Most complicated strategy or CRPG game ever?

[Gamerlord]

Exactly what it says on the tin (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin)

I like complicated games, and what could be more complicated then strategy or RPGs? So, what is the most complicated strategy or CRPG game ever?

[Inhuman Bot]

Dwarf Fortress.

[Gamerlord]

Dwarf Fortress.

Already played it.

[Breltar]

Dwarf Fortress.

+1,000

There is no video game that is more complex than Dwarf Fortress.

[Vitruviansquid]

Thus far, Tropico 2 has been the most complicated game I've ever encountered. It's an economy management game where location is everything... also timing is everything... also mass is everything. It's an economy management game where everything is everything. :smallwink:

edit: and yes, I played Dwarf Fortress :3

[Inhuman Bot]

Nethack/Slash'em

[IdleMuse]

Do you mean the strategy game with the most complexity (if so, DF+1), or the game with the most complex strategies?

[Volatar]

Advanced Squad Leader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Squad_Leader) is probably the most complex game made by man.

If your looking for a video game, AI War: Fleet Command (http://www.arcengames.com/aiwar_features.php) is a good one.

[chiasaur11]

Can't beat ASL.

But I gotta say, X-Com has a great emergent level of complication. Nowhere near the top, but the top is unplayable, and X-COM is pretty much the cat's pajamas.

[Gamerlord]

Nethack/Slash'em

Played it, same with X-COM, and tropico 1&2.

[Eldariel]

Jagged Alliance 2. Civilization 4 BtS is a pretty darn deep game too, as well as Master of Orion 2, Starcraft and all the strategy classics.

[Winterwind]

Master of Orion 3 had a level of complexity and micromanagement that rendered it unplayable in the eyes of most people. I hear if one ever actually understood how it worked, it could be quite rewarding, but few people ever managed to do that. I certainly did not.

[Gamerlord]

Jagged Alliance 2. Civilization 4 BtS is a pretty darn deep game too,, Starcraft and all the strategy classics.

Played that too.

[Inhuman Bot]

List the CRPGs/strategy games you've played?

[Gamerlord]

List the CRPGs/strategy games you've played?

That would be a lot, want me to include simulation?

[Gamerlord]

All 5 X-COM games
KOTOR I&2
All five heroes of might and magic games.
First 5-6 might and magic games.
Rome total war
Medieval II total war
Dominions 3
UFO: Afterlight
Empire at War
Elder scrolls III-IV
Warcraft 3
Hinterland: Orc lords
Fantasy Wars
Neverwinter nights
Diablo 2
Supreme commander
Baldurs gate 1&2
Icewind dale 1&2
Galactic battlegrounds
Age of empires II
Age of wonders: shadow magic
Battle for middle earth II
Dawn of War
Civ III & 4
Space empires III-V
Stronghold Crusader
Rise of nations
Age of Mythology
Warlords battle cry I-III
Imperial Glory
Panzer General II
Disciples II
Kohan II
Emergency mission 3
Conquest: Frontier Wars
Disciples Sacred Lands Gold Edition
Dark reign I-II
Myth II-III
Besieger (SO a Conan rip off)
Laser Squad Nemesis
Shattered Union
Maelstrom
Seven Kingdoms: Ancient Adversaries
Perimeter
The Settlers III
O.R.B.
Fallout I-II
Fallout tactics
Sacred Gold
Fable: The lost Chapters
Lionheart : Legacy of the Crusader
Gothic 3
Darkstone
Arx Fatalis
Space Hack
The Chosen: Well of Souls
Gods: Lands of Infinity Special Edition
Seal of Evil
Clans
Jagged Alliance II
Starcraft
Lord of the realms III
Galactic civilizations 2
And that is just CRPG and strategy...
I probably forgot a thing or two.

[endoperez]

edit: damn, ninjaed!

Dominions 3 is quite complicated. There's probably something even more complicated out there, but it's pretty good. Few dozen nations, hundreds of magic items and spells. The basic mechanics aren't simple either, but if you're looking for complexity through lots and LOTS of stuff, this is the holy grail. (In-game, The Grail is a unique artifact that heals afflictions and diseases in the province it's in.)

Just as an example, the game is divided into three Ages with slightly different power levels. One of the nations in the Late Age is Atlantis, a nation of amphibious frog-humanoids who had to escape the madness-inducing R'lyeh into whatever dry land they could find, which was the frozen north. Their units have various special abilities inherent or from equipment, including but not limited to:
Spoilered for length
true amphibious (can go underwater without penalties)
cold resistance (immunity to the encumberance penalty from fighting in severe cold, and 50% off of cold-type damage, and is easier to boost to full 100% immunity)
partial darkvision (less darkness penalties in deep seas or in underground forts or under some spells)
Compared to humans, they have more hp and strength and their heavy infantry moves faster than comparable humans in strategic map, however they have poor precision and lack proper ranged weapons, and walk slowly in battles.
Some of them use harpoons, one-off ranged weapons which cause harpooning (a type of entanglement) but have low range and precision
Some of them use weapons crafted from magical ice, which are magical and thus bypass etherealness and some other magical defenses
Some of them have ice armor which has higher protective value in cold provinces but worse in warm ones; ice equipment has high resource cost
They can recruit bigger-than-normal infantry with lots of strength and hitpoints and size 3 instead of 2, but these aren't cold resistant and don't use the ice equipment
They can build forts underwater and can recruit different units in their underwater castles.
Their special sacred unit has magical weapons that sap strength from the enemies permanently
Their most powerful mages have Sailing ability, allowing them to move armies across sea provinces in a single turn (instead of going into the sea and then out on the other side, which they can also do but which takes two turns).

The R'lyeh which the fluff says they escaped from? It causes madness. Insanity is a game statistic that causes commanders to do funny stuff like look at the flowers, or dance under red stars, or praise Cthulhu, instead of obeying your orders; it doesn't really affect units but they have to worry about the hordes of madmen that come to serve the God of R'lyeh for free. The insanity also causes population to go down, forcing R'lyeh to keep expanding, and the insanity effect will spread farther than their actual borders AND onto land... The recruitable units include mind-blasting Starspawn, various enslaved thralls and some weird creatures, and they also randomly get Lovecraftian creatures from the Void.

Any way, there are 19 other nations - on the Late Age alone.

[Poison_Fish]

I'm gonna go with Dominions 3.

[SurlySeraph]

Grand strategy games like Europa Universalis and Hearts of Iron tend to be ridiculously complicated.

[chiasaur11]

Ah, so you have played the most strategic game of all time, then.

X-Com Enforcer has so much tactical depth men have DIED trying to comprehend it.

[Gamerlord]

X-Com Enforcer has so much tactical depth men have DIED trying to comprehend it.

I know :smalltongue: .

[Flickerdart]

There's Empire: Total War and Napoleon: Total War. Neither is particularly complex but if you liked Medieval and Rome, you might like those.

[Rustic Dude]

Warzone 2100, Imperium Galactica series, Patrician series, Cossacks, Black & White, Knights & Merchants?

[Gamerlord]

There's Empire: Total War and Napoleon: Total War. Neither is particularly complex but if you liked Medieval and Rome, you might like those.

I tried an empire total war demo, the screen went blank the moment I entered a battle.


Warzone 2100, Imperium Galactica series, Patrician series, Cossacks, Black & White, Knights & Merchants?

