RTSs and their difficulty curve.

[DoctorObviously]

Ever since the original Command and Conquer, I loved RTS games in general. When you figured out the strategy, killing your enemies is so satisfying. But as much as I like those games, they can be as cheap as they get. Because I'm kind of interested in Starcraft II, I went out to my local gaming shop to buy the original Starcraft and it's expansion.

Now, I suck at RTSs in general quite hard. As much as I love the genre, of all the C&C games, I can only complete two or three of them, which isn't much. I thought Starcraft would be a little different but I have the exact same problems: about halfway through the game I get my ass kicked. I try so friggin hard but I can't succeed without cheating, even with guides on the internet. It's a genre where every micro-fucking-second counts and you need to memorize where every enemy will come from in what amount of time and you need an X amount of X units to defend yourself against that particular wave.

On the other hand, I could complete World in Conflict and Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II on the highest difficulty setting and I felt genuinly challenged and I enjoyed it thoughroughly. I think this is because these games are less strict and give you more freedom than the Nazi-ish difficult resource managing games said above.

I also HATE it when reviewers say that a certain game is fun for everyone and will appeal to anyone. That is simply a lie and an advertisement in disguise. I'm pretty sure that when I will pick up Starcraft II I will have played a half game and I won't have seen the rest of the content. And, no, I don't like the multiplayer section in almost any game. Does anyone feel the same like I do on this matter?

 

[danintexas]

I am sorta in the same boat. RTS games for me is one of my favorite genres. But I suck so hard at them a 2 year old blind midget could beat me with just builder units probably.

Usually I buy an RTS and play the computer on easy all the time. I am sad I know. But it just isn't fun doing multi-player only to die in 3 minutes before I get the most basic thing built. There is no learning from that experience. Its just a straight up arse woopin that keeps me from getting into the genre more than easy mode AI opponents. For that reason I will prob skip SC 2. SC 1 I got through only because of cheat codes about half way through.

 

[DoctorObviously]

I am sorta in the same boat. RTS games for me is one of my favorite genres. But I suck so hard at them a 2 year old blind midget could beat me with just builder units probably.

Usually I buy an RTS and play the computer on easy all the time. I am sad I know. But it just isn't fun doing multi-player only to die in 3 minutes before I get the most basic thing built. There is no learning from that experience. Its just a straight up arse woopin that keeps me from getting into the genre more than easy mode AI opponents. For that reason I will prob skip SC 2. SC 1 I got through only because of cheat codes about half way through.

That's exactly what I'm talking about and I feel glad I'm not alone out here.

 

[PurpleSky]

I am sorta in the same boat. RTS games for me is one of my favorite genres. But I suck so hard at them a 2 year old blind midget could beat me with just builder units probably.

Usually I buy an RTS and play the computer on easy all the time. I am sad I know. But it just isn't fun doing multi-player only to die in 3 minutes before I get the most basic thing built. There is no learning from that experience. Its just a straight up arse woopin that keeps me from getting into the genre more than easy mode AI opponents. For that reason I will prob skip SC 2. SC 1 I got through only because of cheat codes about half way through.

I also suck,because I never really fully understand when a game is focused on combat and not research.Not that I am an Age of Empires pro or anything (quite the oposite) but I never rush to make units,I usually focus on base development,and resources.

Also,I used to reload a game when I would loose a single unit...always felt sorry for them.

I also HATE it when reviewers say that a certain game is fun for everyone and will appeal to anyone. That is simply a lie and an advertisement in disguise. I'm pretty sure that when I will pick up Starcraft II I will have played a half game and I won't have seen the rest of the content. And, no, I don't like the multiplayer section in almost any game. Does anyone feel the same like I do on this matter?

I totally agree.

 

[latenightapplepie]

I totally understand your pain.

I'm awful at RTS games as well. I never know when, how, and with what kind of units I should attack. Despite understanding the scissors-paper-rock system of the combat and how to gather all the resources, there is a deeper layer to the strategy of RTS games that I don't believe I will ever penetrate: the true cost-value of upgrades, units and buildings; the layout of the structures in my bases; the balance of static vs mobile base defence; when and where to expand resource gathering. These are just a few things that I don't really understand with RTS games. There are plenty of others.

I, too, will only ever play against a AI players on Easy or Normal difficulties.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I found that StarCraft II had an easier difficulty curve than Dawn of War 2 to be perfectly honest. You make a lot of decisions in Dawn of War 2 over the course of the campaign without knowing how it will impact even the next mission. In StarCraft 2, concepts are introduced quite slowly. In fact, in most missions you are introduced to a new unit that is ideally suited to the objectives of said mission.

