Poll: Real Time Strategy games: Quantity over quality, or quality over quantity?

[DJ_DEnM]

So I can't be the only one who when playing an RTS, I spam the first infantry given in game. To me it's always been about upgrading the first infantry (It's cooldown, attack, etc) and upgrading the speed at which you get resources to create more and esentially flood the battle field. Do you agree with this concept, or do you prefer to mix and upgrade stronger units towards the end?

 

[theheroofaction]

I believe somebody said this once, but I can't remember whom.

"Quantity has a quality of it's own".

 

[Steeveeo]

Depends on the counter-strategy whatever RTS has against spamming low-tier units. If it's something like Starcraft, with AoE units here and there, spamming isn't as effective as something like some Warcraft 3 maps where it's massively overpowered.

 

[Terrible Opinions]

With a good strategy game, it's too complex to really answer your question. There is a time and a place for everything, based on scouting and the flow of the game.

EDIT: heroofaction, that was Stalin. Or at least, that's what they say. Could be bullshit. Like Lincoln said, "Never trust anything you read on the internet."

 

[lacktheknack]

What you're asking is "Zerg or Protoss?"

The answer, of course, is Terrans. Nothing like a comfortably sized army of nice quality soldiers to beat down the tides of peons and outswarm the great heroes.

 

[Xanadu84]

I believe somebody said this once, but I can't remember whom.

"Quantity has a quality of it's own".

I have a friend who loves that quote and uses it all the time!

uhh...soo...It's from, well...Stalin...

 

[Ryotknife]

err....flexibility over either?

in starcraft 1 terms, wraith rush. Wraiths are not very powerful, or cheap, but are highly flexible.

 

[Xan Krieger]

Been playing the hell out of Rome Total War and urban cohorts take 2 turns to train and are pretty much the heaviest infantry in the game and I prefer 5 units of them to 20 units of barbarian warbands. Smaller armies are easier to manage, in many cases cheaper to maintain, and are easier to conceal.

 

[Redworld13]

Ive always been a quantity man, i suppose rushing 3 units of cav with 10 units of spear militia is the reason why..... it all depends on the tactics you use. Each to their own!
Thats why strategy games are so entertaining. Its always cool seeing how everyone plays differently.

 

[Old Father Eternity]

Personally, I prefer to find a good choke point, dig in and play the waiting game until I can get the army set up the way I like it (depending on what sort of tech I have in my use this could be a mid/late-game steamroll or small tactical strikes slowly chipping away the enemy) all the while conducting precision harassment as possible.
However this is what I do in single-player, do not really care for on-line as most people there are pretty much dedicated players that will stomp you fast or start bitchin on something you did or did not do.

However, having witnessed quite a few on-line games (C&C3 KW), I would say that quality along side player skill will out-perform simple quantity.
For example you can with careful management get a stealthed apc into the enemy base carrying a commando that is capable levelling structures with one explosive charge and while they go about stomping the battlefield with their many units, you can pretty much remove them from the game before they figure out as to what the fuck has just happened. This is even more profound what they amass one specific unit type and then realise the magnitude of their stupidity, as quite a few games feature damage specialisation, they have a shitload of anti-armor but anti-infantry, so even if they notice their misfortune they do not have the resources to do anything about it.
People have ragequited because of that, fucking hilarious, even more so because it was done by the person whose base they had nearly decimated.

 

[theheroofaction]

I believe somebody said this once, but I can't remember whom.

"Quantity has a quality of it's own".

I have a friend who loves that quote and uses it all the time!

uhh...soo...It's from, well...Stalin...

Oh, Well it's still applicable here though.

 

[BeerTent]

So I can't be the only one who when playing an RTS, I spam the first infantry given in game. To me it's always been about upgrading the first infantry (It's cooldown, attack, etc) and upgrading the speed at which you get resources to create more and esentially flood the battle field. Do you agree with this concept, or do you prefer to mix and upgrade stronger units towards the end?

I find this works in the CnC and StarCraft games, actually... 300 Conscripts is untouchable.
In some RTS's though... Well, it's impossible to build 300 Percivals in a decent amount of time...

 

[Old Father Eternity]

However a massive army is only useful if it is varied, otherwise one small misjudgement on concerning the enemies army composition and what not will leave you with nothing to protect yourself let alone enough resources to build up a defence in case they decide to retaliate

 

[Joccaren]

That Really depends on the game, though to be competitive in most RTS you will not be able to do that as there are generally hard counter systems in place so that one unit could take on 2-3 of yours, even when you're fully upgraded.
For lolz I'll sometimes do that, otherwise I'll try to build the hard counters to whatever my enemy has - it generally works out better.

 

[DEAD34345]

Haha, I don't have the skill or knowledge of tactics required to attempt to build appropriate units in strategy games, so I do the same thing. I have fond memories of turning maps into red oceans back in the first Red Alert. It didn't really work all that well as a strategy, but it made up for it by being unbelievably awesome.

 

[VeneratedWulfen93]

No mention of Dawn of War yet.
If there ever was an example of what a quality unit should be I have one answer. Terminators. Give them lightening claws and they can solo super-heavy units and there is only 3 guys.
I play Eldar however so my tactics rely on ample quantity of firepower and quality of positioning. The ability to deal high amounts of damage in short periods of time despite being fragile means I have to engage on my terms at all times.
The only problem with Eldar is that they are super specialised, they don't have a jack of all trades unit so I have to mix it up depending on opponent, both in RTS and tabletop. Thats what makes Eldar fun to play however, when your orchestra of death comes together.

 

[tendaji]

For Company of Heroes, I usually start out with Quantity just to get out there and secure the resources. Quality comes over time, seeing how those units are expensive, but you need to also defend your points from the other team. So by the end of the game you have Quantity and Quality mixing together, making a very well rounded force.

 

[Mordekaien]

I go usually with quality and a good mix of troops and with a turtle style- shrug off the enemy attack, thin their numbers then chase him down with some spare units that flank them and finish him off. Nothing complicated, but it gets the job done

(same tactic that i use in Mount and Blade: Warband)

 

[Dandark]

Quantity is great but I usaully prefer quality.
The main RTS I play is Dawn of war and while having 3 20 man squads of orcs is great, I would prefer one squad of 7 grey knights to destroy the heretic.

Of course sometimes I like quanity, pretty much whenever I play as the imperial guard. You have a squad of heavily armoured space marines with rapid firing rpgs. I have 4 squads of guardsmen with lasguns to swarm you.