Ruminations of a jaded Turtle [RTS]

[Aotrs Commander]

One of the things I've always liked most about RTS games is the base-building. I don't play RTS games to play against other people - that's what table-top wargames are for. I am happiest when playing an RTS when given the opportunity to build a massive network of defenses, turtling like mad, while weathering the storm of enemy attacks, until I can build up a massive strike force (or enough super weapons) to crush the enemy; ideally without a time limit so I can take my time and enjoy it, the longer it takes me the better!

(I pretty much play Civ's various incarnations the same way; I love to roll over spearmen with modern armour slowly, while laughing.)

I am however, getting increasingly depressed that RTS games are moving further and further away from that paradigm. Today I found out that Command & Conquer 4; the C&C franshise having been up until now, my paragon of RTS games (reaching it's peak, I think with Tiberium Sun which just eclipses the newer games) will not be including base-building (at least not as it has been.)

I surely cannot be the only person in the world who enjoys that sort of simple-minded struture-related mayhem. So, fellow base builders, as I'm sure you're out there, what games can you recommend past, present or future that can allieviate that itch? (Since replaying C&C for the umpteenth time will eventually lose it's charm...)

Up until now, I've played:

C&C (every game in the franchise, bar, Renegade). Tiberium Sun and Red Alert 2, I think did this best (not that C&C 3 and RA3 were at all bad.) To me, the iconic C&C image is a line of Nod obilisks merrily blasting GDI attackers into fragments in a brilliant display of crimon hurtnitude...

Supreme Commander (and it's spiritual predessor Total Annhilation). Usually I find SC to give me a long drawn-out game and a good chunk of base-building. A mission of SC usually took me an average of four hours. The only thing with SC is that the factions feel too similar; thanks, I think, to the 'real' physics which makes them play more or less the same way but mostly that you hardly see any of the action, since you spend so much time zoomed out really far.

Star Craft. Star Craft 1 is a rusher's game really, and I found playing it a bit too much like hard work! The limited resources didn't help, nor did the twelve units-action limit and the base defenses were pretty lame. Star Craft 2 pending review when it comes out...

Dungeon Keeper 1 (and to a lesser extent DK2) The former definately a favourite game of all time of mine, since it's sort of all about base building, though a different set up to a regular RTS.

Perimeter. Urgh. I thought Perimeter would be the best thing since sliced bread, the paragon of RTS, since it seemed to be all about base building. Boy, was I wrong! I have, twice, tried to play that game, and in both cases (both years apart) been forced to give up after an afternoon's play in disgust. It was so unbelievaly irritating to play.

Spellforce (1 and 2). The former was a better RTS than an RPG, the latter the reverse. That said Spellforce 1 was pretty good on the base building element.

Dawn of War (original to Soul Storm). Not a base building game, no way! A good RTS, but not a base-builder. Dark Crusade was easily the best of the expansions, though since it actually persisted your bases in the campaign. (Unlike many world domination games since, notably Soul Storm and C&C 3's world domination mode *shudder*.)

Universe at War. Good effort, but just not quite manging to get to be as good a game period as C&C, nevermind about the base building.

Battle for Middle Earth II. Not bad, at least you've not got a building cap. Plus archers are fun...

Empire Earth 1. Pretty good in that regard; both times I've played the Novia Russia campaign, in one of the later mission I fortified my island with a literal wall of laser towers. Nice. EE2 was less good and EE3 was...well, this is a nice, friendly board, so let's leave it at that...

Dragonshard. No. Just...no. I don't like fixed plot base-building, since it takes all the fun out of it...It's not that great of an RTS or RPG, either, for that matter...

Star Trek Armada 1 and 2 were kind of forgettable, so much so I can't even remember much about them. The less said about Star Trek New Worlds, the better...I wish I could forget that!

City builders of my experience (Caeser III, Pharoah, Zeus, Caeser IV), while fun, don't really have the attack-y feel. I find the combat parts to be usually rather unsatisfying (and not necessarily easy, either), even if the rest is really good.

Most of the rest of the decent RTS I've played ( Empire at War, Mechcommander 1 and 2, Nexus, Sins of a Solar Empire and (barely qualifying) Genesis Rising and Homworld) don't have base-building. Sins, admittedly, did drastically improve this a bit with the Entrenchment, but it's still not really the same thing. (I find is suffers from SC's zoom-out problems too.)

I actually tried the demo of Plants vrs Zombies, but ultimately, it wasn't quite up my alley.



So, based on those sort of criteria, what else is out there?

Alternatively, you can just join me in reminiscing about Great Bases I've Built and bemoaning that "you just can't make 'em like you used to..."

[EleventhHour]

Battlezone II. Sure, half the buildings you could only build once, but Power Generators, Relay Stations, and Gun Towers, you could build excessive amounts of across the map. And the game was all about trying to claim the scrap-wells instead of conflict. And then whoever had the biggest resource collection steamrollers the other guy in waves of troops. Since the 'obejctives', read : Scrap, would be fortified behind Gun Towers, Lightning towers, piles of Tanks/Warriors, and probably some Repair Trucks.

It was all about defence, aside from the random pushes to claim the resource pools. Heck, you even have a unit on each team that transformed into a weak turret. It's not a true RTS, though, as your first-person not the omnisencent that's normally associated.

I remember Star Trek Armada 2. It is fairly forgettable, but still fun for an occasional game of BORGOWN. (...or doing it Federation style, and sacrificing dozens of men to stablize a Borg-builder's failing life support, and kill the borg crew at the same time, without the engine score dropping to zero and blowing the thing up.)

[Rutskarn]

I agree. Personally, I just don't have the patience, energy, or nerve to micromanage tiny strike forces fifteen seconds into the game in the hopes of kicking him to the curb. What I enjoy is maxing and relaxing behind a network of meticulously constructed defenses while I crank out enough high-powered units to suffocate a small continent.

My current RTS of choice is Warlords: Battlecry III, a game that does (at this difficulty, anyway) allow me to build forces more gradually while weathering his assaults. Only thing is, you do need to maintain a frontier presence to scoop up mines and figure out where he's coming from.

[Maxymiuk]

I find myself in pretty much the same boat - there's a reason I usually play CoH as the Brits these days. I know I'm "playing it wrong" but I have so much fun setting up killzones with a combination of MG and mortar nests that I don't care.

Hmm... the ultimate turtling game for me was Earth 2150. Defense buildings that are actually worth a damn? Check. Modular design, allowing me to put any gun I researched onto a hardpoint, and in some cases stack them? Check. Ability to build dig honest-to-god entrenchment and earthwork fortifications? Check!

The game's old and it has its flaws, but the three factions are distinct enough to require different strategies, turtling works perfectly, the base buildings themselves can be incorporated into the defensive network (since they come with their own hardpoints), and you're free to arm your units or towers however you want.

Though finding the game might be tricky these days.


Rise of Nations doesn't exactly fit the bill, since the defenses you get there are fairly ineffective against any army carrying an artillery piece, but I still had a fair amount of fun laying out cities and their industrial and military infastructure, building a line of forts along a river, etc.


Cossacks and Cossacks 2 (and American Conquest based on the same engine) may focus on packed formations of riflemen shooting each other in the face at ridiculously short ranges, but it's undeniable that in that game a well-positioned tower or fort can stop an advancing army in its tracks. I never get tired of seeing the enemy attack just melt away under the concentrated fire of 300 muskets and 5 cannons.