I unfortunately cannot speak to the complexity of the original StarCraft as my experience with the game ended when I finished the Terran campaign. Thanks to the brevity of said campaign, instead of being introduced to individual units you instead simply learned basic concepts.

I suppose the relative slope of the resultant curve is based on how effectively these systems are taught by the missions. Where Dawn of War 2 would often reward the player with a hard fought victory when mistakes were made, it was often difficult to discern precisely where one went wrong with their strategy. In StarCraft 2 on the other hand, it was pretty easy to determine what part of a strategy had gone awry.

 

[danintexas]

I also suck,because I never really fully understand when a game is focused on combat and not research.Not that I am an Age of Empires pro or anything (quite the oposite) but I never rush to make units,I usually focus on base development,and resources.

Also,I used to reload a game when I would loose a single unit...always felt sorry for them.

That is another point I agree with and why I suck multi-player. I play RTS to build my base and research units. Hop online and there is no strategy - no base building - no research. Its all about pumping out 1000 zerglings or what ever the lowest unit is and rush the enemy. Where is the strat in that? There is none. Its just mob rules ad-nausea.

 

[The Great Sage]

My main problem is that it always feels as if you have no control if you want to win. If you do not do A-B-C-D in the exact order you will lose. I want to have control and focus on the aspect I like most in these games, usually building up and fortifying a base.

I also find little satisfaction in beating the computer after I have learned the necessary strategy as it feels like it has let you win rather than the intellectual challenge the game once was.

 

[PurpleSky]

I also suck,because I never really fully understand when a game is focused on combat and not research.Not that I am an Age of Empires pro or anything (quite the oposite) but I never rush to make units,I usually focus on base development,and resources.

Also,I used to reload a game when I would loose a single unit...always felt sorry for them.

That is another point I agree with and why I suck multi-player. I play RTS to build my base and research units. Hop online and there is no strategy - no base building - no research. Its all about pumping out 1000 zerglings or what ever the lowest unit is and rush the enemy. Where is the strat in that? There is none. Its just mob rules ad-nausea.

See that's why I recommend you try Stronghold Crusader (that's the one I tried). The way you make your fortress will win the battle,not the units themselves.Even a thousand knights can be stopped by a well placed pitch field and a fire arrow.

 

[PurpleSky]

On the other hand, I could complete World in Conflict and Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II on the highest difficulty setting and I felt genuinly challenged and I enjoyed it thoughroughly. I think this is because these games are less strict and give you more freedom than the Nazi-ish difficult resource managing games said above.

I also HATE it when reviewers say that a certain game is fun for everyone and will appeal to anyone. That is simply a lie and an advertisement in disguise. I'm pretty sure that when I will pick up Starcraft II I will have played a half game and I won't have seen the rest of the content. And, no, I don't like the multiplayer section in almost any game. Does anyone feel the same like I do on this matter?

I really want you to try the Blitzkrieg series,even if it is a tad old,it's brilliant.No base( sort of, your forces start at a warehouse, where the trucks will go to resupply).No resources, just a mission. You can go at it every way you like,I could go on for days,but if you enjoy the Strategy part, play it.

 

[Candidus]

If you're only using the mouse and never using hotkeys, you need to stop that and step up your game. If you're saturating your minerals properly and expanding sensibly, you should experience just as much freedom with regards to your tactical choices and behavior in SC:BW as you do in the relatively softcore DoW 2 and its ilk.

I did a quick burn through the campaign of SC2 on hard because I wanted the achievements. It's been a few days since then, but I have to say this... it's pretty tame- no, maybe it won't be for you and I understand your frustration, but if it were any easier then it'd be a waste of time and money for me and everybody like me.

I'm tempted to do a quick mission on "casual" now, just so I'm allowed to talk about it.

Just... look at Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance. I loved that game online (it was ok SP). The balancing act between economy and grand schemes was beautiful, and there were so many levels of mastery once you got to the top in terms of ability... Then Supcom 2 came out, a game made for the hordes of casual QQ'er scum who left GPGnet when the game was still young because they couldn't even play 60 seconds without stalling their economy- thereby losing before leaving their base or even building a combat unit. Supcom 2 is a complete betrayal of everyone who stayed and loved Supreme Commander for what it was.

If they'd done this with Starcraft 2... Wow, that'd have been a disaster.

It's easier than SC:BW. That's all I can say to encourage you, because I think RTS learning curves are fine this way.