Crossed out ones I have already played, I didn't include them because they were simulation.

[Airk]

Wait wait, I'm confused. Is this a "recommend me a complicated strategy game I haven't played" thread? Because that's not what you asked. You asked people to tell you the most complicated CRPG/Strategy game ever. Your having played them doesn't impact that quality at all.

[Gamerlord]

Wait wait, I'm confused. Is this a "recommend me a complicated strategy game I haven't played" thread? Because that's not what you asked. You asked people to tell you the most complicated CRPG/Strategy game ever. Your having played them doesn't impact that quality at all.

Yeah, I want a recommendation.

[Makensha]

Disciples II
Disciples Sacred Lands Gold Edition

Somebody else DOES know these games exist. Yay! But I've got nothing as far as suggestions go, you've got me stumped.

[blueblade]

For the CRPG side, maybe Wizardry 8? Not vastly complex, but at least it's a different system you might not be familiar with.

On the strategy side, I'm kinda beat. Seems to me you've very nearly done them all. Can I suggest a sports manager game for your stat crunchy needs? the latest Football Manager or Baseball out of the park, depending on which side of the pond you live on!

[blueblade]

oh, and you never mentioned whether MMOs were allowed. If they are, EVE online will consume your soul for a good long while.

[warty goblin]

People, people, people. Starcraft, Galactic Civilizations II, Civilization, and similar are not complicated games, really.

The Campaign for North Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Campaign_for_North_Africa) is a complicated game. So complicated it's recommended that players form actual command staffs just to cope with the detail load.

[Vorpalbob]

According to the staff of my local game store, the most complicated strategy board game ever made is World In Flames (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_in_Flames).

I once saw the full game completely set up before any turns have been played.
http://images.boardgamegeek.com/images/pic134580_md.jpg
:eek:

BoardGameGeek (which I would link to but the site is down) lists the game as taking 20-100 (yes, 20-100) hours to play.

Play at your own risk.

[Myatar_Panwar]

I think I might be in love

[warty goblin]

According to the staff of my local game store, the most complicated strategy board game ever made is World In Flames (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_in_Flames).

I once saw the full game completely set up before any turns have been played.
http://images.boardgamegeek.com/images/pic134580_md.jpg
:eek:

BoardGameGeek (which I would link to but the site is down) lists the game as taking 20-100 (yes, 20-100) hours to play.

Play at your own risk.

Still got you beat with Campaign for North Africa- the game's creators estimate that a game can take 1,500 hours to play.

[Myatar_Panwar]

100 hours sounds epic

1500 sounds sadistic

[warty goblin]

100 hours sounds epic

1500 sounds sadistic

That's to say nothing of the recommended mode of play being two teams of four or five people, each with their own set of responsibilities and all managed by a commander.

At this point I think it's less a game, and more a definite sign that one no longer has anything that could be construed as a life.

[factotum]

How about Mount & Blade? It's an RPG where you command small armies, so it's kind of both an RPG and an RTS at the same time! I hasten to add that I never really got far into the game, though, so I may be over-estimating its complexity.

[Cespenar]

I second Europa Universalis 2-3 and Hearts of Iron 2. Looking at your list of games, I'm %90 sure that you'll enjoy these two.

[MickJay]

Give Myth (I) a go, it's pretty good (better than III was). I don't think anyone mentioned Alpha Centauri, not the most complicated game ever, but it's really good.

[Gamerlord]

How about Mount & Blade? It's an RPG where you command small armies, so it's kind of both an RPG and an RTS at the same time! I hasten to add that I never really got far into the game, though, so I may be over-estimating its complexity.

Tried a demo, found the combat controls unplayable.

[Ashtar]

Fantasy General, if you can find it. Is a great strategy game, using your leader's magic, your troops, which you can advance if they are "living", or do research with the gold you gain to get new troops. You can also use mechanical or arcane monsters, but they don't advance to the next type of troop, only gain levels if I remember.

Basically you have to balance your gold and your losses as you take on successive warlords of the enemy. Tough. But very fun.

[Ellye]

I too recommend Europa Universalis 3 (and it's expansion packs, they add a lot to the game). It's not excruciatingly complex, but it's deep and great.

[Malek]

Do non-computer strategy games count? Because if so then I'd have to say that Starfire is a pretty strong contestant.

I in this game you write down data for your starship like this:

Spearer-class DD AM1 6-Xo 30HS/21TS
[3] SSSAZaHQb(Ib)(Ib)(Ib)(Ib)De(Ib)DeQb?aFbDe(Ib)Fb
[6/3]
Trg:1 Def-1 PV=37 Cost=660/99
SL10 20 HTK Sx3 Ax1 Dex3 Fbx2

And that's just the tip of the iceberg if what rules I've read so far are any indication. :smalleek:

[SolkaTruesilver]

Tried a demo, found the combat controls unplayable.

I strongly suggest that you try it again. Once you get into the feel of the battle and you practiced a few ride-by-decapitation, the game has a satisfaction factor extremely high.

[potatocubed]

Controversial Suggestion: Have you considered coding your own strategy or CRPG? I mean if no one is making what you want, might as well make it yourself, right?

Roguelikes are well-supported with libtcod (http://doryen.eptalys.net/libtcod/) and Roguebasin (http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php?title=Main_Page). You can get good free compilers for most programming languages with a quick Google search.

I've also found some rudimentary TBS-makers and the generic Game Maker (http://www.yoyogames.com/make) which you have to pay for full access to but is extremely powerful when you get to grips with it.

(There are even engines specifically for building fighting games.)

Of course, if you want full-3D spectacularness and other such shiny effects you're probably out of luck.

[Tengu_temp]

Another vote for latest incarnations of Europa Universalis and Hearts of Iron. In fact, Paradox specializes in making games that are complex, yet fun to play.


Master of Orion 3 had a level of complexity and micromanagement that rendered it unplayable in the eyes of most people. I hear if one ever actually understood how it worked, it could be quite rewarding, but few people ever managed to do that. I certainly did not.

I played MoO 3. It wasn't really overwhelming for me, it was just boring. You don't feel like a galactic leader, you feel like a galactic accountant. This game is a prime example that complexity is not always a good thing.


People, people, people. Starcraft, Galactic Civilizations II, Civilization, and similar are not complicated games, really.


Gotta agree there.

[Triaxx]

No GalCiv 2 on that list? If there's anything not complex about that game, I have not found it.

Supreme Commander, but no Total Annihilation?

Not a computer game, but Final Fantasy Tactics is pretty complex.

[Gamerlord]

Controversial Suggestion: Have you considered coding your own strategy or CRPG? I mean if no one is making what you want, might as well make it yourself, right?

Roguelikes are well-supported with libtcod (http://doryen.eptalys.net/libtcod/) and Roguebasin (http://roguebasin.roguelikedevelopment.org/index.php?title=Main_Page). You can get good free compilers for most programming languages with a quick Google search.

I've also found some rudimentary TBS-makers and the generic Game Maker (http://www.yoyogames.com/make) which you have to pay for full access to but is extremely powerful when you get to grips with it.

(There are even engines specifically for building fighting games.)

Of course, if you want full-3D spectacularness and other such shiny effects you're probably out of luck.


I ROYALLY stink at making games, then again ,the last time I tried was a while ago....

