Why is RTS so heartless?

[Kiju]

Try playing part of the Total War franchise.

You know, the games that actually are strategy games?

You'll look after your units alright. They become promoted, are given better equipment, and become monsters on the battlefield. Not to mention you do get named units in the way of generals and royalty, which you also need to look after.

If you lose one of these prestigious units, well...say goodbye to your advantage.

However, half of the reason why they don't put a face on your characters in an RTS game is because in a real world scenario, you can't think about the common troop. Yes, you can do your best to keep them alive, but in the end, casualties happen. Don't throw them recklessly into combat, that's just stupid...and sadly, makes up the majority of RTS games in the form of Starcraft and Warcraft.

 

[Kvaedi]

Mostly I would say because that's how war works. You must defeat your enemy. And, just as in real life, men will die. Every leader knows this when he sends soldiers to war.

However, in every RTS you do not want to incur heavy casualties; if you lose every man in a battle, you're likely going to get defeated.

 

[Mcupobob]

Actually, I always tried to individualize and name my "pawns" in games like that. Not necessarily RTS (because it's so hard to tell most of them apart!) but in most games I try and care for the ones tha are supposed to be sent off and killed...

...I mean, they have imaginary wives and children too! their imaginary lives matter!

I give back stories to my troops too! One time playing Rome total war I had this small army of about 600. They weren't elite troops or even higher tier. Just regular spear and archer guys I think I had a few swords men. Just run of the mill cannon fodder. I sent them in to die and they decimated the army and earned a heroic victory(it was like 600 vs 2000). I just did an auto battle. I kept sending them in attacking ever hostile army in around my settlements. They got up high level too didn't even have a general. They didn't need a general. They were sent to die a heroes death, but their love for their children and land made them come home with a heroes victory.

So most people only really get attached to their units in a RTS of if they proven to be awesome or are expensive.

As for a more Character driven RTS, ehh I don't see it happing. In less you go for the squad based ones.

 

[Chunga the Great]

The number of Warhammer 40k quotes here makes me very happy.

OT: Pretty much what everyone else said. You cant get too attached or you wont be able to effectively command your army.

 

[SJXarg]

Not sure if this counts as an RTS, but the Commandos games (specifically, Behind Enemy Lines, Beyond the Call of Duty, and Commandos 2, I imagine Commandos 3 does this too). You are encouraged to strategically keep your men alive (you may have between 1 and 4 on a level), because if one dies, you can't complete the level and progress.

 

[artanis_neravar]

See title.

Simply put, I'm just a bit frustrated about how RTS games as a whole seem to be "Go kill stuff, who cares about friendly casualties?" It's focused as a genre on just doing lots of damage, and never on what your men think and feel. Why is that? Why is there not a decent, character-driven RTS game where you are encouraged to look after your troops, but countless games where you are pretty much encouraged to not give a rat's behind about them?

Really the only game that comes close to character-driven RTS is a title called "Codename Panzers", and even then whatever importance you give your troops depends on you, there is no inherent importance on keeping them alive, which bugs me severely.

So, your thoughts? Why is RTS so cold and heartless, and why has nobody saw fit to try and change it?

Because you can't win wars if you are worrying about every individual soldier, you can't win wars if you are not willing to put your soldiers in the line of fire for the greater good, they know what they signed up for.

 

[Platypus540]

Simple: when all the units are basic and easily-killed riflemen, you just won't care that an entire platoon got wiped out if your main force can still take the objective. If your economy is good enough, you can keep throwing men at the target until it dies, heavy losses don't matter. The only real way to make losses matter is by limiting your total amount of reinforcements, or by having veteran units that could appear if your soldiers survive their battles.

Otherwise, the main way I've seen RTS games successfully involve me with units is just by naming them. For example, the Spartans in Halo Wars. They all have names and you can usually tell them apart, so when one dies it matters not just because they're powerful units but because they are individualized.

Actually, any way of individualizing units gets me involved. Even in games without veteran units, I often remember and try to protect a unit that distinguishes itself, really just for the hell of it.

 

[imperialwar]

I offer this in the same spirit of the main topic:

I once played a D+D campaign where we all clerics.
For ages we played quests of healing the sick and performing minor spells to help farms grow better crops.
Eventually we moved on to "releasing" undead from their curse, we treated the cleric ability like releasing their souls rather then destroying them. We moved on to banishing demons nd unpossessing the king of a demons soul.
Not once in a 6 month campaign did we ever spill a drop of blood.

So why arent there more RPGs like this available ?

even so far as kiddies platformers you are encouraged to attack things to get them out of your way ( spyro, crash, and mario make good examples )

 

[artanis_neravar]

So, your thoughts? Why is RTS so cold and heartless, and why has nobody saw fit to try and change it?

Why would they change it when so many people like it?