The Stronghold series, and Stronghold: Crusader in particular are practically made of turtling. Complete freedom in fortification design, a host of options concerning passive and active defenses, traps, and what have you. ability to lob cows at people...


Anyway, those are just the games I can find on my shelf. I'm sure other people can think of the ones I've missed.

[Cristo Meyers]

The Stronghold series, and Stronghold: Crusader in particular are practically made of turtling. Complete freedom in fortification design, a host of options concerning passive and active defenses, traps, and what have you. ability to lob cows at people...


Just Stronghold: Crusader. The first Stronghold lacked a good Skirmish mode (essential for us turtles) and the sequel was just generally lackluster (you can only drop burning logs on an attacking army so many times...).

But Crusader, it's all about the castle building. Plus, a remix version was released recently enough that you can generally find it on the discount rack of some places.

[EleventhHour]

I find myself in pretty much the same boat - there's a reason I usually play CoH as the Brits these days. I know I'm "playing it wrong" but I have so much fun setting up killzones with a combination of MG and mortar nests that I don't care.


Me too! Except I have to use Americans, and I always finish buildingmy elaborate mazes just as my buddy runs them over with his Crocodiles & Shermans, and Panzers go go through in the opposite direction. :smallsigh:

[ZeroNumerous]

I agree. Personally, I just don't have the patience, energy, or nerve to micromanage tiny strike forces fifteen seconds into the game in the hopes of kicking him to the curb.


One of the things I've always liked most about RTS games is the base-building.


I find myself in pretty much the same boat - there's a reason I usually play CoH as the Brits these days. I know I'm "playing it wrong" but I have so much fun setting up killzones with a combination of MG and mortar nests that I don't care.

Bah. All three of you are useless old men. :smalltongue:

Being down in the mud and blood, fighting for your life, winning only by the skin of your teeth or effortlessly crushing a superior force with your micro skill. That's where it's at.

A Dawn of War example: Being able to kill two fully reinforced squads of Slugga Boyz, a half-squad of Shootas and the attached Big Mek with only two full squads of scouts and a full squad of Tac Marines without heavy bolters. That's an accomplishment. That's something you can be proud of.

Starcraft: If you're particularly good, defeating eighteen zerglings and two hydralisks with only six marines, a medic and a firebat. When you turn someone's early zerg rush around into a crushing defeat with nothing but your micro and dumb luck then you can feel good about yourself.

If anything, I find RTS to have turned aside actual micro. CoH, it's expansion, DoWII and the like no longer allow for effective micromanagement due in part to the ease of which units die. I miss the days of Warcraft 3.

[JMobius]

DoWII and the like no longer allow for effective micromanagement due in part to the ease of which units die.

Which is really odd, because micro was supposed to be the focus of the whole game...

[Myshlaevsky]

The main RTS's I play these days are CoH and Medieval II so I can't help you much. The only time I can remember really enjoying into turtling was with a living wall of cannon and grenadiers in the original Cossacks. Other than that, it doesn't do much for me.


Starcraft: If you're particularly good, defeating eighteen zerglings and two hydralisks with only six marines, a medic and a firebat

Best I've ever heard of was ~40 zerglings to two firebats and a medic. In fact, you just reminded me I used to turtle in that game all the time too. More pylons. You always need more pylons.

[ZeroNumerous]

Which is really odd, because micro was supposed to be the focus of the whole game...

It is, in the campaign. When you're forced to use just four groups of guys you have to have some tactics. But in skirmish? Crank out your tanks then either ignore your infantry or summon infantry. Roll over the enemy because trying to be unique or special just results in losing.

It's particularly sad for Tyranids. Gunfex > Anything else you can build. :smallfrown:

[Aotrs Commander]

A Dawn of War example: Being able to kill two fully reinforced squads of Slugga Boyz, a half-squad of Shootas and the attached Big Mek with only two full squads of scouts and a full squad of Tac Marines without heavy bolters. That's an accomplishment. That's something you can be proud of.

Starcraft: If you're particularly good, defeating eighteen zerglings and two hydralisks with only six marines, a medic and a firebat. When you turn someone's early zerg rush around into a crushing defeat with nothing but your micro and dumb luck then you can feel good about yourself.

Faaar too much like hard work, that is. I play computer games specifically to relax. Frantic mouse-clicking is not what I consider 'relaxing'... I'm not an adrenaline junkie at all, even at the best of times. (Seriously, I own only, like, two FPS, Voyager Elite force and C&C Renegade; I completed the former one and got stuck in the latter. (Mass Effect doesn't count...)

When I have to do something that takes a lot of player skill (rather than player planning) - which there is a moderate amount of in my JRPGs - I usually don't feel a sense of accomplishment, just a sense of relief that I can get on with the next bit of the game, since I find such things almost unilaterally very hard and extremely frustrating. And I just don't find that fun. (Yes, I do suck at computer games; why d'yer think I prefer RTS, strats, sims and RPGs!)

When I do want a hard tactical challenge and to be put under pressure, I play a table-top wargame - as the ones I play, at least, are very tactically demanding. They are definately not your W40k of Flames or War standard (in fact, some folks won't play with us because they say the games - not the rules, mind, the tactical puzzle - to hard.)

When I win there, then I get my sense of accomplishment! (Such as the time when I was playing modern naval and I managed with my Russians to beat off a combined British/American attack through a combination of dumb luck and tactical knowledge. The gamemaster for that game later told my by rights, I should have lost that. That's my gold star game!)

I always find it amusing, since it's pretty much the opposite of what I want out of my computer games. Really, I want them to the Dungeon of Monsters That Are Just Strong Enough To Really Challenge You...

[Blayze]

Ah, the days when I played Protoss. I don't think I'd ever heard of aggressive turtling before I started expanding across the map with cannon after cannon after cannon.

In team games, I seem to work best holding back and protecting -- and in some cases even *building* all the bases. In one 4v4 on C&C3, I spent the entire time NODding my way to victory, building the world's greatest defensive line while my allies stormed ahead and did stuff -- and I had the time of my life.


I find myself in pretty much the same boat - there's a reason I usually play CoH as the Brits these days. I know I'm "playing it wrong" but I have so much fun setting up killzones with a combination of MG and mortar nests that I don't care.

I like playing as the Wehrmacht for a similar reason, but for me it involves going Defensive and setting up a network of bunkers and AT/AA guns that slowly secures area after area -- using the remote-controlled bombs to clear enemies out of the way -- until I dominate the entire map.

As for Soulstorm, there's at least one mod out there that gives you back persistent bases. I don't know if it was actually finished properly or not, or if the coding involved was used in other projects like the author said it was going to be.

That and the fact that Soulstorm is a buggy, unfinished hack job of a failed patch attempt are the reasons I play Dark Crusade.

"There is mischief to be done", indeed. You're the Dark Eldar! You torture bodies, minds, hearts and souls! You don't ruthlessly and nastily... PRANK people.

[factotum]

I agree. Personally, I just don't have the patience, energy, or nerve to micromanage tiny strike forces fifteen seconds into the game in the hopes of kicking him to the curb. What I enjoy is maxing and relaxing behind a network of meticulously constructed defenses while I crank out enough high-powered units to suffocate a small continent.


I'm with you there--there were a few maps during the campaign game of Starcraft where I basically turtled up and ran the enemy out of resources before launching any sort of counterattack! It comes down to wanting to play the game at my own pace, not someone else's--I think that's why I never got into multiplayer games generally; too much rushing around trying to get stuff done for my taste. (I did play WoW for 14 months, but that game had the advantage of having lots and lots of stuff that you could do solo).