[SolkaTruesilver]

No GalCiv 2 on that list? If there's anything not complex about that game, I have not found it.


GalCiv2 is very simple. The building system, the research system, the dipomatic, military, etc.. All of those are very straighforward.

Compare this to Europa Universalis.. :smalleek:


Oh, do you want a complicated game? Paradox's Victoria.

Vikky is gonna rape you.

[Terraoblivion]

As far as i understand, Victoria is the most complicated of the games by Paradox, though it hasn't exactly got the best reputation among their games.

However, may i ask why you want complicated games instead of deep games or complex games? Those three words are not synonymous, you know.

[Knaight]

http://www.freewargamesrules.co.uk/
http://www.wargamevault.com/

There are some pretty good games in here, some of which are on the complex side. Though I would start with something fairly basic, Chain Reaction 3.0 has some free stuff, and is a pretty good sim.

Otherwise, on the videogame front, you could try Dominions 3. It is very complex when played at a high level of competence, and gets complicated with micromanagement in the end game.

[lesser_minion]

I haven't played Attack Vector: Tactical, but I've heard it goes to pretty ridiculous amounts of detail.

Warzone 2100 is absolutely gigantic, and has some of the best controls I've seen in an RTS. And it's free.

[Gamerlord]

However, may i ask why you want complicated games instead of deep games or complex games? Those three words are not synonymous, you know.

......Well.........I...can't really think of an excuse, still I like complicated games.

[Volatar]

......Well.........I...can't really think of an excuse, still I like complicated games.

I'm with you :smallsmile: I like complicated games.

(I didn't know what you wanted, so I mentioned AI War earlier. Its not very complicated, but it sure is deeply complex in strategy.)

[SolkaTruesilver]

......Well.........I...can't really think of an excuse, still I like complicated games.

I think I am a little like you:

I like games that makes me feel clever. When there are lots of things, and I manage to get them to work as a whole. When you figure out something by yourself and feel proud of the way your mind works.

I designed some very good tactics at EU3 by myself. Many people probably figured out something best, but I don't care. It's my idea. I once wrote down the most efficient and cost-effective ways of solving Brood War missions by abusing the map layout. I felt clever :smallbiggrin:

I once designed a surprise raid-attack on the Alliance in WoW by summoning my guild on an uncharted island near Menethil Harbor and coordinating water-breathing so we would do an amphibious assault. Everybody had a great time. (Cost us 37 soulstones).

If you wanna feel clever, I'd suggest Supreme Commander. The kind of tactic you can elaborate is fairly good, and I set up basic doctrine while playing against the computer. Powerful offensive artillery outposts that'd soften the ennemy, and tearing appart their defensive network to send in bombers, in order to.. etc...

The game is fun. Lots of guns. You have the chance to be clever or stupid.

[Erloas]

Yes, while related, complicated and complex are not the same. Often complicated comes from poor UI, poor manual, and poor design, where as complex comes from good design. Although complicated could also just come from a lot of rules and options; which could lead to complexity or it could lead to tediousness and redundancy.
A lot of times tedious gets lumped in with complexity. But there are a lot of games that are overly tedious because designers seem to think its the same as complexity but it isn't.

Chess for instance has a very simple set of rules but the complexity of the game comes from how everthing interacts.

While not a computer game, Battletech can be fairly simple or quite complex and complicated. It can be a bit tedious at times too if you don't have all the rules down though. If you go small scale 'Mech only battles, especially in the heavier weights it can be fairly simple. Once you start getting into a lot of the "Advanced" rules, with aerospace, infantry, VTOLs, tanks, vehicles, and dedicated recon, support and assault 'Mech lances, put it on a non-standard gravity planet with bug swarms, swamps, and large cities with multiple objectives then it gets a lot more ... everything (complex, complicated, tedious, time consuming).
Not to mention the hobby side of things to add depth, such as custom build units, modeling, painting and building terrain.

[factotum]

I like games that makes me feel clever. When there are lots of things, and I manage to get them to work as a whole. When you figure out something by yourself and feel proud of the way your mind works.


If that's the sort of complicated we're talking about, I recommend X3: Terran Conflict. Only caveat is, you're not allowed to read any of the guides on the official game forums--you have to work out everything for yourself! :smallsmile:

[Ethdred]

Still got you beat with Campaign for North Africa- the game's creators estimate that a game can take 1,500 hours to play.

Burble....

How long did the actual North Africa campaign take?

I like the fact that the Italians need extra water to make pasta!

[Gamerlord]

Burble....

How long did the actual North Africa campaign take?

I like the fact that the Italians need extra water to make pasta!
10 June 1940 to 16 May 1943

[lesser_minion]

Homeworld 2 can be fairly complicated as well, although Relic added a few features to make micro'ing a little easier (strike groups, for example).

[Gamerlord]

Homeworld 2 can be fairly complicated as well, although Relic added a few features to make micro'ing a little easier (strike groups, for example).

HOMEWORLD! Forgot that, once tried the first one.

[Breltar]

HOMEWORLD! Forgot that, once tried the first one.

Try the second one, it is still pretty dang good.

[Volatar]

Meh, I didn't like the second Homeworld. It felt like they made the whole thing 2d.

(On a side note, I happen to own Homeworld: Cataclysm. Man does that game SUCK :smallmad: )

[pendell]

For the CRPG side, maybe Wizardry 8? Not vastly complex, but at least it's a different system you might not be familiar with.

On the strategy side, I'm kinda beat. Seems to me you've very nearly done them all. Can I suggest a sports manager game for your stat crunchy needs? the latest Football Manager or Baseball out of the park, depending on which side of the pond you live on!

No, No. Wizardry IV: Return of Werdna. Hope you've brushed up on your Kabbalah, because you're going to need it to get the *true* ending.

EDIT:

And *why* is it complicated?

Spinners, one-way doors, invisible teleporters, and a three-dimensional cubic maze at the end called the 'cosmic cube'. Also, you are the villain, so you don't gain experience points. Instead, at various checkpoints of the game you're allowed to summon disposable mooks to grind through the heroes (based on adventuring parties from previous wizardry games).

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[groz_nez]

I don't know if these count complicated enough.

Combat Mission: Beyond the Overlord
Combat Mission 2: Barbarossa to Berlin

Steel Panthers series

also Close Combat 2: A Bridge too Far. (Might not be as complicated as required in this thread. It is still fun game. Also note that this is atleast to me best game in the series and more recent games screwed up more and more).

Also I apologize for only posting games that are in WWII era.

[Volatar]

I don't know if these count complicated enough.

Combat Mission: Beyond the Overlord
Combat Mission 2: Barbarossa to Berlin

Steel Panthers series

also Close Combat 2: A Bridge too Far. (Might not be as complicated as required in this thread. It is still fun game. Also note that this is atleast to me best game in the series and more recent games screwed up more and more).

Also I apologize for only posting games that are in WWII era.

OH! The CM games!

Combat Mission: Shock Force is WAY complicated! Its pretty good too. Very realistic. Probably the best modern warfare game I have encountered.

[NeoVid]

Nothing can match Dwarf Fortress, but my own recommendation:

Guilty Gear Overture. Out for well over two years, and players all over the world are still discovering new things about the mechanics, causing major wiki updates every week...

[Aragehaor]

GalCiv2 is very simple. The building system, the research system, the dipomatic, military, etc.. All of those are very straighforward.

