RTS - Strategy....oooor not?

[Flour]

[...]

Only in Command and Conquer(inspired) games will what you described be a valid strategy against bots and non-'pro' players.
Strategy in C&C never goes further than "six tanks didn't work, oh, let's try eight tanks next and ten of that didn't work"

 

[Paragon Fury]

Pretty video.

If you want to talk about real-world applications, I suggest that you consider the fact that the strategies employed in Battlefield-esque games have entire companies and universities devoted to them.

In order to be effective in Battlefield, truly effective, you must understand and go through the game like an actual soldier would.

Terrain. Weather. Objective. Avaliable Resources. Etc. All the physical limitations are there - many of which RTS's don't have, or don't limit.

Then, you have the human aspect. Since those around you are not controlled by the computer, you must understand how to motivate and guide and follow other players in order to accomplish your goal. They're not your perfect little platoon of Dragoons who will jump on command.

So what do you think takes more ability? Planning and executing a base takedown in Starcraft, or planning, executing, and taking part in a control point capture in Battlefield?

 

[bodyklok]

As people have said before me, a lot of the main stream ones are like that. But there are plenty of cult classics and lesser know games that are.

However, the term RTS (Real Time Strategy) is somewhat misleading in the case of a lot of RTSs anyway.

It is generally accepted amongst most military strategists and tacticians that the word 'strategy' refers to the whole war plan (The plan of attack for the whole war), while tactic refers the plan of attack on the battlefield. (taking the high ground, capturing and securing certain points ect.)

Dawn of War was all about tactics, unleashing the right weapons on the right enemy, and using close combat units to distract ranged units while your ranged units tare them apart. So in my mind it didn't belong in the RTS genre. Rather the RTT (Real Time Tactic) genre.

 

[crudus]

RTS is strategy but you do just as well steamrolling or rushing. to quote Yahtzee "You can but why would you want to?". Sometimes its more fun to have small battles rather than a steamroll.

 

[Ushario]

The OP is a troll, he has to be, there is no other way to explain his ignorance and open flame baiting.

 

[Paragon Fury]

The OP is a troll, he has to be, there is no other way to explain his ignorance and open flame baiting.

Really? Who you care to explain that particular notion?

 

[Paragon Fury]

Pretty video.

If you want to talk about real-world applications, I suggest that you consider the fact that the strategies employed in Battlefield-esque games have entire companies and universities devoted to them.

In order to be effective in Battlefield, truly effective, you must understand and go through the game like an actual soldier would.

Terrain. Weather. Objective. Avaliable Resources. Etc. All the physical limitations are there - many of which RTS's don't have, or don't limit.

Then, you have the human aspect. Since those around you are not controlled by the computer, you must understand how to motivate and guide and follow other players in order to accomplish your goal. They're not your perfect little platoon of Dragoons who will jump on command.

So what do you think takes more ability? Planning and executing a base takedown in Starcraft, or planning, executing, and taking part in a control point capture in Battlefield?

The fact that your trying to relate an FPS to an RTS obviously shows you have never played an rts in your life and i dont see a need to further discuss this with you.

Really? Explain then, how the two are unlike? Other than the fact that one often gives you a top-down, "god" perspective with perfect control, and the other gives puts you there in the frontline with more personal control and less overall control.

Both give you the same task - just different ways of completing it. And, as I've noted, one seems to do a much better selection of effective options to complete your task with.

 

[Haydyn]

Some RTSs are like this. In AoEIII, all you could do was get as many troops as possible before attacking your enemy. I had to create strategy in that game by sending in half of my army to one enemy, and while his allies were sending their troops over, I'd swoop in and eliminate them.

Sure, in the end you are sending in your army to wipe out the enemy. Yeah, that's the point of the game. Kind of like how in shooters you have different guns and weapons, but in the end your goal is to aim and shoot the enemy.

Even though I've been a huge fan of RTS games my whole life, I totally suck at them. I like to have fun. I like to create strategy. My favorite RTS of all time is AoEII. I like to have 5 fortified walls around my base with several castles and bombard towers while I cut down trees to create a path behind the enemy base, then convert their villagers one by one before they forfiet. I once sent in 20 monks in a weak base. They sent spearmen at me from their barracks one by one, and one by one, I converted them. I had a wall of spearmen so their spearmen had to walk around to get to my monks. They eventually forfieted. Have you ever walled off an enemy's gates? It's awesome. They won't know what to do. Just get some archers outside and boom, you've got an enemy stuck inside their own base.

 

[Ushario]

The OP is a troll, he has to be, there is no other way to explain his ignorance and open flame baiting.

Really? Who you care to explain that particular notion?

Comparing Battlefield to RTS games and saying that Battlefield involves more strategy gave you away.