[Aotrs Commander]

Hmm... the ultimate turtling game for me was Earth 2150. Defense buildings that are actually worth a damn? Check. Modular design, allowing me to put any gun I researched onto a hardpoint, and in some cases stack them? Check. Ability to build dig honest-to-god entrenchment and earthwork fortifications? Check!

I found a website selling Earth 2150 Trilogy as a download for the princley sum of $5.99 (whic is what £3.50 or so). For that price, you pays your money... Got to be worth a shot!

[Murska]

Best I've ever heard of was ~40 zerglings to two firebats and a medic. In fact, you just reminded me I used to turtle in that game all the time too. More pylons. You always need more pylons.

Mangoon. Just... Mangoon. :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Link. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzPiDOh9430&feature=channel_page)

[Fri]

Mangoon. Just... Mangoon. :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Link. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzPiDOh9430&feature=channel_page)

That's so epic.

[Eskil]

So, fellow base builders, as I'm sure you're out there, what games can you recommend past, present or future that can allieviate that itch?
I like Age of Empires II and it's expansion. It's been a while since I played it but from what I remember putting up walls and towers to build your army in peace worked well enough.

[The_JJ]

Hmm...

I'm weird in this regard.

I really enjoy the Total War series, which is all combat, no base building at all. Fear the thundering hooves of my kahnigets, fools!

But when I get my hands on other RTS's, like say EE or AoEII I enjoy my turtle madness.

Favorite EE tactic was a line of towers backed by arty. When air power becomes avalible, I'd build 5x5 diamonds of flak/missile launchers. Over kill, but fun. Then I'd spam nuke bombers and/or and mass arty + a few snipers for spotting.

[shadowxknight]

You might want to try LotR: Battle for Middle Earth 2. I thought that game was pretty epic and fun :smallbiggrin:

[TheLogman]

Warcraft wasn't terribly complex, but I always liked it. Part of my childhood growing up was spent playing Warcraft 2.

Play as the Horde, and not only do you get as many towers as you want, but you can plant those explosive runes.

Plus, the map creation was great. I once made a enemy turtle so tough that it was impossible to break. So many towers...

[ZeroNumerous]

EDIT: Link. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzPiDOh9430&feature=channel_page)

Win. Just pure win.

[Surrealistik]

Watching that Dragoon scarcely win frustrated me to no end. I completely empathized with the terran player.

[ZeroNumerous]

Watching that Dragoon scarcely win frustrated me to no end. I completely empathized with the terran player.

Really, it was his own fault he lost that one. If he had bothered to set up more of his economy and only devoted 3 SCVs instead of 5 he'd probably have marine range to counter it.

[Surrealistik]

Given how close that Dragoon was to dying all throughout, he probably could have done it with even slightly better micro. Either way though yes, it was ultimately his fault for failing to win. Still in all frustrating to watch.

[Blayze]

Almost forgot: Evil Genius.You can't actually block off access to your base, the agents just mine their way in if they can't walk somewhere. Still, setting up Wind traps that blow people into other traps...

[Triaxx]

If you liked AoE 2, you'll probably also like SW:GB. The ability to turtle is improved even more. Especially with the addition of garrisoning animals.

TA was my first RTS. Bought it, got it home, and the first memory I have is 'Your Peeper is under attack.' Hilarious at the time.

I still remember the old definitions for the various types of players.

Porcupine: Small, compact base with powerful defensive weapons. Missiles, Lasers, artillery. You could get in, but it cost you a lot of units, and in time the wreckage built it's own defensive wall.

Eagle: Specializing in air power, the eagle built mostly planes and used them to knock out metal extractors, and keep the enemy economy crushed.

Octopus: One big base, and lots of smaller bases scattered over the map. Crush the big one and it would just enlarge a smaller base to become the big one.

[Hunter Noventa]

Sins of a Solar Empire is a pretty good RTS in general, especially if you get the expansion that increases your defensive options and lets you build massive customizable starbases. It's a nice slow game, too, especially if you turn off pirates. Because if you don't turn off pirates they show up in your least defended system with more ships than you could physically have if you did nothing but build ships because you have to expand to build better and more ships faster. Infuriating really.

[Cristo Meyers]

Sins of a Solar Empire is a pretty good RTS in general, especially if you get the expansion that increases your defensive options and lets you build massive customizable starbases. It's a nice slow game, too, especially if you turn off pirates. Because if you don't turn off pirates they show up in your least defended system with more ships than you could physically have if you did nothing but build ships because you have to expand to build better and more ships faster. Infuriating really.

Yeah, but their ships are made out of tissue paper mixed with explodium.

Still very annoying though, espeically in the early game when to keep them off of your tragically underdefended backside you have to pay out a huge bounty on the other guys...

[JMobius]

What, you pay off the pirates to give them to some other guy? :smalleek:

Those things are worth mad XP for your starter capital ship.

[Cristo Meyers]

What, you pay off the pirates to give them to some other guy? :smalleek:

Those things are worth mad XP for your starter capital ship.

If your starter cap ship can get there in time and doesn't just get swarmed and destroyed. I usually take the colony cap ship, which doesn't stand up to direct pirate assault swarm exceptionally well.

[JMobius]

Ah, I see. I'd always take the Kol Battleship or equivalent. For some reason it had never occurred to me that people would take anything else. :smallconfused:

[Cristo Meyers]

Ah, I see. I'd always take the Kol Battleship or equivalent. For some reason it had never occurred to me that people would take anything else. :smallconfused:

Saves on having to build colony ships, which are pretty much just liabilities with engines. The colony capital easily has enough power to take out small forces on its own, opening up that extra cash flow for other smaller ships.

The Kol is usually number #2 on my list, though :smallwink: But that's neither here nor there. The man wants to get his turtle on, and we're here to help.

If you haven't gone the route before, some of the 4X games can make for a nice experience, if a little different. I know watching the other races send wave after wave of ships against my defense network in Space Empires IV gives me no end of laughter.

[warty goblin]

Indeed, when it comes to playing defensively, Sins of a Solar Empire with Entrenchment is a hard game to beat. Even without it I found it perfectly possible to set up a planet with enough turrets and repair bays to completely dice a pirate fleet- although to do this you really need to fortify a rock right next to their base.

I also like it because I can play the game with a minimum of micromanagement. I don't have quite the hangup about micro that I used to, since I've found enough modern games that make the process at least reasonably verisimilitudenous, but the strategy in Sins is, to me at least, all about fleet movement and location. For a game set in a vacuum, this makes landscape matter a whole aweful lot, and gives a nicely paranoid feeling to playing defensively. Plus some of the maneuvres are downright devious. I distinctly recall having my primary fleet mashed about on an offensive before withdrawing to a friendly planet, then building a second, smaller fleet specifically to destroy a neutral third party. This was of course so I could establish a flanking position and hit my original enemy from a different angle, hopefully drawing away their primary fleet, which would allow my first fleet to break through.

Also, starbases are the most awesome defensive buildings ever. I mean really, just get one of those suckers with full offensive upgrades and watch them in action. Absolutely beautiful...

[shadowxknight]

If you like base building, I would recommend you to play Battle Realms. The interface is similar to Warcraft 3.
The special feature about this game is that units become upgraded when they enter different buildings. However this only applies to three buildings, so don't get too excited. It's actually been a while since I played this game and I'm pretty bad at explaining. If curious I think you can pick this game up for less than 10 dollars.

[Blayze]

I always go Kol first, and surround the planet with Gauss guns. I might see how the dedicated support craft group Capital works out if I don't build any Hangars.