Compare this to Europa Universalis.. :smalleek:


Oh, do you want a complicated game? Paradox's Victoria.

Vikky is gonna rape you.

Victoria is complicated? :smallconfused: i mean, it takes a little bit (Around 3 to 5 hours in my experience) to get the swing of things but after that its fairly simple...

Unless of course you mean its difficult to "win" in the game, in which case i concede the point.



EDIT: On-topic: I Recommend Hearts of iron II along with Victoria(As have previously been recommended) as well simply because they are great fun.

[Eldariel]

I don't know if these count complicated enough.

Combat Mission: Beyond the Overlord
Combat Mission 2: Barbarossa to Berlin

Steel Panthers series

also Close Combat 2: A Bridge too Far. (Might not be as complicated as required in this thread. It is still fun game. Also note that this is atleast to me best game in the series and more recent games screwed up more and more).

Also I apologize for only posting games that are in WWII era.

Seconding all this. Would be next in my list if I wrote one again :smallbiggrin:

[SuperMuldoon]

Gonna have to third or fourth the Hearts of Iron series. Gotta love the ability to be any country during WWII. My friend and I once did co-op, him as Germany me as Mexico, and we staged the Zimmerman Telegram part 2 :smallamused:

[Gamerlord]

Gonna have to third or fourth the Hearts of Iron series. Gotta love the ability to be any country during WWII. My friend and I once did co-op, him as Germany me as Mexico, and we staged the Zimmerman Telegram part 2 :smallamused:

Does HoI 2 have hotseat? Just curious. Tried the demo, seems good.

[Inhuman Bot]

People, people, people. Starcraft, Galactic Civilizations II, Civilization, and similar are not complicated games, really.


No. Text because the exploit I used no longer works.

[Vitruviansquid]

Many games without the appearance of complexity are actually incredibly, insanely complex.

[Aragehaor]

Does HoI 2 have hotseat? Just curious. Tried the demo, seems good.

just tried it, and while it does have LAN it does not have hotseat. Sorry.

[Blayze]

Achron should be interesting. It's an RTS about time travel and teleportation.

[Oslecamo]

Dunno if anyone mentioned it but I must vote for the Spring RTS, that's basically the true sucessor of Total Anihilation and has a murdering learning curve. Let's see what you need just to be considered a good player:

-Constantly manage your economy of metal and energy production as if you try to build too much stuff at the same time all production crawls down to nothing and if you build too few the resources overflow and they're wasted.
-Builder units can support each other to speed up construction of stuff...As long as you have the resources for it.
-Four initial paths of units out of the start wich then branch, with pretty much all units being unique and not just bigger versions of other.
-Need to constantly industrialize by your base by geting more energy, with wich you can eventualy fuel artificial metal mines, and then increase your production capacity, rise and repeat.
-Instable stuff explodes violenty when destroyed, so essential to protect your base with defenses as a bomber hiting your nuclear reactor will result in your base reduced to a smoking crater.
-Of course, there's also nukes. And artillery that can hit from one side of the map to the other. And giant robots. And then there's counters to all of that. And tiny robots wich can rebuild stuff from the wreckage.
-Add realistic physic system that means wreckages of units will actualy block paths and enemy fire and the stronger attacks actualy changing the terrain itself. Also flying robots when they get hit by powerfull blasts.
-And then of course there's dozens of units fighting at the front lines, poking the enemy defenses for a hole trough wich they can break trough.

So you need to at the same time constantly develop your base, expand, build an army and use it with dozens of choices at every moment. Do you go for slowly sniping your oponent from afar or good old tank rush? Mechanical spiders to climb that cliff or transports for a quick drop in the middle of your oponent? Perhaps you would prefer to turtle and let artillery and atomic bombs do the talking? Carpet bombing it's also an option.

Wonderfull game with a very active community(team vs team game is the norm, with 8x8 not being very rare), but it demands a good deal of effort to just grasp the basics, and then there's lots of potential.

[The Glyphstone]

So, you don't consider Supreme Commander to be the true successor of Total Annihilation? A lot of the points on your list also apply to SupCom, though I'm not sure about the exploding nuclear reactors or the terrain deformation.

I love SupCom, but I never considered it to be a terribly complicated game. Funny.

[DBear]

Civilization 4 BtS is a pretty darn deep game too,
Europa Universalis 3 Complete + Heir to the Throne makes Civ4 look like Chutes and Ladders.:smalltongue:

[DBear]

re: Pendell

You are mistaking complicated for insanely difficult. Wiz4 is still rightly considered the hardest RPG ever, but complicated, no. Compare it to Ultima4 released a year earlier. Ultima4 had the virtues to keep track of, multiple companions, food, and an actual world with which to interact.

[Triaxx]

No to terrain deform in SupCom, yes to exploding reactors.

Must also recommend Alpha Centauri a second time.

[warty goblin]

OH! The CM games!

Combat Mission: Shock Force is WAY complicated! Its pretty good too. Very realistic. Probably the best modern warfare game I have encountered.

Speaking of excellent modern combat games, and branching out genres a bit, the various ArmA games are fairly superb in their own possibly insane way. Sure they're shooters, but are about as far from something like Call of Duty as it is possible to be and still have M16s, and way more complicated than quite a few 'pure' strategy games I've played. This is particularly true once you start screwing around with the squad controls, but even sending bullets where you want can be quite difficult thanks to scope drift, bullet drop, and my favorite bit: having bullets actually leave the muzzle of the gun instead of the center of the screen. Yes folks, this means that sometimes you need to sight under your target.



No. Text because the exploit I used no longer works.

I nominate this post for "Least Informative Post of the Week" because I honestly cannot tell if it is agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or commenting on whether cavemen ever piloted Tyrannosaurs into battle by hanging on to their uvula and poking them in the tonsils.

[Inhuman Bot]

I nominate this post for "Least Informative Post of the Week" because I honestly cannot tell if it is agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or commenting on whether cavemen ever piloted Tyrannosaurs into battle by hanging on to their uvula and poking them in the tonsils.

Well, I don't really feel like getting into an argument about why Starcraft actually involves strategy, considering I know your viewpoint is solid as can be.

[warty goblin]

Well, I don't really feel like getting into an argument about why Starcraft actually involves strategy, considering I know your viewpoint is solid as can be.

The intent of that post was not to argue that the indicated games did not contain strategy, or were bad, without depth, or otherwise defective. The point was to express the opinion that those games are not particularly complicated. I think this was adequately indicated by how I said they were not particularly complicated. If I wanted to say that Starcraft is a shallow, strategically bankrupt, and generally bad game, I would have said that*. Chess isn't a complicated game either; the rules are stupidly simple, but only a stupid person would claim it has no depth.

*For the record, I don't think this. I simply have no interest in the game due to a story I don't care about, art design and atmosphere I find ugly and dull respectively, mission design that bores me, and my general apathy towards multiplayer. Strategically it probably has a lot to offer, I just don't care because the rest of the game is completely without appeal to me.

[Triaxx]

Story? What need is there for a story beyond: Them's the bad guys, get with the killin'? If you want story, you play an RPG.

Anyway, I maintain the position that StarCraft is not a strategy game. It's a tactical combat game. No groups larger than squads (max:12), no real map spanning artillery.

