "oh god i overextended and he ate my face" if you're taking small risks rather than no risks.

This is probably part of the reason why I love Company of Heroes so much, because that principle is so important in that game.

 

[Henkie36]

You know what they say: the best defense is offense. So you can pretty much guess what my strategy is: Hold them off just long enough to build a massive army and walse over them in one go.

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

I'm defensive to start off with and then at some point I'll just go on an unexpected offensive rampage.