[tribble]

seriously, no mention of Dwarf Fortress yet? for shame. you dont like fast-paced keyboard mashing, you like to play at your own pace, you like to mass defenses and build cities... Dwarf Fortress is the game for you.

[Cubey]

Dwarf Fortress isn't really an RTS... despite being real time. And callous strategy.

I personally don't like turtling. I don't see it requiring any strategic or tactical skills whatsoever (Not bashing anyone's playstyle, just stating my opinion. I just... don't see how building fortifications requires any type of RTS skill). I prefer games where it doesn't work very well.

[Winterwind]

I personally don't like turtling. I don't see it requiring any strategic or tactical skills whatsoever. I prefer games where it doesn't work very well.You have no idea how much I have to hold back to not post an enthusiastic, fiery speech praising the manifold merits of non-turtling, commemorating its continuous action and dynamic, complex tactics. :smallbiggrin:

[Cubey]

I see RTS games as fast-paced challenges where you have to quickly set up your base and expand it just as rapidly, all that while scouting up ahead to see where the enemy base is located and what kind of units does it produce - so you can create your own units that will counter them. And once your strike force is ready - crush the opponent.

There is simply no time for slow, laidback base building in this scenario. If I want to do that, I play a turn based strategy game. Actually... even in GalCiv II, I give rapid expansion as a priority. It pays off well in lategame.

But there are games that are all about building your base/castle/whatever. Dwarf Fortress is one of them. Stronghold is another - both were mentioned in this thread. But I don't consider them RTS titles, even though they are in real time. I consider them simulation games, like Sim City or Startopia. And I like these titles very much, but I don't play an RTS hoping that it has to offer the same thing as these games do.

[Blayze]

Actually... even in GalCiv II, I give rapid expansion as a priority. It pays off well in lategame.

Heh. I prefer the soft-soft-WHAM approach. In other words:

1) Create custom race with Korath tech tree. Spend your points on influence and diplomacy. Any spare points go in research.
2) Begin diplospam. Get as many planets and as much tech from every other species as you can, but make sure to spread as much of your tech to the other species as possible. The Minor Races will serve you extremely well in this regard, if only as ways for you to get the common techs for free -- every common tech you give them is one they won't research, meaning more chance of a common tech you haven't already worked on.
3) Deploy the "Galaxy Flipper" (Dark Influencer) building on all your planets.

I need to get around to trying this on the biggest map size, as up till now I've only tried it on the smallest. That and I want to try out the Krynn tech tree, just to mess around with starbases properly...

[Cubey]

Don't Korath only get Basic Diplomacy as a research option? Even with racial bonuses, your diplomacy will be pretty low.

But yeah, using and abusing Minor Races is what GalCiv is all about.

[Aotrs Commander]

I personally don't like turtling. I don't see it requiring any strategic or tactical skills whatsoever (Not bashing anyone's playstyle, just stating my opinion. I just... don't see how building fortifications requires any type of RTS skill). I prefer games where it doesn't work very well.

I personally am not fond of rushing, since I don't like to be pressured when I'm playing. I find it takes a lot of the fun out of a game if I have to rush about like a headless chicken - which you tend to do in most games where turtling is infeasible or non-existant. Heck, I haven't ever completed NWN2:Mask of the Betrayer, just because having to rush through the game avoid my soul collapsing in on itself made it feel more like chore to play.


You have no idea how much I have to hold back to not post an enthusiastic, fiery speech praising the manifold merits of non-turtling, commemorating its continuous action and dynamic, complex tactics. :smallbiggrin:

Most of which merits lack somewhat if you don't play against people...AI is usually not that much of a challenge in that way (and frankly, I, personally, don't want it to be.)

Quite simply, multiplayer is, by it's nature (most often), competative play, and I don't play competative games, computer, console, tabletop or otherwise*. I'm just not very competative. Megalomanical and domineering and a control-freak, yes; competative, no. As I said, I do not get a rush of adrenaline from anything (except perhaps orbital bombardment...) and I just don't find it fun. (As an illustrative corrollary, I find people's fasination for sports - of all stripes - to be utterly incomprehensible.) If I'm playing a non-sentient (i.e. playing on computer, not the tabletop), I like to plan, take my time to build up and then steamroller over the opposition slowly, while laughing. Whether I'm playing C&C, Civ IV, Final Fantasy or Baldur's Gate.



I've got and completed Battle for Middle-Earth 2 (or as I call it, Command&Conquer Generals: Middle Earth...) Evil Genius I forgot about (been there, clocked that...) I've played a bit with Sins and Entrenchment, though not a great deal.

Someone mentioned SW:GB, which I hazard is Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds. Which I found somewhat too bland (and practical identical to Age of Empires 1, which I also have.) While I could forgive the minimal differences between nations in AoE, the fact that the seperate sides in Galactic Battlegrounds all played the same was something I couldn't. Apart from the different art, there wasn't really much differences; and the base building was a bit bland too. Star Wars: Empire at War is so much infinitely better (even though it has less sides to choose from) it isn't even funny. And EaW is definately not a base building game.

Actually, EaW is one of the few non-base builders that's not very rush-friendly and does require a lot of stratagy. If I ever wrote an RTS, I'd probably do it like they did; in that you build units in the globally and then deploy/summon (etc) them to the battlefield. Much better than the paradigm where battle map units and campaign units are only loosely linked (see the domination/camigns modes of aforementioned BFME 2, C&C 3: Kane's Wrath, DoW: Dark Crusade etc etc). I think it's an excellent balance between planning, turtling and rushing, because neither of the latter two really work (at least not without strategic support - which is not as frenetic), so you have to stratagise a bit more.

Would that other RTS followed that example; and not, it would seem Dawn of War 2's, which doesn't sound nearly so polished in theory. Though I can't speak from first-hand experience, only what I've read. (Not that with limited resources, rushing is necessarily going to be any more possible than turtling, for what I understand.)


If I want to do that, I play a turn based strategy game. Actually... even in GalCiv II, I give rapid expansion as a priority. It pays off well in lategame.

You kinda have to in Civ III, too (not so much in Civ IV though). However, as you're not under any time pressure - you can take as long as you like planning in each turn - I don't find this to be the same pressure as in a real-time game. My tactics then tend to be expand, then tech-up, then whomp. Don't tend to turtle as much on those games, but mainly because I play the easy difficulty levels and don't fight any wars until I'm good and ready if I can avoid it. (Moo3 being an exception, since you pretty much have to fight while you tech-up! That's a fun - if very long - game.)



Anyway, I'm having a crack at Earth 2150; though I'm not loving the time limit, but hey, the expansions don't have it, and I've not even done the first mission yet; early days, so... And for the price of a trip into town and back (yes, public transport really is that bad in Derby) I can't really complain.

I'll probably have a look at 2160 to, once I've finished (since that apparently has broken-strong base defenses - sounds good to me!)




*Clarification: with regard to tabletop wargaming, this means I play to have a good (and preferably bloody) game. The winning or losing doesn't matter, so long as the bit in the middle is an entertaining challenge. But, like I say, I play wargames for a different reason to computer games. Computer games I play for fun and a harmless way to excoriate my mad, powerhungry urges to kill and destroy so I don't take it out on real people in a wargame, as DM or in real (un)life...