[Winterwind]

Story? What need is there for a story beyond: Them's the bad guys, get with the killin'? If you want story, you play an RPG.I honestly cannot tell if this was meant as sarcastic or not, but if not, I couldn't disagree more. I want an interesting and enticing story to keep me immersed and wanting to keep playing no matter what the genre is, be it RPG, strategy or shooter.

[Winthur]

No groups larger than squads (max:12)

Especially as a Zerg...


no real map spanning artillery.

Especially as a Terran...

:smalltongue:

Good Lord, I remember the last time I degraded a topic from it's proper function into StarCraft debate, so let's stop immediately. :smalleek:

[warty goblin]

Especially as a Terran...

I would hardly call a siege tank 'map spanning' since it doesn't even fire over one screen. That's reserved for the sort of artillery you can leave back in your base from where they can constantly pound the enemy base with or without a spotter.

[Winthur]

Hmmm, I don't quite understand the concept of "map spanning artillery", since I don't recall a game where you'd be able to bombard one end of the map from the other. I just assumed that map-spanning artillery is how most Terrans would utilize their Siege Tanks... Whatever.

[Volatar]

Hmmm, I don't quite understand the concept of "map spanning artillery", since I don't recall a game where you'd be able to bombard one end of the map from the other. I just assumed that map-spanning artillery is how most Terrans would utilize their Siege Tanks... Whatever.

Both Total Annihilation have literal map-spanning artillery. And nukes that you can plop down anywhere (no need for painting the target like in Star Crap.)

[AgentPaper]

(On a side note, I happen to own Homeworld: Cataclysm. Man does that game SUCK :smallmad: )

What.

HW: Cataclysm is one of the few games I've actually completed all the way through. Not even the original Homeworld can say that. It's a pretty awesome game.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Good Lord, I remember the last time I degraded a topic from it's proper function into StarCraft debate, so let's stop immediately. :smalleek:

You broke it, you bought it.

Okay. People, please STOP.

This is getting ridiculous. How about we establish something? Ever heard of "Easy to learn, hard to master"?

In short, the "Learn" part is the past where you have to understand the mechanics of the game. How you collect ressources, build unit, develop technologies.

Games easy to learn: Starcraft (Yes, deal with it). Civilisation (1 --> 4), Marios Bros, Zelda, Chess, Go, Battleship

Game hard to learn: EVE Online, Europa Universalis, Victoria everything by Paradox. Battlestar Galactica (Board game)

While the "Master" part is understanding the metagame. In short, it's not HOW you do thing, but WHEN you should do these things. It's knowing the "good" strategy.

Game easy to master: Battlestar Galactica (Board game), Tetris, Zelda, Mario Bros, Battleship.

Game hard to master: Star Craft. Team Fortress. Chess, Go. Europa Universalis.

Somebody made the comment that "Victoria isn't complex" because once you get past the initial 4-5 hours of understanding how it works, you can have quite an easy time. Excuse me, but 4-5 hours of learnings in a strategy game is "complex" in my book. I compare it to Starcraft where I picked up the basics in 15 minutes.

On the other hand, I'd get easily raped in Starcraft because of the complexity of the metagame. While I still can defend myself well against a master of Battleship.


So, I gotta ask the OP, which kind of complexity do you want? Rule Complexity, or Metagame complexity?

[warty goblin]

Hmmm, I don't quite understand the concept of "map spanning artillery", since I don't recall a game where you'd be able to bombard one end of the map from the other. I just assumed that map-spanning artillery is how most Terrans would utilize their Siege Tanks... Whatever.

Real map spanners tend to pop up in games that take a more realistic approach than something as fluffy as Starcraft is on that front. The somewhat realistic Company of Heroes for example has artillery that, if not map spanning, can certainly fire over very large areas of the map- particularly the British on Royal Artillery track. Men of War, not surprisingly, does this better with even longer range guns and better ballistics and penetration modeling. Something like Achtung Panzer: Kharkov 1943 is even more hardcore, although that's hardly RTS in any traditional sense of the word.

[pendell]

Both Total Annihilation have literal map-spanning artillery. And nukes that you can plop down anywhere (no need for painting the target like in Star Crap.)

Nobody remembers the original Dark Reign, I guess, which featured artillery that could hit 1/2-3/4s of the way across the map. Not *quite* map-spanning, but a significant fraction thereof, certainly.

There was also the 'rift creator' -- a one-way teleporter which had the other end of the teleport set to /dev/null. Things went away and never came back. That one was literally map-spanning -- you needed to have real-time LOS of the target, but if you had it, you could hit anywhere on the map. Have 2 or three of these things operational , and you could have Black Holes just spontaneously appear and rip a base to bits in very short order indeed.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Oslecamo]

So, you don't consider Supreme Commander to be the true successor of Total Annihilation? A lot of the points on your list also apply to SupCom, though I'm not sure about the exploding nuclear reactors or the terrain deformation.

I love SupCom, but I never considered it to be a terribly complicated game. Funny.

You pretty much answered your own question. Supcom oversimplified Total Anihilation. Much more limited unit choices, most of them wich then become obsolete as you tech up, and horrible pathing makes formations/micro pretty much impossible.

In Spring I can for example hide small units behind large buildings/obstacles, so if I can get inside the oponent's base I can take cover behind his constructions while I destroy them if I keep my unit running. Something pretty much impossible in

In spring I also get to easily order my troops to do a line formation to maximize their firing area, or put them in a tight ball to properly punch trough an oponent's defenses, whereas in SupCom units seem to have some bizzare diriving code that will make them distance from each other and get shot one by one if I order them to attack.

Also, in Spring the bigger non-air units also tend to be slower, so T1 light troops keep being viable even in late game as fast attack choices.

And then the much bigger unit and structure variety greatly amplifies the complexity in a wonderfull way, while in SupCom is reduced to assault unit, AA unit, artillery unit, gunship, fighter, bomber, go!

[Inhuman Bot]

Map spanning artillery

Tell me how it innately improves a game to be able to sit in your base and blow the hell out of everyone else?

[ZeroNumerous]

Hmmm, I don't quite understand the concept of "map spanning artillery", since I don't recall a game where you'd be able to bombard one end of the map from the other.

Company of Heroes has artillery that spans 3/4ths of the map. Not entirely map-spanning, but there's little functional difference.

[Oslecamo]

Tell me how it innately improves a game to be able to sit in your base and blow the hell out of everyone else?

This is the reason why Starcraft doesn't do it. Balance.

In Spring for example if your oponent makes one of those and you don't have plasma shields built around your base then it's pretty much GG. And even then the plasma shields can and will be eventualy overpowered.

Maybe there's a way that map-spanning artillery can be balanced and strategic instead of "turtle in your base while nuking the hell out of your oponent", but I've yet to see it.

[Triaxx]

I accept that StarCraft is a fun game. I simply don't accept that it's played on a strategic level. It's all about the troops engaging one another. And that's often fun. It's the level between Rommel vs. Patton and Hot Grunt-on-Grunt action.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to turn this Pro. vs. Anti. StarCraft, but I'm referencing because it's being referenced. Now, when I say map-spanning, I don't really mean artillery that runs from one corner to the other, but artillery that can reach say the center from the edges.

