Prefered method of RTS battling

[SquirePB]

I adapt my strategy based on the current situation. But as for my general approach, well:

I start off getting a basic economy going and build some highly mobile (preferably ranged) units to go and harass the enemy, focusing on disrupting their economy.
With my enemy suitably contained/crippled, I then turn my attention to my economy. I send it into over-drive and rape the land of all resources. If I was particularly successful in the first stage I'll sometimes take resources from areas that were intended for my enemy. This is more me being a dick than having any practical value if the game requires that the resources be transported back to my base.
Then I start to build siege units and a bodyguard for them and begin assaulting the outer defenses of my enemy. This both weakens their ability to withstand my forces and puts added pressure on their economy as they struggle to bolster their defenses.
While the siege is underway I start to build my actual strike force that will be going into the enemy base. This will be heavily melee based with the units that were originally attacking their resources providing any ranged support. By the time I send these units in my siege forces have usually obliterated the enemies ranged defenses and cleared a path for the attack force to move through.
Then I will usually feign an attack. Against an AI they usually send out they're remaining units to push you back and some people use it to. If they take the bait I pull my units back and let the siege and ranged units go to town as my enemy realises what they've done and try to pull back.
Then when the enemies defenses are in utter ruin I deliver them my mercy as a force far greater than what is conventionally considered necessary sweep in to crush them.

Works well for me and suits my personality I find. I highly recommend this approach in most strategy games but it's really good in Stronghold Crusader, especially against the enemies that tend to build up a sizeable force and defenses before they attack like The Wolf and The Lion

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

depends wether or not there is a command tree that gives deployable units
in lotro BFME2/Age Of Empires like games I tend to throw up a defendable wall as far out as I can and then start building up defences backwards, in the meanwhile in AOE like games I start building forces and upgrading them big time, same with LOTROBFME2 kinda games but then I start throwing spawnable units+heroes at a quick pace to harass the enemy.

in company of heroes I never actually build a base
I start off building 2 engineers, sending my ready engineers to capture points
then when the first unit of engineers is done they build a baracks
by the time a second unit is done they build a supply pool
when the first unit is done building they can move up to capture a point
Then I produce 2 rifle squads

I only fight 4v4 and I usually take Airborne company or Tank Division

with my rifle squads and engineers taking points I get experience
When I have had 3 points I Select the airborne division or build a tank factory
Thereafter I start taking point and harassing by flying in units and structurally repairing them asap


And that's how my cookie crumbles

 

[Crazy]

Focus on building/upgrading my units for a nice big ol' invasion.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

Sadly, the current defiition of "strategy" makes me sick. Whenn I watch starcraft tournaments on MLG and they start talking about the "brilliant strategys" the players are using, I ussaly roll my eyes, try to shut down my brain and simply enjoy the action.

When I want to see strategy in use, I want to lay ambushes, fall back and lure them into traps, play tricks on them, use the enviroment, sabotage and strikes from the shadows and eventually win by use of superior strategy against a far superior troop number.

Sadly, none of these are really valid in modern RTS games like SC2 when the "key to victory" consists of studying builds and buildorders by heart and playing the "if he thinks that Im thinking that he is thinking that I am going to use this build" game with your enemy. *sighs*

If someone is looking for me, I will be in my lonely little corner of sadness, play some Shogun 2 and wait for the day when propper use of strategy becomes valid over micro-management and build-remembering.

nawh want to play a few games together in our lonesome corner of the escapist? haha

 

[DSK-]

I love turtling. It spawned from me playing Total Annihilation and trying to make the most impregnable fortresses imaginable. It was (and still is) a hell of a lot of fun.



1000 unit cap hoooooooo~!

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Total War: Usually have two armies, one for assault and the other for occupation. The assault force is built out of the strongest troops, the veterans who will take the walls or win the field with minimal casualties. Once the town falls, the occupation force settles in. I recruit some new units once the town settles down, then bring the occupation army to follow up on the assault army which has moved onto the next target.