[Cubey]

I personally am not fond of rushing, since I don't like to be pressured when I'm playing. I find it takes a lot of the fun out of a game if I have to rush about like a headless chicken - which you tend to do in most games where turtling is infeasible or non-existant. Heck, I haven't ever completed NWN2:Mask of the Betrayer, just because having to rush through the game avoid my soul collapsing in on itself made it feel more like chore to play.

While for me, the rush of adrenaline you receive when you have to do so many things at the start of an RTS match is what makes the game most fun. I like to lay back and take a good look at my sprawling empire as well, but I don't play an RTS to do that.

Okay, one more thing I found that I dislike in turtles. They have a tendency (which I fortunately did NOT find in anyone posting in this thread, so far at least) to consider their style "superior". Because quick action, which does not necessary have to be rushing, requires fast reflexes, then everyone who has reflexes to do that has to be an idiot rush-clicker without a brain. And games that promote quick matches (Red Alert 3 for example) apparently do not have an ounce of strategy in them, they're only about how fast you can click.
I despise such opinions. These people can play in their own style if they want, but they shouldn't bash others! Especially those who do better in a game than they do - it's so easy for them to rationalize superior skill as being an idiot click-happy monkey. ARGH!

*the post devolves into incoherent ranting*

[Cristo Meyers]

But there are games that are all about building your base/castle/whatever. Dwarf Fortress is one of them. Stronghold is another - both were mentioned in this thread. But I don't consider them RTS titles, even though they are in real time. I consider them simulation games, like Sim City or Startopia. And I like these titles very much, but I don't play an RTS hoping that it has to offer the same thing as these games do.

Actually Stronghold has always called itself a "Castle Sim," so you're not far off.

I'm with Aotrs in that I like playing the game at my own pace and slowly building up a large warmachine. The adrenaline comes in when the enemy throws a wrench into the works and all of a sudden I have to react.

That and I get a kick out of building meat-grinders for the enemy to send troops through. Stronghold: Crusader's good for that one too...though it did reveal to me my wife's odd inclination towards fire pits...

[EleventhHour]

I actually consider my style insuperior to the rushing people. But I love to do it anyway.

Like in Company of Heros (I'm just going to keep my references to this one, as it's the one I've been playing recently) I'll build my maze of sandbags.

Tank Traps lined with sandbags, with concentric angled sangbags behind them, firing pits (rings) for mortars, funnels, machine gun crossfires, fallback points, reserve blockades, trap corridors (mines), and so on. It's fun to build, I normally block off an entire corridor, bridge, et cetra, of the map, but I either just get a bunch of tanks that roll through it since even the massed Rangers/other AT fire isn't enough to stop a Tankrush, or they just drive around and take an alternate route to my base. Normally all the while my allies are yelling at me to move, and I'm thinking, well if you'd set up a defence, we could just wait them out for a little.

Normally, my plan is to build this massive defence and when (if) I weather thier first attack, I'll have an army big enough to swarm out of the defences and overrun thier next attack. This admittedly works worse and worse the newer the RTS is.

:smalltongue:

[Hunter Noventa]

Count me among the people that doesn't much enjoy the rushing part of most RTS games these days. I have Warcraft 3, Dow 1+2, Supereme Commander, Red Alert 3, etc, I like them all for the most part, but each one evokes a different mood when playing it. Or to be more accurate, requires a specific mood to want to play it. Hence, Civ 4 sees a lot more play than say, DoW 2, despite both being cool games in their own right.

[Aotrs Commander]

Okay, one more thing I found that I dislike in turtles. They have a tendency (which I fortunately did NOT find in anyone posting in this thread, so far at least) to consider their style "superior".

And those folks are undoubtably the ones going to the C&C forums and starting flame wars about how "EA are ruining C&C" (thought to be fair, EA got that from C&C 3 and RA3, both of which are excellent games in my opinion...)



I did briefly consider making my opinion politely known (I don't flame or rant, as you've probably gathered!) on the C&C boards, but as there wasn't a bemoaning or opinion thread on the subject and it seemed all was sanguine, I elected not to - and to come here and start looking in other directions.

I will, doubtless, play C&C 4, but soley because I'm a fan of the franchise - and Kane in particular - and if for no other reason as to see how it all ends. The sacrifice to Steam (or whatever) may ultimately have to be made for that - as it was for Monkey Island Special Edition. I wasn't so fond of DoW - especially the naffinitude of Soul Storm* - that was I prepared to do the same for DoW 2 though!




It's odd though, because I attriubted the steady decline of turtle-friendly games to the rise of multiplayer, and assumed I was gradually being squeezed out of the market, being a cantankerous old single-player. So I was surprised when during the run-up to Uprising, someone on the C&C baords said that - as with RA3 online activation they could say with some degree of accuracy - that most of the people who bought it were single-player only. Hense Uprising being single-player only expansion.

And yet, given that, I still have not grasped as to why they made the Challenges more or less incompletable unless you rush, and gave you ludicrously competative set times. I mean, I'd have thought you'd want to maximise the amount of playing time with your maps (seeing as the campaigns were short), but no. There's only so many times you can use VX Spam before it gets old. And, fer cryin' out loud, I liked the Empire least out of the sides! Guh...

One cannot help but wonder if many of the big companies are trying to surrupticiously shove us dedicated single players into being multiplayers so that they can start charging (or charging more) for online play and making a fortune...

'Course, I'm cynical...



*Seriously, how bad it is when the skirmish missions are harder and less fun than the big 'campaign' missions? I was playing the Necrons, and having stuffed the Sisters of Battle's HQ, ended up tackling their last country afterwards. Ye gods, it must have taken me three bloody hours and the loss of my entire retinue - and several restarts - before I got anywhere with the computer literally filling the map with structres. Talk about tediously hard! It was, not, as they say, much fun...

[Winterwind]

I'd like to point out one thing though - rushing is not the only alternative to turtling. A rush is a good strategical option, but (at least in the RTSs I'm familiar with, which is admittedly a somewhat outdated standard, as the last game I bought lies... a few years back, to say the least) there are other equally good strategical options.

Against an equally skilled opponent, a rush is not particularly likely to do all that much damage; most likely not enough damage, anyway, to be in any way decisive. Games between players on the same level tend to last quite a while; yes, there are going to be battles and skirmishes between their armies pretty much right from the start, but those do not typically bring an early end; rather, the armies keep being pushed back and forth; attack, find themselves outnumbered, retreat, and attack again as soon as they meet up with the perpetually arriving reinforcements. Hit and run tactics, to distract the opponent or have them slowly bleed to death by doing a little damage every time. Pushing the opponent back far enough to contain them in their base while one expands all over the map to break them with superior economy. Quick strikes at their expansions to deny them any economy. Trying to lure the enemy force into an ambush, with several unit groups flanking the opponent as soon as their army pushes forward too far, attacking from all directions at once, maximizing the damage output and preventing them from fleeing. Etc.

I understand that your main reason for preferring turtling is because you enjoy a more relaxed way of playing, and that's a completely valid and respectable reason. But please don't say it as if the only alternative to turtling would be trying to crush the opponent within three minutes and games not involving a million towers never lasted any longer than that and contained nothing but trying to attack before the opponent does. :smallwink:

[Fri]

This is why I prefer Turn based strategy anyway. If only it's not that rare right now :smallsigh:

By the way, any recommendation on a new tbs? And by new I do mean other than battle of westnoth or panzer general.

I guess I could play panzer general again but... sigh.

[Timberwolf]

"Great bases I have built..."

Me and a friend used to play C+C red alert over linked playstations. He attacked the "Castle of Tesla" with a huge assed fleet of Gunboats. It was over very, very quickly.