On smaller maps, you're going to end up with armies fighting each other to break up attacks if Air defenses are reasonably impenetrable. On larger maps though, SC still has to send out armies to break up enemy concentrations instead of letting artillery pound on it, because there isn't really any that reaches out beyond the base, so it's a much more aggressive game.

The larger focused games can be played more defensively because of that reach out and touch ability.

Oslecamo: Total Annihilations pathfinding wasn't precisely genius either. Ordering two boats to attack a target and watching them spend five minutes bouncing off one another was not a sterling example of pathfinding.

You bothered with those others? Unless the map had water, I just started producing basic ground bots. T3 factories produce lots of them, enough to overwhelm most defenses through sheer weight of numbers. And having shields did not help at all. If they threw up gunships then a 5-1 ratio of T1's and T2 AA meant they'd quickly be out numbered. And if they weren't you didn't have enough factories producing.

Map spanning Artillery: Balance is long build times and you should either be building your own to take it out, or harrassing them so they can't get theirs up.

[Breltar]

R.U.S.E. is another unless it has already been mentioned. WW2 with lots of strategy that depends upon your use of your selected army wisely.

[Oslecamo]

Oslecamo: Total Annihilations pathfinding wasn't precisely genius either. Ordering two boats to attack a target and watching them spend five minutes bouncing off one another was not a sterling example of pathfinding.

And that's one of the reasons why I say Spring is the worthy sucessor, since it provides much better pathfinding.



You bothered with those others? Unless the map had water, I just started producing basic ground bots. T3 factories produce lots of them, enough to overwhelm most defenses through sheer weight of numbers. And having shields did not help at all. If they threw up gunships then a 5-1 ratio of T1's and T2 AA meant they'd quickly be out numbered. And if they weren't you didn't have enough factories producing.

Kinda helping my point here. Supcomm ends up going to the dude who spams more stuff to overwhelm the enemy by sheer brute force.



Map spanning Artillery: Balance is long build times and you should either be building your own to take it out, or harrassing them so they can't get theirs up.

That's not balance. That's win before they get it or die horribly.

[Gamerlord]

Kinda helping my point here. Supcomm ends up going to the dude who spams more stuff to overwhelm the enemy by sheer brute force.




Have to agree here, at least using every game I have played as evidence, bomber spams kill pretty much anything: Just spam them on the enemy commander early game

[ZeroNumerous]

Maybe there's a way that map-spanning artillery can be balanced and strategic instead of "turtle in your base while nuking the hell out of your oponent", but I've yet to see it.

You've never played Company of Heroes then. Artillery is terrible at damaging even the lightest of armor.

[NEO|Phyte]

Master of Orion 3 had a level of complexity and micromanagement that rendered it unplayable in the eyes of most people. I hear if one ever actually understood how it worked, it could be quite rewarding, but few people ever managed to do that. I certainly did not.

It seemed fairly straightforward to me.
1) Tag every unoccupied planet for colonization.
2) Mark all troop ship designs obsolete, the automated governor thing LOVES building these guys.
3) Combat ships should consist of as many fighters as you can cram into a hull while still having room for shields and the like.
4) Ignore the fact that you seem to be losing money every turn, you will never actually run out.
5) As boring as it can be, never cede control of a fight. Your untouchable carriers of doom will invariably go pants-on-head retarded and suffer losses if you don't watch the battle. This goes especially when assaulting planets that still have intact orbitals and the like.
6) You can only have 10 fleet groups (180 ships max) in any given fight. Use this to stonewall the AI's 35235235 ship fleets in a system while you roll through their planets.
7) The AI will never agree to any diplomatic suggestion you make, no matter how lopsided. If you want techs they have that didn't appear in your own tree, use spies.

[factotum]

Yes, MoO3 was quite straightforward. It was also quite spectacularly dull. To this day I still don't know quite how they managed to mess it up as badly as they did...

[Oslecamo]

You've never played Company of Heroes then. Artillery is terrible at damaging even the lightest of armor.

Pfft, and they call it realistic. That's one way of doing it I guess but quite dull at the same time. At least SC siege tanks can bust heavy armor quite well. :smallamused:

[Triaxx]

And that's one of the reasons why I say Spring is the worthy sucessor, since it provides much better pathfinding.

Pathfinding is always a sticky thing. Spring simply had more people and a chance to do it right.


Kinda helping my point here. Supcomm ends up going to the dude who spams more stuff to overwhelm the enemy by sheer brute force.

Which is the point of it. They didn't add the infinite repeat button for no reason. It takes a bit of the micro out and allows you to concentrate on the important parts instead of constantly ordering more reinforcements.


That's not balance. That's win before they get it or die horribly.

Isn't that the way all games are played? Win as fast as possible to deny the opponent the opportunity to do so? Besides, if you don't harrass him enough to keep him from building the gun, it's your own fault.

[Aragehaor]

Somebody made the comment that "Victoria isn't complex" because once you get past the initial 4-5 hours of understanding how it works, you can have quite an easy time. Excuse me, but 4-5 hours of learnings in a strategy game is "complex" in my book. I compare it to Starcraft where I picked up the basics in 15 minutes.


Fair enough, i wasn't completely clear on what the op meant by complicated (which i had thought he meant by it games that are hard to play even after you grasp the basics, probably my fault for merely skimming the thread.) so i cede the point that Victoria is complicated.

[Breltar]

Soldiers of Anarchy is another strategy style game with rpg elements. Post apocalypse and you loot tanks and vehicles with game play similar to Command and Conquer but you loot each mission, you don't build resources.

[warty goblin]

Tell me how it innately improves a game to be able to sit in your base and blow the hell out of everyone else?

First off, my post did not say a game was innately better for having very long range weapons. I said it was more realistic. Given the range of artillery compared to small arms, I think there's very little to discuss about that statement since its truth should be obvious. I also think calling Starcraft not particularly realistic is eminently reasonable, even though it is utterly fictional- I highly doubt for instance that many people think in the 'real' Starcraft universe Wraiths cannot fire while moving and fly more slowly than a stimmed up Marine.

Secondly, the best way to balance weaponry capable of long range supporting fires in a semi-realistic game is to allow semi-realistic responses to it. Trenches, counter-battery fire, concealment, air strikes and so on all are reasonable answers to artillery. If you're going futuristic, add shield generators, point defense, and whatever else you can think of. Things get even better if you add at least a quasi-realistic model for shell penetration based on shell velocity (determined by muzzle velocity and range), angle of impact, material and shell type, and toss the fixed hitpoint/damage system in the garbage.

Of course, I also think that the *generally* more interesting course of action in an RTS lies in getting rid of the traditional base building model. Giving each side a fixed pool of units with limited reinforcements is an excellent alternative.

[Inhuman Bot]

Of course, I also think that the *generally* more interesting course of action in an RTS lies in getting rid of the traditional base building model. Giving each side a fixed pool of units with limited reinforcements is an excellent alternative.

Focusing on this, I don't disagree with you, but why do you think this?

I mean, I find it a nice change, or great in some TBS (X-com, Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy Tactics), and am curious.

[warty goblin]

Focusing on this, I don't disagree with you, but why do you think this?

I mean, I find it a nice change, or great in some TBS (X-com, Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy Tactics), and am curious.

I should clarify that I don't consider fixed army lists at the beginning the only viable alternative; it was merely the one that sprang most rapidly to mind.