 

[sinterklaas]

Sadly, the current defiition of "strategy" makes me sick. Whenn I watch starcraft tournaments on MLG and they start talking about the "brilliant strategys" the players are using, I ussaly roll my eyes, try to shut down my brain and simply enjoy the action.

When I want to see strategy in use, I want to lay ambushes, fall back and lure them into traps, play tricks on them, use the enviroment, sabotage and strikes from the shadows and eventually win by use of superior strategy against a far superior troop number.

Sadly, none of these are really valid in modern RTS games like SC2 when the "key to victory" consists of studying builds and buildorders by heart and playing the "if he thinks that Im thinking that he is thinking that I am going to use this build" game with your enemy. *sighs*

If someone is looking for me, I will be in my lonely little corner of sadness, play some Shogun 2 and wait for the day when propper use of strategy becomes valid over micro-management and build-remembering.

You clearly don't understand what you're seeing then because SC2 is exactly that.

In SC2 I like relatively fast, brutal attacks. In every other RTS I like turtling like I'm crazy and then crushing everything with one monstrous attack. I also have a weak point for charging cavalry, I let a tear everytime it happens. Cataphracts in RTW have to be my favourite unit in the whole RTS genre.

PS: Phalanxes are unbelievably overpowered in city defense in RTW ^_^

 

[Exocet]

I adhere to the Russian way of war: one artillery gun every 200 meters firing non-stop,then mopping up with tanks and infantry.
Because taking over a worthless heap of rubble that used to be a city is easier then taking an intact city.

I find this works great in Company of Heroes.I annihilate my opponents with nebelweffers and mortar,then fallschirmjagers and Panthers finish off the the stragglers.
It's a bit tougher it some game like the Total War series(except Empire and Napoleon,for obvious artillery related reasons),but I find that I can replace it with a mass of archers hiding behind a group of the biggest,baddest,armor clad defensive warriors I can find.
Needless to say I rocked in with the Greeks in Rome:Total War.

 

[TheMariner]

My only online RTS experience comes from StarCraft II.

I usually like too turtle at first with some Photon Cannons, skip Zealots and move straight to Stalkers so they can still defend from behind the wall. Then I build up an army of Stalkers, Immortals, and Colossi with a few Observers in for detection before I wipe the map.

However if I'm feeling particularly cheap that day, I'll have my friend roach rush while I turtle the base, fast expand, and steamroll the map with a Void Ray armada.

 

[Samurai Silhouette]

Select all, attack unit. That's about the depth of my strategy.

 

[eventhorizon525]

Turrets. Looooots of turrets. At least in almost every RTS I play. Once the enemy has no more resources to throw at my great wall of inefficiency, I tend to start harassing with a few carefully controlled units I can focus on (Nuclear Strike Detected anyone?).

For DoW2 though (if it ultimately ends up being called an RTS, the debate is still somewhat uncertain on this), I play Eldar and play constant hit and run tactics until I can set up a wall of siege weapons outside my enemy's base and guarantee they will be going nowhere. Works better in team battles though.

 

[DasDestroyer]

I usually send a moderate force to attack and build up a new one while the first on is fighting. Problem is I forget to build the second force up while controlling the first one and when the enemy counter-attacks I am defenceless.

 

[Frankster]

Grand Battle Doctrine: I don't like skirmishing and dancing around, would rather seek a big engagement with the enemy that will decide things one way or another.

Depending on the game, tank blitzkrieg attacks, artillery softening the enemy before mass infantry assault or just plain old "sneak behind enemys defences and attack from multiple angles" when someone is really turtling and I don't have the necessary artillery to counter that advantage.

 

[repeating integers]

Turtling, generally. By any means possible.

It's why I'm so terrible at Homeworld multiplayer (turtling is nigh-on impossible).

 

[Blunderboy]

I tend to be a huge turtle. Build up a massive economy and strong defences then send wave after wave at the enemy, at least this was what I used to do in Age of Empires 2.
In Total War, I tend to expand quickly until I am in a comfortable, defensible position (ideally aided by natural chokepoints) then pause and consolidate my power.
I'm also a fan of Pin and Flank, but to be fair, despite all the fancy names, most strategies come down to P&F.