I love Supreme Commander, it's easily my favourite RTS as you have so many options. TA is also awesome but I don't have it any more, which is unfortunate. I love being Cybran and turtling while building up a fleet of 20 or so Soul Rippers and leveling anything in my path.

[Cubey]

GalCiv II fulfils all my 4X needs. And if I want to play something less strategic and more tactical...

Well. That's what I have SRW and Fire Emblem for.

[Winterwind]

By the way, any recommendation on a new tbs? And by new I do mean other than battle of westnoth or panzer general.

I guess I could play panzer general again but... sigh.It might be slightly difficult to grasp if one is not familiar with the rules of the Classic BattleTech tabletop game, but MegaMek (http://megamek.sourceforge.net/idx.php?pg=main) is free and great fun, in my opinion. And the AI is moderately competent, too.

[Timberwolf]

Have you played Combat Mission 1 - 3, damn good but may be a bit close to Panzer General.

[Fri]

Interesting, especially the megamek (though I don't play competitive game ever). But are there any TBS with REAL graphic? I usually don't care about graphic. Hell, I still play DOS games right now. But the lack of new TBS, one with real graphic, 3d or otherwise, pisess me off.

[chiasaur11]

GalCiv II fulfils all my 4X needs. And if I want to play something less strategic and more tactical...

Well. That's what I have SRW and Fire Emblem for.

And where does the good old extraterrestrial combat unit fit into this?

[Winterwind]

Interesting, especially the megamek (though I don't play competitive game ever).Well, as I mentioned, you can have the other side be controlled by the AI, if you don't wish to play against humans. :smallwink:


But are there any TBS with REAL graphic? I usually don't care about graphic. Hell, I still play DOS games right now. But the lack of new TBS, one with real graphic, 3d or otherwise, pisess me off.None that I know of and that haven't already been mentioned, sorry. :smallfrown:

[Cristo Meyers]

Ordinarily I'd recommend Sins of a Solar Empire, as it is slow-paced enough to hover on that line between Real-Time and Turn-based, but experience has told me it doesn't quite scratch the itch.

Sadly, the closest we seem to get to a real TBS these days are the hybrids that have a Turn-based overworld map with real-time battles. Outside of Civ 4 the only other TBS I can think of is Space Empires IV, and that's really a 4x anyway.

[Maxymiuk]

Interesting, especially the megamek (though I don't play competitive game ever). But are there any TBS with REAL graphic? I usually don't care about graphic. Hell, I still play DOS games right now. But the lack of new TBS, one with real graphic, 3d or otherwise, pisess me off.

There's a new-ish (2007) TBS I played recently called Galactic Assault: Prisoner of Power from Paradox Interactive. It's obscure enough not to have a Wikipedia entry, though you can find some reviews here and there. Graphics are nice enough and I suppose it's ok as far as the strategy part goes. Didn't really draw me in, probably because the campaign repeatedly throws missions of the "you're ridiculously outnumbered, so make one bad move and you've lost" variety at you, while I prefer having some tactical flexibility in my games.

[Philistine]

While for me, the rush of adrenaline you receive when you have to do so many things at the start of an RTS match is what makes the game most fun. I like to lay back and take a good look at my sprawling empire as well, but I don't play an RTS to do that.
You keep using the word "strategy." I do not think it means what you think it means.


Strategy - The science and art of using all the forces of a nation to execute approved plans as effectively as possible during peace or war; or, the science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of large-scale combat operations.

The problem is that what you describe is Not Strategy - it's Action. It's grunt work. Strategy is about long-range planning and development - it's what army commanders plot in their far-behind-the-lines HQs, usually well in advance of any actual fighting. It's not, generally, the stuff of adrenaline rushes.

And yes, so-called RTS games' focus on micromanagement most definitely does reward players with crazy-fast mouse clickin' skillz, and it definitely does come at the expense of actual strategic depth. Whether that makes for a better or worse game is up to individual taste, but... Strategists aren't down in the trenches spotting targets for Sergeant Smith with the RPG, then ordering Corporal Jones to bring his first aid kit and patch up Private Johnson; that's grunt work. Strategists are far removed from such matters, pondering questions like, "Will I actually need to invade Hostile Island Nation X, or can I throw up a blockade and starve them out? What's the cost of each of those options? And what about diplomatic approaches - we've shown them the stick, now is it time to offer them a little taste of the carrot?"

[Timberwolf]

There's a new-ish (2007) TBS I played recently called Galactic Assault: Prisoner of Power from Paradox Interactive. It's obscure enough not to have a Wikipedia entry, though you can find some reviews here and there. Graphics are nice enough and I suppose it's ok as far as the strategy part goes. Didn't really draw me in, probably because the campaign repeatedly throws missions of the "you're ridiculously outnumbered, so make one bad move and you've lost" variety at you, while I prefer having some tactical flexibility in my games.

Don't bother, I have it, played it, hated it.

Combat missions the best I can recommend, real graphics, enough stats and so on (even down to the slope of armour on tanks) to satisfy the really interested and a good system.

[Cubey]

And where does the good old extraterrestrial combat unit fit into this?

I finished X-Com Apoc recently so I'm giving them a short break. These are great games, but not ones I can replay over and over and still enjoy. They need cooldown between playthroughs.



You keep using the word "strategy." I do not think it means what you think it means.

There is no need to be condescending. I am perfectly aware of difference between strategy and tactics. RTS titles usually have latter rather than former, despite having the "strategy" part in their genre's name. But the genre is still called RTS. This is an established name, regardless of how accurate it is. Do not insult my knowledge just because I am using already established terminology.

I mean, what you did here is like telling someone that they don't know what a worm is because they called a legless lizard a "slow worm", while it is neither a worm nor particularly slow. It's still an established term, get over it.

[ZeroNumerous]

Strategists aren't down in the trenches spotting targets for Sergeant Smith with the RPG, then ordering Corporal Jones to bring his first aid kit and patch up Private Johnson; that's grunt work. Strategists are far removed from such matters, pondering questions like ...

I disagree.

I favor both RTSes and TBSes. I can conquer China, I can defeat Orks for the Emperor, I can bring soft little Poland to power by defeating Germany before it ever gets to Blitz me. But a good strategist knows that it's not his plan that matters, because his plan is only framework. Anything more than framework falls apart as soon as you make contact with the enemy. A good strategist knows that it's grunt work which wins the day.

Sun Tzu said it best: “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”

Personally, I love playing against any established strategy in an RTS. Usually I give someone plenty of time to set up their defenses if that's what they want to do. But I answer their defenses with artillery, with missiles and airdrops. If someone rushes, then answer it with micro. Don't advocate only one style of play over any other.


I wasn't so fond of DoW - especially the naffinitude of Soul Storm* - that was I prepared to do the same for DoW 2 though!

I find it isn't terribly good for people who want to play it slow(and frankly, the campaign sucks pretty badly for any of the DoW games). IG and Tau are the slowest races to play in the game, as both require vehicles to push toward victory. DoW 2 got rid of the one thing I enjoyed about the DoW series though: Good micromanagement. For that, I hate DoW2.

[Fri]

Personally, I love playing against any established strategy in an RTS. Usually I give someone plenty of time to set up their defenses if that's what they want to do. But I answer their defenses with artillery, with missiles and airdrops. If someone rushes, then answer it with micro. Don't advocate only one style of play over any other.


I agree with this. I suck at RTS, but this is how I... supposed to play.

Isn't that's the point of strategy game? counter your enemy's strategy and such?

