Poll: What kind of RTS do you like?

[userno123456789]

I often find that the most influential games in the RTS genre often have characteristics that are at odds with each other.
I think this stems from different gameplay styles: one that has an "Unit controll focus" and one that has a "Base building and resource collection focus".
In other words: good ol' micro and macro.
In my opionion they could be considered subgroups of the same genre or genres in their own right.

With the release of Starcraft 2 the "Unit controll" subgenre seems to have made a huge comeback.
My hope is that Planetary Annihilation (early acces avaiable on steam) is going to do the same for the "Base building and resource collection" subgenre.

The reason I like Total Annihilations gameplay style so much is because you get to take your sweet time preparing and arranging perfect chokepoints and securing resources as well as building giant death machines and nukes to bombard the enemy from afar. Sadly this makes multiplayer nearly impossible.

Starcraft and Starcraft 2 have been as succesfull at creating a huge multiplayer following as they are relatively fast paced. (for RTS)

Other examples of Games that I like categorized into those two subgenres:

Unit controll focus:
Comand and Conquer series (for the most part)
Krush, Kill ?n? Destroy
Company of Heroes

Base building and resource collection focus:
Perimeter (check it out on GOG)
Supreme Comander series (a given, seen how they are succesors to Total Annihilation)


Do you agree with that classification? (I know Starcraft has nukes and static defense, they are however not the main focus of the game as they have limited usefulness and range)
Give examples of your own!
How do you think Planetary Annihilation is going to fare?
Will they sacrifice complexity for faster paced matches just like Supreme Comander 2 tried to do?

 

[veloper]

The reason I like Total Annihilations gameplay style so much is because you get to take your sweet time preparing and arranging perfect chokepoints and securing resources as well as building giant death machines and nukes to bombard the enemy from afar. Sadly this makes multiplayer nearly impossible.

Multiplayer is entirely possible in such games, you just have to be a quick player, to be able to compete.
You can take your time in most single player campaigns, including Starcraft, because the difficulty level usually isn't very high against the AI.

I'd say there's only two big divides: first there's RTS vs RTT and then there's RPG-like elements vs more cannonfodder.

All RTS games have a large focus on resource collection. Turtling in a multiplayer RTS game usually means losing to the player who hunts for resources. There's no fundamental difference in this regard between Supcom and Starcraft. Games without resource collection belong to the RTT game variant.

The biggest difference between SC and SC then is one game depends more on the control of a modest number of units with powerful abilities and the other game is more about managing huge armies consisting of dispensible units.
I like both BTW.

Slowpaced RTS also exist, but then you get games like Kohan, which are still very much about resource collection, but the armies simply won't move any faster on the map, so your low APM won't matter.

 

[shrekfan246]

I most certainly prefer micro-focused RTS games.

I'm terrible at RTS games to begin with, but I'm especially bad when it comes to building or defending a base. I don't know proper "counters" to most units in most games, so my armies tend to get sweeped until I roll in with overwhelming force, and I get tunnel vision when I'm moving an army through enemy territory and forget that I've got my own base which could potentially be attacked as well.

So I like games that emphasize as little defense as possible. There are a few exceptions; I've only played one campaign of Warcraft III so far, but it was easy enough that the combination of micro and macromanaging only screwed me over in one or two levels, and I love the inclusion of "Hero" units. Divinity: Dragon Commander and Spellforce 2 fall under similar brackets, though I'll admit I've got the former turned down to the lowest difficulty level because I just get steamrolled otherwise...

Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War II is something I think I'd be able to really dig, from what I've read and seen of it.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well you already got the RTT / RTS distinction, but we could also take it down a micro / macro route.
Personally in single player I like almost all of them, but in multiplayer fast micro RTS are something I really do not like because near all strategy can be supplemented with furious action spam... that to me is just a complete bastardization of the genre, equivalent of a button masher in fighting games if you will.

But what I appreciate the most are the advanced RTS games like Company of Heroes and Dawn of War, where small units are put into squads that act like squads instead of twitch jumping sprites, when they move they all need to get going, they rely on morale, they need to turn before firing, they get pulled into melee, explosives throw them around, they can attack on the move, pick up separate equipment, take several types of cover, cover is directional, and destructible, vehicles also get directional armour, they take a good long while to get moving,...
All that adds up to a very different game approach where troops caught out of position get properly boned.

 

[Jandau]

Both. Seriously, I don't have a preference - both broad types have their own merits and are fun in their own way.

 

[Smeatza]

I prefer RTSs where I don't have to worry so much about the amount of actions I can perform in a minute but how sound my tactics are.

I enjoy Starcraft 2, it's just less of it is open to me than Shogun 2 TW for example.

 

[chaser5000]

Either is good with me, honestly I just like RTSs in general.

 

[Gaius Livius]

I like a strategy game where you don't win solely because you got the "Ultra mega death laser tank of ultimate destruction" first and ones where you can't just spam and rush people easily (I get that spamming and rushing can be a skill in itself but I don't like it when it becomes too easy and cheap to do as it devalues the victory considerably - as well as the fact it can make games far too short). I prefer it when you can win against a superior force if you command your forces well enough (There has to be a limit to it of course as having more powerful units has to play some part in the chance of winning). I also like strategy games where you don't end up with a load of redundant units very quickly as it is all well and good having a massive selection but you find a lot of the time you won't use most of them because they will become useless. The Total War series seems to have all this nice and balanced from my experience. In case anyone says it, yes I do know that the Total War games have a lot of units which tend to eventually decrease in usefulness somewhat but that is balanced out through the difference in cost, upkeep, stats and the fact that they don't become completely useless to you.