Basically the reason I find traditional base building less interesting is that at this point it has been done more or less to death. The fact that there's a standardized, crossgame language such as 'T3' to talk about the process is, for me anyway, a giveaway that conceptually this concept has been run into the ground.

Beyond that, I simply cannot get excited about it anymore. Don't get me wrong, I really like building things in games. Building things in an RTS however is a sideshow to the main action of actually fighting; if I want to build stuff, a citybuilder is nearly always the better choice. There building a functioning city is complex, challenging, and rewarding. In an RTS building a base is something I do because its how I build an army, but there's no challenge, and very little complexity to it- in fact with a few hours familiarity I do it basically on autopilot. Fighting that army is where the game becomes enjoyable, because that can be deep and challenging. Getting rid of building the base is just cutting loose a lot of unnecessary baggage that slows the game down without adding all that much.

I also find that the base really cripples an RTS's ability to tell a well paced story. Think about it, you watch the dramatic cutscene, get all pumped up for the coming climatic showdown or tense evacuation or what have you. Then you spend seven minutes building ten workers and a barracks before gathering a bunch of resources, just like you did for the last fifteen missions. It's the gaming equivalent of unnecessary, mostly irrelevant and poorly written exposition in a novel, and as such the worst sort of narrative self-indulgence. Like all such bloat, it should be excised. Compare this with Men of War's campaign, which just gives you a briefing and a pile of units, then throws you right into the action. If the briefing says the Germans are attacking, the game starts maybe forty seconds before the guns open fire. Despite the game's atrocious voice acting and cutscenes, it simply delivers its rather dull story much, much better than is possible in a base building type RTS.

[lesser_minion]

Basically the reason I find traditional base building less interesting is that at this point it has been done more or less to death. The fact that there's a standardized, crossgame language such as 'T3' to talk about the process is, for me anyway, a giveaway that conceptually this concept has been run into the ground.

I don't disagree, although there are caveats to that - CnC comes across as an example. Despite a blatant tier structure, and the absence of any sort of branching, the emphasis is still usually on combat, and they try pretty hard to mix base-building up with other interesting elements (in fact, in some missions you never get to build a base at all, and in others you have a strictly limited base-building element).


Beyond that, I simply cannot get excited about it anymore ... baggage that slows the game down without adding all that much.

Perhaps. I think it still can be interesting - most notably in some construction-related options such as fortifying a position or establishing a forward base.

Massive specialise in RTT rather than RTS, but they have tried quite a few different ways to get rid of base-building while retaining that element - GC had deployables, GC2 added static turrets you could rebuild and capture, while WiC allowed you to dig in by occupying a control point.


I also find that the base really cripples an RTS's ability to tell a well paced story...

There are a lot of games with a base-building element that go out of their way to avoid this -the Command and Conquer series is notable, where a lot of missions hold off on the base building and make you go on a massive assault with a fixed list of units.

Warzone 2100 also involves a giant chunk of base-building - except you build your base up at the start of the campaign, and after that all you do at base is set purchase orders and add in various improvements.

In the field, you have to fly in units you've already built and trained.

[Oslecamo]

I also find that the base really cripples an RTS's ability to tell a well paced story. Think about it, you watch the dramatic cutscene, get all pumped up for the coming climatic showdown or tense evacuation or what have you. Then you spend seven minutes building ten workers and a barracks before gathering a bunch of resources, just like you did for the last fifteen missions. It's the gaming equivalent of unnecessary, mostly irrelevant and poorly written exposition in a novel, and as such the worst sort of narrative self-indulgence. Like all such bloat, it should be excised. Compare this with Men of War's campaign, which just gives you a briefing and a pile of units, then throws you right into the action. If the briefing says the Germans are attacking, the game starts maybe forty seconds before the guns open fire. Despite the game's atrocious voice acting and cutscenes, it simply delivers its rather dull story much, much better than is possible in a base building type RTS.

Ok, ignoring all the SC and WC3 missions where they give you a fully operational base with a decent army and the enemy attacks indeed start a few seconds after the briefing, have you ever tried Earth 2150?

Because there you have one main base hidden inside some safe valley, and in every mission except the first you can use a super carrier to transport troops from that base to the mission and back. You don't ever need to build production stuff on the mission as your "safe" base can provide you with tech and new units.

You even get to carry on technology, troops and left-over resources from each mission you complete. So those dual turret tanks with heat seeking rocket launchers it took you so many time to build? If they survive the battle, you can use them right away in the next mission! Troops even get experience and grow stronger as they battle giving you a strong motivation to keep them alive. And you can even group units in squads with a single button, upon wich you can command them all with a single click.

It's still strongly advised to build defensive structures, because to counter your troops carried from each mission the enemy gets free reinforcments every X minutes on top his own production ability. You also need to build ammo factories to ressuply your troops(yes non-energy weapons have limited ammo), and if you want to take a profit from the mission you'll need to build mines to take the local ore, altough the mining process is simplified compared to the other RTS. Heck one of the factions just needs to drop a building over the resources and the credits start flowing in your reserves. You can get extra cash for capturing and selling enemy buildings.



Pathfinding is always a sticky thing. Spring simply had more people and a chance to do it right.

Spring developers didn't get paid for doing it. I however paid for supreme commander. That the dudes who are geting paid do a worst job than the dudes doing it with their free time is a sign something is wrong with Supcom.



Which is the point of it. They didn't add the infinite repeat button for no reason. It takes a bit of the micro out and allows you to concentrate on the important parts instead of constantly ordering more reinforcements.

Important parts like...What again? Increasing your eco to overwhelm the oponent? Because since your troops are attacking in auto-mode all that's left to you is keep spamming energy plants and metal makers.




Isn't that the way all games are played? Win as fast as possible to deny the opponent the opportunity to do so?

That's rushing. Winning in good complex RTS can also be achieved by slowly taking control of the map and grinding into your oponent territorry, or slowly wearing them down with hits and runs, or make an elaborate trap and then kill your oponent when he drops his guard.



Besides, if you don't harrass him enough to keep him from building the gun, it's your own fault.
Except that I can't properly harass in Supcomm, as the horrible pathfinding prevents. I can only spam troops and send them to the mindlessly assault the enemy and pray I have a better eco than my oponent.

[Winterwind]

Beyond that, I simply cannot get excited about it anymore. Don't get me wrong, I really like building things in games. Building things in an RTS however is a sideshow to the main action of actually fighting; if I want to build stuff, a citybuilder is nearly always the better choice. There building a functioning city is complex, challenging, and rewarding. In an RTS building a base is something I do because its how I build an army, but there's no challenge, and very little complexity to it- in fact with a few hours familiarity I do it basically on autopilot. Fighting that army is where the game becomes enjoyable, because that can be deep and challenging. Getting rid of building the base is just cutting loose a lot of unnecessary baggage that slows the game down without adding all that much.There is a very old (I think about 12 years old by now) RTS called Enemy Nations that did this pretty well; while basically a regular RTS for the most parts, it had the complexity of a city builder in its city building parts, requiring you to mine coal or oil for electricity, refining the oil for gas for your vehicles, different kinds of ores that had to be refined as well before they could be used, keeping a population up to operate your vehicles and buildings, growing food, and connecting all of this with roads and setting up transporter routes to carry the ores, coal, oil, refined steel and other stuff to where they were needed. And the ore sites were far away from each other, which also made the game less about extinguishing an opponent and more about trying to conquer resource sites from them.