[Aotrs Commander]

I understand that your main reason for preferring turtling is because you enjoy a more relaxed way of playing, and that's a completely valid and respectable reason. But please don't say it as if the only alternative to turtling would be trying to crush the opponent within three minutes and games not involving a million towers never lasted any longer than that and contained nothing but trying to attack before the opponent does. :smallwink:

I never said it was, not intentionally anyway. I did say I didn't like rushing and bemoaned that the challenges in RA3 Uprising relied on rushing (as if you didn't you got whomped after a while.) I'm well aware there is the middle ground (Empire at War being the shining example.)


I personally am not fond of rushing, since I don't like to be pressured when I'm playing. I find it takes a lot of the fun out of a game if I have to rush about like a headless chicken - which you tend to do in most games where turtling is infeasible or non-existant. Heck, I haven't ever completed NWN2:Mask of the Betrayer, just because having to rush through the game avoid my soul collapsing in on itself made it feel more like chore to play.

I perhaps used 'rushing' in the above quote slightly incorrectly, though, which might have given that impression; I was responding (sort of, though perhaps to as clearly as I might) to Cubey's post:


I see RTS games as fast-paced challenges where you have to quickly set up your base and expand it just as rapidly, all that while scouting up ahead to see where the enemy base is located and what kind of units does it produce - so you can create your own units that will counter them. And once your strike force is ready - crush the opponent.

Which, while perhaps not 'rushing' as in the early win/spam tactic (like having to frantically whack out a half-dozen/dozen VXs in the RA Uprising challenges so as to not get slaughted down the line...), it is certainly 'being rushed'; i.e having to come into a mission and click like mad for a few minutes. Which is subtly different, and what I personally find unfun. I don't really get on with anything that requires me to micromange at speed (micromanage at leisure is fine...), inevitably because I can't do it very well and it takes too much effort to be enjoyable when I have to do so.

I suspect that were I to play against people who weren't playing soley to win (the sort of people I play on the tabletop, who just want to have a good game) , or occasionally [female canine]-y rush-based AI like RA 3, the middle ground would more evident, though.

Trouble is, in many (though by no means all) RTS, the middle ground comes at the cost of requiring some level of sportsmanship (i.e. giving both sides some modicum of time to amass there forces enough to actual have something to stragise with (as ZeroNumerous seems to or I would myself were I to play againsts people and as I do on the tabletop) or just plain not abusing the loopholes). Which is not evident in a proportion of players or not in the AI; the latter, of course, being my preferred opponents.

C&C has, Uprising challenges aside, has consistently hit the balance about right, in my opinion, which is why I like the series so much. I can turtle away to my heart's content, but it isn't the only viable alternative (though C&C 3 and RA3 seem to have a bit more of an easily-abusable rush or spam problem at least at the mulitplayer level.)

But I does likes my laser towers, and it seems less more modern RTS are liable to give me them. Whether or not at the other extreme, the early/spam-rushers (as opposed to the merely do-things-very-fast-micromanagers, who let's face it can cover the whole range from rusher to turtler) are going to find it equally thin on the ground is another question. E.g. I don't know what DoW 2 is like, but my albeit limited understanding is that unit production and resources isn't quite so readily available to support a spam-rush. (But I could easily be wrong either way, of course.)

To make myself completely clear: I consider rushing and turtling are merely the two most visible extremes and that doesn't mean there's no middle ground between them; it's going to be a sliding scale for most people (heck, you have to adapt it to different games anyway). I however, am certainly at the turtling end, given half a chance (which I do not consider superior to the others, merely different).




I find it isn't terribly good for people who want to play it slow(and frankly, the campaign sucks pretty badly for any of the DoW games). IG and Tau are the slowest races to play in the game, as both require vehicles to push toward victory. DoW 2 got rid of the one thing I enjoyed about the DoW series though: Good micromanagement. For that, I hate DoW2.

I kinda liked the Dark crusade campaign, actually. I thought it was the best out the group. (I did, admittedly, play through it with the Necrons...)

DoW wasn't nearly so much hard work as Starcraft, for example; the latter of which I waded through the campaign but never made it through the expansions, rendering it more or less the only RTS I left fallow not because it was crap, but because it was too hard!

I'm a bit surpised they took out the micromanagement of DoW2, though. I thought the whole point was smaller armies and less units with more RPG elements, which made the individual units more important. Whcih you'd have thought would have increased the micromanagement, since it'd be easier...The mind boggles.

[ZeroNumerous]

I'm a bit surpised they took out the micromanagement of DoW2, though. I thought the whole point was smaller armies and less units with more RPG elements, which made the individual units more important. Whcih you'd have thought would have increased the micromanagement, since it'd be easier...The mind boggles.

The campaign? You're right. But in skirmish mode, your units die far too quickly to be micro'd with any reasonable amount of success. It just becomes furious clicking to get them away from the enemy before they die like pigs. Instead, you're left with two options. Either infantry swarm to keep the enemy from advancing forward but also locking yourself into stagnation, or save up for large "tank" units like Predators/Carnifexes/the like and leave yourself open to attack.

The fewer units you use, the less likely your chance of victory as the game styles itself as Company of Heroes did but with half(probably a lot less) the squad number. Thereby utilizing a small but competent force is no better than utilizing a large but worthless force since either side dies to any amount of sustained fire. On top of that, it's incredibly easy to destroy what little cover the skirmish maps even have through artillery-type units or simply having a unit large enough to squish the cover.

It makes games as Tyranids really easy, but I've yet to win a skirmish game as SMurfs.

EDIT:


(as ZeroNumerous seems to or I would myself were I to play againsts people and as I do on the tabletop) or just plain not abusing the loopholes

Don't get me wrong: I'll rush if there's not a gentlemen's agreement before hand. It's simply easier to end the battle as quickly as possible. If there is such an agreement though, I'll usually honor it in spirit by only doing scouting runs.

[Blayze]

Don't Korath only get Basic Diplomacy as a research option? Even with racial bonuses, your diplomacy will be pretty low.

Possibly, but as far as I'm aware it's the only way to get the Galaxy Flipper. It's a Custom Race anyway, so I load them up with Diploboosts (And I think diplomacy allows me to take a load more diplomacy technologies anyway...).

[Winterwind]

The problem is that what you describe is Not Strategy - it's Action. It's grunt work. Strategy is about long-range planning and development - it's what army commanders plot in their far-behind-the-lines HQs, usually well in advance of any actual fighting. It's not, generally, the stuff of adrenaline rushes. Which RTS games contain in plentiful amounts.

Which units to pick right now? Keep in mind that, without turtling, skirmishes take place nigh all the time - you have to determine which units will be the most useful in the current situation, against the army the opponent has right now, but also predict which units he will be using next and already start getting the proper counter to them. You don't have an impenetrable line of defence to fall back to after all, behind which you can build an army consisting of only the best units, or an army so multi-facetted it can deal with any imaginable threat - your army must be able to stand up to the opponent at any time, and you simply do not have the capabilities to get everything that might be useful, so you have to make the *strategic* decision what to get now.

Of course, you can send out a scout to try and see what your opponent is doing right now, but firstly you have to get something to scout with first, the resources for which might as well be used for something else, and secondly it would mean dedicating some of your attention and time to controlling that scout, and attention is actually the most precious resource you possess. Another decision to make - is diverting both in-game resources and attention to a scout to uncover your opponents plans worth lacking these resources and attention elsewhere, where they are needed as well, or not?

Economy - is now the time to build more workers or to set up a new expansion, or are the resources for that more needed for army and/or tech right now?