 

[Bluestorm83]

I'm going to toss in a bit of an absurd third option; my favorite part of an RTS is building my base, researching new unit upgrades, etc. When it comes time for combat, I just chuck a ball of whatever's most expensive at the enemy. I'd like an RTS where I can just plan and build my city, walls, towers, farms, what have you... and let someone else control the fighting. I mean, does the King personally go and command every single unit in a war?

Let me hire some generals, each with different AI and abilities, and just give vague orders like, "Conquer this city," or "Take that hill," or "Hold these mines," and then focus on running my realm. Like a Fantasy Sim City where there's a war related minigame going on at the other end of the map.

 

[novem]

I think it?s a bit absurd to group games like Starcraft with the Relic style of RTS (DoW2, CoH).

I vastly prefer the Relic style of RTS where a handful of units well managed can beat back an army of poorly managed troops. I put more time into Dawn of War II than any other RTS combined.

 

[Elvaril]

I'm going to toss in a bit of an absurd third option; my favorite part of an RTS is building my base, researching new unit upgrades, etc. When it comes time for combat, I just chuck a ball of whatever's most expensive at the enemy. I'd like an RTS where I can just plan and build my city, walls, towers, farms, what have you... and let someone else control the fighting. I mean, does the King personally go and command every single unit in a war?

Let me hire some generals, each with different AI and abilities, and just give vague orders like, "Conquer this city," or "Take that hill," or "Hold these mines," and then focus on running my realm. Like a Fantasy Sim City where there's a war related minigame going on at the other end of the map.

That is basically the Total War series if you just auto resolve every battle.

 

[BleedingPride]

I've always preferred rts games with lots of soldiers per unit. I love the sight of building massive armies to fight each other, so i'm a big total war rome 2 fan, i also liked black and white 2 (though i was a big fan of the first too even without that whole element), star wars empire at war, and i even liked halo wars for what it was.

 

[Hero of Lime]

Well, however you would classify Pikmin, action RTS,maybe baby's first RTS. Similarly, Fire Emblem has a weird classification too. I enjoyed Halo Wars for the Halo theme, and decent controls for something you usually only see on PC.

 

[Neverhoodian]

Well, however you would classify Pikmin, action RTS,maybe baby's first RTS. Similarly, Fire Emblem has a weird classification too. I enjoyed Halo Wars for the Halo theme, and decent controls for something you usually only see on PC.

Oh wow, someone else who thought Halo Wars was decent. We're a rare breed, you and I.

Based on my two favorite RTS games (Command and Conquer: Red Alert 2 and the first Dawn of War with expansions), I'd say I prefer ones that focus more on army management than base building. I freely admit that I generally suck at the genre, and I tend to scrape by better when there's less to keep track of. Trying to juggle base defense, research trees and front line combat all at the same time makes my head spin.

A typical RTS match for me against the AI (I'm not good enough to play against actual people) re-enacts the Red Army from World War II: slowly bludgeon the enemy to death with superior numbers. To be fair, I typically play as the army that best fits such a play style (Soviets in RA2, Imperial Guard in DoW).

 

[Candidus]

Sadly this makes multiplayer nearly impossible.

Supreme Commander FA would like to speak to you.
About a lot of things.

You know on Seton's Clutch, I always played forward center for my team. I played forward center because I knew how to dive straight from 1p4m into 12 factories pouring a t1 army into the center where the reclamation field was. I can't count the number of times I destroyed my opposite forward center before 8 minutes.

The game is only slow and steady if your opponent wants to sit back for as long as you do. And it's very well suited to multiplayer.

 

[JaceArveduin]

I prefer my RTS's in the style of BFME2, lots of harassing, lots of units, and lots of expansion is required to win. Unlike in Starcraft and such, you have to spread your resource buildings out in BFME2, so you constantly need to expand to up your resources while sending out units to harass your enemies resource buildings and base.


That, and being able to summon a Balrog to kill everything is very very rewarding

 

[Windcaler]

I dont like many RTS's because on the fly micromanagement just isnt my thing. Neither is having to destroy an enemies base from its fortified position. That might be why I like Dawn of war 2 so much. Its my favorite RTS because its squad based domination which relies more on map control and squad use rather then building a bunch of bases and excessive micromanagement.

As to the poll, I guess neither fits my style of RTS

 

[teqrevisited]

If it doesn't have base building then I'm not interested. Other than that I just have to like the overall design and/or the world it's set in (C&C series besides 4, Dawn of War 1).

 

[userno123456789]

Sadly this makes multiplayer nearly impossible.

Supreme Commander FA would like to speak to you.
About a lot of things.

You know on Seton's Clutch, I always played forward center for my team. I played forward center because I knew how to dive straight from 1p4m into 12 factories pouring a t1 army into the center where the reclamation field was. I can't count the number of times I destroyed my opposite forward center before 8 minutes.

The game is only slow and steady if your opponent wants to sit back for as long as you do. And it's very well suited to multiplayer.

I should have been more specific: this is how I like to play Total Annihilation(the 1997 game) as well as Supreme Comander. It takes me a good 30 minutes to get to nukes in those games.