I thought the RTS part itself was somewhat mediocre, but it was just about the only case I can think of where a moderately complex city/economy builder and an RTS fit together seamlessly (in most other games, like, say, Anno1X02, it's more of a pure city/economy builder with a bit of RTS combat tacked on as an afterthought).

Incidentally, while very old and potentially difficult to get to run properly on modern computers, I think the OP might like Enemy Nations. I remember I thought it had a pretty steep learning curve and a fair amount of complexity back then.

[lesser_minion]

Spring developers didn't get paid for doing it. I however paid for supreme commander. That the dudes who are geting paid do a worst job than the dudes doing it with their free time...

... who, as a result, are also far more emotionally involved in the success of the project than the dudes doing it because it pays the bills.

You are aware of the purpose behind open source, aren't you? The philosophy that it's the best way to work on software?

While I don't believe that open source is the only way to write software, proprietary/commercial software doesn't have to be better.

With enough pairs of eyes, all bugs are shallow, after all.

[Oslecamo]

... who, as a result, are also far more emotionally involved in the success of the project than the dudes doing it because it pays the bills.

Well, one would expect that needing to pay my bills would be a great motivation. Unfortenely what we get nowadays is "Make extra shiny graphics to atract buyers, don't care about making proper gameplay". Then make sequel with even shinier graphics but worst gameplay. Rise and repeat. Command and Conquer is a sad example of this.



You are aware of the purpose behind open source, aren't you? The philosophy that it's the best way to work on software?

Altough I personally agree with you on that, a lot of peoples out there don't.



While I don't believe that open source is the only way to write software, proprietary/commercial software doesn't have to be better.

Again, I personally agree with you on that, but a lot of people out there would and do defend the oposite philosophy.



With enough pairs of eyes, all bugs are shallow, after all.
True, but you still need someone to collect all the impressions and decide what's correct and what's not and do the actual coding.

And even then it isn't easy. Starcraft had millions of players since it's launch and a company that actualy listens to the customers and it was still being patched last year.

[lesser_minion]

Well, one would expect that needing to pay my bills would be a great motivation. Unfortenely what we get nowadays is "Make extra shiny graphics to atract buyers, don't care about making proper gameplay". Then make sequel with even shinier graphics but worst gameplay. Rise and repeat. Command and Conquer is a sad example of this.

Actually, the CnC series is a case of the designers making some effort and, in places, screwing up spectacularly - it wasn't until they arbitrarily decided to rewrite the whole formula that it started to dive off a cliff in CnC 4.

And the same engine gets re-used for several games in a row throughout the CnC series - CnC and RA both had the same engine, Tiberian Sun and RA2 had the same engine, and every game since Generals has been built on SAGE.

Sure, some extra bling was added with each revision, but it's still more a case of "better graphics = more familiarity with the engine" than "better graphics = graphics for the sake of graphics".

Every revision at least tried to improve things, even if it didn't work.

[warty goblin]

To everybody who replied to my post: thank you. I'm not going to do quotes here, else this post would take an hour to format and be three screens long. That said, there are some important clarifications I feel I should make.

I said traditional base building for a reason. By traditional I meant something like Starcraft, Age of Empires, or Dawn of War, stuff that follows the build a base at one end of the map, harvest resources, upgrade tech sort of paradigm.

Obviously there are quite a few games, both new and old, that do not follow this paradigm, even if they have construction elements in them. I thank you collectively for making me aware of them. However this does not change my point that 'traditional' base building is something I can no longer become excited by, and thus think it on average better that RTSs come up with a more interesting and original solution.

Nor did I mean to suggest that fixed unit lists at the beginning are the only way around an Age of Empire style base. As many people pointed out, there are quite a few games that have bases, but remove them from the central action in some way, or otherwise avoid forcing you to build a new one every single mission.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Hum.. regarding an original base-building game...

I remember someone talking to me about a game where you combine animals to create combat units. You'd get the special features of the animals chosen, so you could end up with an army of Eagle-Scorpios supported by Elephant-Turtles.

[lesser_minion]

Hum.. regarding an original base-building game...

I remember someone talking to me about a game where you combine animals to create combat units. You'd get the special features of the animals chosen, so you could end up with an army of Eagle-Scorpios supported by Elephant-Turtles.

I haven't played it, but that could be Impossible Creatures.

[Eloel]

I haven't played it, but that could be Impossible Creatures.

It indeed is - it's one of the best ideas for a RTS I heard of, though the execution disappoints.

[Triaxx]

No resonse to the first, since I didn't say it. :D


Spring developers didn't get paid for doing it. I however paid for supreme commander. That the dudes who are geting paid do a worst job than the dudes doing it with their free time is a sign something is wrong with Supcom.

Right, but they had to be paid to work, where Spring has essentially infinite resources to work with, because they aren't having to pay. The average pay game might have four people working on the pathfinding. Spring could have fourty, each putting in only a few hours a week on it and have more progress because they're not being stressed to get it done NOW to meet the deadlines, because there aren't any.


Important parts like...What again? Increasing your eco to overwhelm the oponent? Because since your troops are attacking in auto-mode all that's left to you is keep spamming energy plants and metal makers.

Precisely. Because you don't have to be in direct control of the battle, if I'm attacking you can set your plants to send troops at mine. Played right, my strategy should stalemate fairly fast. It should only ever work against the computer. Because you can have a larger force waiting for me, while my reinforcements trickle in. And if not?


That's rushing. Winning in good complex RTS can also be achieved by slowly taking control of the map and grinding into your oponent territorry, or slowly wearing them down with hits and runs, or make an elaborate trap and then kill your oponent when he drops his guard.

Sure it's rushing. I'm rushing to control the map while doing my best to prevent you from getting control. It's no less valid a strategy than running out raiding parties to cut off your resource supply. Blitzkrieg vs. Tri-phibious assault. Both valid strategies, both terrifingly effective vs. an unprepared opponent, both counterable by a strategic mind.


Except that I can't properly harass in Supcomm, as the horrible pathfinding prevents. I can only spam troops and send them to the mindlessly assault the enemy and pray I have a better eco than my oponent.

Then you're forgetting that the pathfinding is slowing the opponent as well. Assume any disadvantage, that's not a function of your side, affects the opponent as well. If you're running into pathfinding issues, chances are he is as well. Use that to your advantage by air lifting some ground forces out of his direct line of attack and control them around the sides to hit his resources. Chances are he's running the line on resources and if you can take out power, he'll grind to a halt. Think outside the box. Look for choke points to stymie him and use air transports to put troops outside his angles of attack and flank him that way. Remember that the ferry command is your friend and can be dropped into factory move orders. Ten factories running along the same line will run into pathing issues. Six won't have as many, and the other four can strike around the main attack. Or simply pincer into his reinforcements, and let the main hammer push him back.

Three rules of thumb:
1) No plan survives first contact.
- Assume the enemy is doing anything but what you're trying to counter.
2) Don't discount the complexity of a simple plan.
- Those factories could be easily repurposed into a layered rolling defense ten unit lines deep.
3) Your disadvantages must be used on him.
- If you're having trouble getting around, he probably is too.

warty: One of my favorite ways is those that count buildings in the unit limits. So you can build the huge base, but you're consuming your unit limit as well.