Army placement - where should you position unit groups so that they go unnoticed, and then lure the opponent in between them, so you can crush him in a flanking attack? And is that a viable and sensible strategy right now or not?

Hit and runs - do them or not? And where?

A drop - trying to sneak in some unit with mass destruction capabilities into the enemy base or expansion to eliminate the workers, while distracting the opponent in some other way - worth it, or too costly? (Incidentally, a strategy fairly exclusive to RTSs, exactly because your opponent's attention is limited, and so s/he might not notice what you are up to, especially if you try to distract them somehow with a fake attack or so while doing it. The nature of the distraction, incidentally, is also strategy).

I could go on for quite a while, if I wanted to, but I think the above is enough. Incidentally, all of the above are aspects of strategic depth that pretty much only come to fruition in non-turtling games, as most of them are based on the assumption the players are perpetually clashing and are pressured into trying to figure out what actions, unit choices, strategical choices are the right ones right now, because a false decision could mean losing the game - much unlike in a game where the opponents do not put up pressure on the other at all. Consider the above my explanation of why I like a non-turtling playstyle, meant to present the non-turtlers point of view to the turtlers, after the latter so kindly explained why they prefer the turtle's way, for the sake of better mutual understanding. :smallsmile:


And yes, so-called RTS games' focus on micromanagement most definitely does reward players with crazy-fast mouse clickin' skillz,True. No need to be demeaning though.


and it definitely does come at the expense of actual strategic depth. Wrong, except against players of lesser mechanical skill. Between players of similar "crazy-fast mouse clickin' skillz", it actually enriches strategic depth, for reasons explained above.


I never said it was, not intentionally anyway. I did say I didn't like rushing and bemoaned that the challenges in RA3 Uprising relied on rushing (as if you didn't you got whomped after a while.) I'm well aware there is the middle ground (Empire at War being the shining example.) Alright then. :smallsmile:

[Triaxx]

Since we're throwing out quotes, from Chris Taylor: 'Strategy is what you do before the battle, Tactics is what you do during the battle.'

Strategy is deciding what units to send into battle, Tactics is using those units in battle. Games that focus in on the fighting are tactics games. Starcraft, Company of Heroes. Both have a strategic element, but are tactical in nature. On the other end we have Dawn of War, and Command and Conquer. Strategy games with tactical elements. Micromanaging is not essential, but is very helpful in them. Then we have Supreme Commander and GalCiv, which are Grand Strategy games. Another Chris Taylor quote: 'You're Eisenhower, not Patton. you know Patton will figure out how to get it done. You're the Megalomaniac with a croup stick.'

Micromanagement should be pointless because you're fighting with armies too big to manage effectively. SupCom lets you set up factories and then tell just one what to build and the others to build the same as that first one.

The difference between the three styles of game? Picture a huge field with forests on each side, a river running down the middle, and a ford in the center of the river. A tactical game focuses on two forces fighting over the ford. A strategic game focuses on two forces fighting for control of the river. A Grand Strategy game has each force trying to light the other sides forest on fire.

---

SW:GB is Galactic Battlegrounds. The differences don't show up until T3.

[Winthur]

Wrong, except against players of lesser mechanical skill. Between players of similar "crazy-fast mouse clickin' skillz", it actually enriches strategic depth, for reasons explained above.

To elaborate on what Winterwind says: high skill certainly helps in strategy, because after a while you stop thinking: "I MUST MAKE HYDRALISKS NOW! GO FASTA! FASTA! FASTA! FASTAAAAA! DA RED WUNZ GO FASTA!!!! HYDRALISKS!!! ZERGLINGS!!!!!!! PLAAAAAAAAAAGUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU! ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAAAAAAAH!" while ruining your keyboard with constant 4sh5sh6sh7sh8sh9sh0sh, 1a2a3a and finally dying of asphyxiation while your opponent types "holy crap GG". The most skilled gamers do it basically on the spot, without a second thought about it (which was showcased on National Geographic), because it's already "written" inside them what they are supposed to do. Therefore, as your fingers start to live on their own and rape the keyboard for you, you are free to think on the outcome of the game.

You know, it's kind of like anime. When I get high enough on a game, I suddenly get thrown into a dimension where everything is flashy and bright and there are lines going fast in the background. :smalltongue:

And if you don't believe in the concept of strategy in RTS... well, you'd be surprised if you watched (or read about) Pimpest Plays. (http://sclegacy.com/feature/4-pp)

Or compare players such as White-Ra or IdrA. The latter is a robot extraordinaire whose skills are undeniably high. He does everything automatically. White-Ra is also highly skilled but doesn't have IdrA's APM. Yet IdrA isn't as successful as the Ukrainian player (and his matches aren't so eye-candy) because White-Ra often surprises the opponent with cunning strategical moves. (Although IdrA did win against White-Ra in the recent NSWC finals...)

It's true that without proper mechanics your RTS online career will be short-lived. Some people believe that in the wake of FPVods and replays, the mechanical side of StarCraft have kicked the strategy to the curb. And yet it still somehow is amazing to watch progamers kill each other, even though the game should be 100% predictable. How often it isn't? This article details how important keeping the mentality is needed to win. (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=85192) Also, this video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)

[Aotrs Commander]

I could go on for quite a while, if I wanted to, but I think the above is enough. Incidentally, all of the above are aspects of strategic depth that pretty much only come to fruition in non-turtling games, as most of them are based on the assumption the players are perpetually clashing and are pressured into trying to figure out what actions, unit choices, strategical choices are the right ones right now, because a false decision could mean losing the game - much unlike in a game where the opponents do not put up pressure on the other at all. Consider the above my explanation of why I like a non-turtling playstyle, meant to present the non-turtlers point of view to the turtlers, after the latter so kindly explained why they prefer the turtle's way, for the sake of better mutual understanding. :smallsmile:

Which I totally understand, since that is, of course, the sort of thing I have with my tabletop wargames; only at a slightly high level of resolution in the case of our modern/sci-fi ground combat ("which of these ten houses will he be defending?" or "what's the best way to get around to the arse-end of that MBT so I can shoot him up before he can react?").

(In fact, many of our modern/sci-fi games have been fighting over a river crossing...)

But it's totally not the way I play my RTS games (or any other computer game!) If I'm not playing people, I don't feel obliged to be nice or sportsmanlike, and I'll happily exploit the AI (C&C sandbag tactic, lookin' at you!) But, like I say, I play computer games and wargames for different reasons.

I would never play my tabletop games (RPG or wargames) the same way I play my RTS! (Well, okay maybe at a campaign level if I could get two or more enemy sides whompin' each other first, so I can clean up afterwards; but that's nearly politics...)

I might be a megalomanical, omnicidal Lich with grandure* but at least I'm not an asshat about it.



Edit: And the sort of play you are describing, Winthur, is more like a competative sport, with all that entails. Which is exactly why I don't like that play style. I don't play competions games at all, not even (in fact especially not even) on the tabletop.

In fact, Starcraft was what put me off the most, since I remember from the multiplayer FAQs it basically giving you a list of things to do to optimise your speed (build this, build this, this will be done by then so do this) and it really put me off. I frankly, absolutely suck at that sort of thing. Really, really suck! And it's not a matter of practise, since I bounce of the walls in JRPGs only slightly less now than when I first got my PS2; and that was just before FF X came out... My mind just isn't wired well from dealing with that sort of game (it's also why I don't play FPS, beat-'em ups or platformers.)



*They aren't delusions...