The flat out truth; Life is cheap. Most know it but few will admit it. Commanders have to accept it, if they have a large pool of human resources that they can resupply easily they will spend a few squads gladly to take an enemy position.

War is cold and heartless, if you sniffle over every death on your side you will lose because the other smarter commander will be willing to sell his troops lives to destroy your moral and side.

In some games I have been known to sacrifice a dozen low cost units to take out a single more expensive enemy unit that counters my own expensive toys before moving them in, is it cold and heartless? Sure, is it the smart move? you bet your ass it is.

I will always sacrifice a Tank Column or a platoon of machine gunners to take out the enemy AA guns or SAM sites to maintain my air dominance

 

[Shock and Awe]

Well any RTS where units gain experience does that to an extent. I know in Company of Heroes I become attached to my Airborne units because they are usually very effective and gain the experience to make them game changers. I remember one game where three expert squads of paratroopers with recoiless rifles totally mauled a force of over 10 enemy tanks, I came to personally value those squads. Though I see exactly what you are saying, even in my examples I only valued them because they were extremely effective. Maybe its because RTSs are by their nature cold games.

 

[Rainboq]

Sins of a Solar Empire. The capital ships in those games were ships you leveled and gained experience, plus you could name them, so you CARED about them.

 

[Hazy]

To quote the man himself:

"A casualty of my fucking war."

It is better to die for the Emperor than to live for yourself.

Correct answer. Far be it from some Xeno scum to tell me who is and isn't worth dying for.

 

[artanis_neravar]

I offer this in the same spirit of the main topic:

I once played a D+D campaign where we all clerics.
For ages we played quests of healing the sick and performing minor spells to help farms grow better crops.
Eventually we moved on to "releasing" undead from their curse, we treated the cleric ability like releasing their souls rather then destroying them. We moved on to banishing demons nd unpossessing the king of a demons soul.
Not once in a 6 month campaign did we ever spill a drop of blood.

So why arent there more RPGs like this available ?

even so far as kiddies platformers you are encouraged to attack things to get them out of your way ( spyro, crash, and mario make good examples )

Because they wouldn't sell. I once played a DnD games where my Dread Necromancer successfully hid his evil necromantic (a later lich) nature from the majority of his companions. He recruited two of his companions into his plot, and used evens during quests to turn one (secretly) into a vampire lord and the other (also secretly) into the werewolf equivalent. He proceeded to form a kingdom (as did the majority of his companions) and after a decade or so as ruler, turned on his old companions and conquered their kingdoms.

Everyone enjoys different things so game developers have to design their games to appeal to the largest audience for the genre.

 

[Syzygy23]

Dawn of War 2. Squad based, losing a squad is srs bsnss.

it was SRS BZNS in DoW 1 as well. How the HELL does an imperial guard squad cost more req and take more time to build than a space marine squad? Buncha useless retards...

 

[Dastardly]

So, your thoughts? Why is RTS so cold and heartless, and why has nobody saw fit to try and change it?

It might be that you have too limited a definition of "real-time strategy." But also, the genre doesn't easily lend itself to character-driven stuff. In the chaos of real-time battle, you're going to lose units... and if you're emotionally invested in each one, every battle has to be this huge deal, but not in the way you'd want.

This is why most character-driven strategy games are turn-based. You have time to calculate and make judgments that allow you to keep most of your well-loved characters. That allows them to stick around long enough to become well-loved. Also, it means fewer characters, which means a smaller-scale game (to the point that people might not readily consider it an RTS, simply because of the scale).

It come down to the limitations of the genre and the limitations of the label "RTS."

 

[Paragon Fury]

Fire Emblem.

Tom Clancy's Endwar.

Dawn of War 1+2.

/thread

 

[Paragon Fury]

Correct answer. Far be it from some Xeno scum to tell me who is and isn't worth dying for.

If you must die, die so that you advance the Greater Good.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Dawn of War 2. Squad based, losing a squad is srs bsnss.

it was SRS BZNS in DoW 1 as well. How the HELL does an imperial guard squad cost more req and take more time to build than a space marine squad? Buncha useless retards...

They have Grenade Launchers. Also known as the most annoying AOE weapon in the game, and perfect for crowd control.

Oh I'm sorry, you wanted to shoot my cardboard armor? Well now you're on the ground. Here, I'll help you back up. Oh, and you're down again.

 

[infohippie]

There was a small scale RTS - well, Real-Time Tactical would be more accurate - back on the Amiga in the nineties called "Cannon Fodder". Each individual soldier had a name and when you lost some on a mission, the between-mission screen would have have a little grave marker for each dead soldier. These grave markers stayed there for the whole game, so by the end of it the hillside would be covered in little graves, each one with the name of a lost soldier. It was quite poignant, really.