digitalbattle.com— Lately, RTS games have moved away from the classic formula to an almost "Real Time Tactics" gameplay instead.
Mar 27, 2010View in Crawl 4
Please explain how "building mission-specific infrastructure" is not strategy. The only way that would apply is if you could play and win every single match with the exact same build order, agressiveness, counters, etc and you could just "Play by the book".To use the above example of when to build your first barracks: If you plan on expanding all over the map quickly to build economic advantage, that barracks is going to have to come later. This means you won't have many units early on, so you're gonna have to contain/harass the enemy until your higher income rate starts paying off. After this, you're going to be capped by production time, most probably, because you'll be getting more resources than you can spend.This, in turn, means you'll probably need either more production buildings or you'll want to tech higher. Ideally, you want these buildings/upgrades done before the cash overflow kicks in, but can you safely sacrifice what little army you have to plop those buildings down already?What is the opponent doing as a counter to this? What tech should you choose? Can you safely plant those building in X location? Does the opponent even know you've taken that location?This is strategy, period. What you're saying is that it's not strategy unless it has a world map in it. BS.The above has resource management, map control, production/upgrade management, avoiding/choosing specific engagements, blocking routes, etc that all have not a single thing to do with how you control individual units.
Stopped playing C&C after C&C 3: Tiberium Wars was released. Engine was god awful, and the game play mechanics that made Zero Hour so great were gone.
My co-workers and I absolutely loved Supreme Commander. We had some pretty nice machines on the office network, so we spent many long nights on huge maps with pizza-break intermissions and whiteboard strategy sessions. It was always my favorite strategy to bring in a waterbourne Fatboy invasion when they least expected it. So let me make this as clear as I possibly can: Supreme Commander 2 sucks a bowl of dicks. I still fire up Supcom1 every once in a while, but with SC2 I played it once (after I preordered it!!!) for half an hour and never touched it again. It doesn't look as good as the original, it doesn't have the sense of scale as the original, the resource management (while I know why they changed it) blows, and the single player campaign is filled with spiky-haired androgynous teenagers who Square forgot to put in a FF game.
Sorry kleon, he's right. Choosing when/where/which buildings to build is definitely strategy. New RTS like CnC4 completely failed at this, because you basically build 4 structures and you're done. Old RTS had a good 10-15 structures you could build. Maybe you are thinking of single player missions, where you can keep switching up the order in which you build things until you get it right. That's fine, but in multiplayer, where the real game takes place, you have to come up with a build strategy. Decide to build a turret instead of a tank, and you built that turret on the wrong side of your base, you could lose. Or build a turret instead of another refinery, and you start falling behind in resource harvesting.
mazer14Mar 28, 2010
Micro does most definitely not rule SC and it definitely won't rule SC2. It's all about the macro.
darqravenMar 29, 2010
Please explain how "building mission-specific infrastructure" is not strategy. The only way that would apply is if you could play and win every single match with the exact same build order, agressiveness, counters, etc and you could just "Play by the book".To use the above example of when to build your first barracks: If you plan on expanding all over the map quickly to build economic advantage, that barracks is going to have to come later. This means you won't have many units early on, so you're gonna have to contain/harass the enemy until your higher income rate starts paying off. After this, you're going to be capped by production time, most probably, because you'll be getting more resources than you can spend.This, in turn, means you'll probably need either more production buildings or you'll want to tech higher. Ideally, you want these buildings/upgrades done before the cash overflow kicks in, but can you safely sacrifice what little army you have to plop those buildings down already?What is the opponent doing as a counter to this? What tech should you choose? Can you safely plant those building in X location? Does the opponent even know you've taken that location?This is strategy, period. What you're saying is that it's not strategy unless it has a world map in it. BS.The above has resource management, map control, production/upgrade management, avoiding/choosing specific engagements, blocking routes, etc that all have not a single thing to do with how you control individual units.
gravey9Mar 30, 2010
Civ is not RTS it's turn based. Still absolutely love the series though.
navicertsApr 1, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
cawfeeApr 7, 2010
The next one will be even bett- oh :<
libertyprimeApr 12, 2010
That and anything with "Sim" in the title.
krakerjaxApr 12, 2010
It's not exactly old school, but Sins of a Solar empire made for some really f**king long games.
lennybirdApr 13, 2010
Stopped playing C&C after C&C 3: Tiberium Wars was released. Engine was god awful, and the game play mechanics that made Zero Hour so great were gone.
omgwtflawlApr 14, 2010
My co-workers and I absolutely loved Supreme Commander. We had some pretty nice machines on the office network, so we spent many long nights on huge maps with pizza-break intermissions and whiteboard strategy sessions. It was always my favorite strategy to bring in a waterbourne Fatboy invasion when they least expected it. So let me make this as clear as I possibly can: Supreme Commander 2 sucks a bowl of dicks. I still fire up Supcom1 every once in a while, but with SC2 I played it once (after I preordered it!!!) for half an hour and never touched it again. It doesn't look as good as the original, it doesn't have the sense of scale as the original, the resource management (while I know why they changed it) blows, and the single player campaign is filled with spiky-haired androgynous teenagers who Square forgot to put in a FF game.
thomastwhiteApr 14, 2010
Bring back good ol' days .. plz. :)
plagueponyApr 14, 2010
Hell Yeah! Impossible Difficulty on Hard CPUs and TERRIBLE voice acting. Still a great game.
diggbotnessApr 15, 2010
Sorry kleon, he's right. Choosing when/where/which buildings to build is definitely strategy. New RTS like CnC4 completely failed at this, because you basically build 4 structures and you're done. Old RTS had a good 10-15 structures you could build. Maybe you are thinking of single player missions, where you can keep switching up the order in which you build things until you get it right. That's fine, but in multiplayer, where the real game takes place, you have to come up with a build strategy. Decide to build a turret instead of a tank, and you built that turret on the wrong side of your base, you could lose. Or build a turret instead of another refinery, and you start falling behind in resource harvesting.