Battlefield involves no strategy at all, it does involve some level of tactics, which still boils down to exactly the same thing as every other FPS. Shoot the bad guys.

 

[Shock and Awe]

I like to build up a huge ass army, then attack the enemy base with all my general powers(assuming I have them), maybe cause a diversion with smaller units across the map.

 

[Paragon Fury]

The OP is a troll, he has to be, there is no other way to explain his ignorance and open flame baiting.

Really? Who you care to explain that particular notion?

Comparing Battlefield to RTS games and saying that Battlefield involves more strategy gave you away.

Battlefield involves no strategy at all, it does involve some level of tactics, which still boils down to exactly the same thing as every other FPS. Shoot the bad guys.

Which is also the point of every RTS out there - or more presicely, "defeat" the bad guys.

And since I've yet to see anyone offer any actual evidence that the same, if not more, strategy exists in a game like Battlefield, my point still stands. Orchestrating the Siege of Gibralter, Belgrade, Kubra Dam or Jalalabad is quite a feat. Especially, to use an RTS reference, when your units don't actually have to listen to you.

 

[Credge]

This isn't going to make much sense from a logic standpoint, but from a game experience standpoint and actual state of RTS gaming standpoint it's accurate:

RTS are less about strategy and tactics and more about the execution and exploitation of balance issues. Even at the top, and even in more non-traditional RTS (CoH, DoW2) it's the same thing. When the difference between you winning and losing is whether or not you chose the FOTM unit or strategy... the game is less about strategy and more about CPM and micromanagement. It's kind of boring.

I'm hoping RUSE actually allows some strategic and tactical play. End War was very close to getting it perfect. A good mix of overall strategy as well as how you dealt with certain, basic situations. It's the one rare case where RPS worked... mainly because it wasn't solid (spears>horses) and also because there were ways to get around this (certain upgrades, etc.).

I want an RTS with one faction that is incredibly diverse. Allow players to choose how they want to approach problems, with multiple types of units from multiple types of buildings. Keep it open. Introduce multiple ways to run an economy.

These are things that RTS need to do. Expand upon the idea of diversity instead of making the game diverse by keeping factions gimmicky.

 

[Fluffy MCDOOM]

I wudnt consider halo wars strategy. I would consider it more a basic tower defence game with better graphics :/

 

[Bernzz]

RTS to me is to play against human opponents
RTS isn't for everybody, and if you're such a fan of Yahtzee watch his clip the n00b effect.
RTS games require practice and time to be competitive just like an mmorpg does to get a higher level.
And even if you're not talking about high level PRO play you're talking about the lowest level NWB play. Which to be honest most RTS players strive to get past which is why they choose to get into an RTS game in the first place. (to get better at it)
Your post is ignorant and offensive to me just like Yahtzee's video was ... why? BECAUSE YOU AREN'T RTS PLAYERS (not that I would play Halo Wars or whatever it was)
Starcraft is an art and the depth in strategy of a 1v1 in a PvP situation is similar to a game of chess whilst your battlefield can be related to a game of paintball.
The difference is professors play chess, any douche can play paintball.

YOU CAN FEEL THE RAGE!!!

While I agree that StarCraft takes a lot more skill, quick reaction times and good forethought, anybody can play chess as well. Chances are you just suck at paintball.

Also, if the OP's post offends you...grow some thicker skin, man. Seriously.

To the OP: I agree about that, nowadays most RTS games are simply rushing, or teching up and steamrolling. There's not much tactics involved anymore.

But Halo Wars is designed to be Baby's First RTS, so obviously there's not much thought required for it.

Games like StarCraft and WarCraft require more skill and tactics than something simpler like Halo Wars.

To answer your question: yes, most RTS games require very little actual strategy these days, but there are some which do require tactics and thought.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Dictionary.com:

1. In military usage, a distinction is made between strategy and tactics. Strategy is the utilization, during both peace and war, of all of a nation's forces, through large-scale, long-range planning and development, to ensure security or victory. Tactics deals with the use and deployment of troops in actual combat.

The only videogames with a bit of real strategy in them (I can think of) are the Total War series, with that big map of theirs.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

The RTS games I play are usually historically set (Age of Empires/Mythology, for example) so the lack of things like tanks means I do have to strategise. My favourite technique is finding or making a route to the enemy base that is unexpected. Like crossing water when they're expecting a land assault through the narrow choke-point that I am so not going to use because of all the defences they've placed there

EDIT: Also, to Calibretto, the n00b effect wasn't done by Yahtzee, but someone imitating his style

 

[headshotcatcher]

This doesnt apply to games like Dawn of War and Company of Heroes at all, unit weaknesses are very blatant there