Hero units in RTS

[a Goat]

Recently something got me thingking - I didn't really like RTS games that used hero units extensively, can't be the only one because other people complain about them as well. I can't really pinpoint why though, so I've decided to make a thread about it.
What do you guys think about them?

 

[Maxie]

they're very cool especially if a game has missions with no unit production so u have to micromanage a small squad of troops

 

[spectre]

I'm not really an RTS guy, but from my limited experience,
you either get something like hero units in C&C with a puzzle mission. While the mission itself may actually be fun, it will typically feel disjointed from the rest of the game.
I actually think it works better when a "hero" unit is more of a liability than OP.

On the other hand you get stuff like Spellforce, which does this weird split between RTS and RPG without really being great in any of these.

 

[JarlFrank]

They can be ok if used well, but if not done well it shifts the focus of the gameplay from building a base and commanding armies to micromanaging a handful of OP dudes that are worth 10 times as much as your average unit.

I'm not big into micro in RTS games, I prefer the macro gameplay of building a working resource harvesting economy, expanding my territory, and commanding armies using proper strategies like flanking maneuvers and ambushes. A greater focus on hero units means the gameplay shifts from macro to micro: you end up spending more time using the hero's special abilities than coming up with strategies and tactics.

In Age of Empires, the gameplay is all about securing your base with a wall, raiding the enemy economy, using your faction's strengths and weaknesses (like faster-shooting archers and a full archery tech tree, but average cavalry that lacks most upgrades) and picking the right army compositions to counter your enemy's, achieving map control by building town centers and defensive buildings near sources of gold and stone, etc etc. When you clash with an enemy army it's all about reasonable tactical movements: keep your archers out of melee and get them on high ground for additional damage, use your pikemen to attack cavalry, use your cavalry's speed to reach the enemy archers while they're unprotected by pikes, etc.

In Warcraft 3 on the other hand, hero builds are more important than unit composition and base building. If you read a strategy guide for that game, the main focus is always which hero to pick first and which skills to prioritize. Combat is less about tactical maneuvers and using counter units, but about activating the right ability at the right time. Very different style of gameplay, and APM is much more important than in something like AoE.

 

[Parsimonious cook]

I will speak from the MP point of view, since I dont think that hero units are much of a concern in SP.

IMO the value that the hero units bring to an RTS really depends on how they are implemented. If they are basically the same for every faction (ie just a strong fighter that can wreck normal units) I think that they are superfluous and at best serve as a crutch for noob players who are likely to get fucked in the crucial opening phase of an MP match (recent example of such implementation is Ancestors: Legacy). I guess having hero units implemented in this manner might make a game more accessible, but I generally prefer to play without hero units if possible.

On the other hand, if the hero units are "asymmetrical" and have serious impact on the gameplay, they are definitely worth having. IMO the best example of this is DoWII, where each faction plays differently depending on what hero you choose (to use Space Marines as an example: Force Commander is a melee tank, Tech Marine is highly defensive, Apothecary is buff oriented). A more recent example would be Iron Harvest - this RTS even has a unique system for "reserves" you select one hero and possibly several other units that can be called in (in exchange for resources), which makes the whole thing even more nuanced (and less accessible for noobs at the same time).

So yeah, I like hero units if they introduce a new layer to the gameplay. If they are just a "stronger fighter" that brings nothing more to the table, I prefer not to have them.

 

[Galdred]

All the RTS I played extensively had hero units (Kohan, Dawn of War, Sins of a Solar Empire, with its super capital ships), so I guess I like having them.
It is true that they move the focus towards micro, though.

 

[Catacombs]

I prefer no hero units to worry about.

 

[Hag]

I prefer to crush my opponent under hundreds over hundreds of units that I relentlessly produce in my perfectly managed factories, so "nay" I guess.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

Nay but experience a la Generals/CnC3 etc. yay.

 

[Lhynn]

I like them, but they definitely can shift the entires games paradigm depending on their power. It fits some rts, but the more grounded or realistic the game, the less they tend to work.

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

I prefer them to be campaign exclusive. I never know how to use them properly in a random map, I either never use them or they get slapped together with whatever the closest regular unit is.

 

[Mr. Pink]

I just hate shitty escort mission scenarios in single player RTS games because I always end up garrisoning the VIP and killing everything on the map.

I dislike RTS games built around hero units because it's hard to intuitively gauge how strong an army is just by its size, and it makes me feel like a chump when my bigger army gets wiped out by some bullshit area-of-effect spell that can only be countered by having a specific type of hero in your army composition. Looking at you, Age of Mythology.

 

[Dr Skeleton]

In SP campaigns or custom maps - yes.
In MP/skirmish - no. A support commander who joins squads Dawn of War style is fine, but even there most of them are too tanky and shift the focus from units too much.

 

[silentsod]

I don’t care for hero units a la WC3. A combination of moving focus away from base building and toward micro-ing one unit above all is the slippery slope that brought us DOTA.

 

[deama]

When I was a youngster I liked them, but overtime I just don't like them anymore, although I do think it works well in games like supreme commander or zero-k, but the hero is more of unit that can offer exclusive abilities, but is kinda squishy or very risky to use cause if they die it's game over.

 

[Harthwain]

It depends on how it's done.

Mostly hero units are meh - a slightly stronger version of a normal unit, maybe with some unique visuals. But some RTS games managed to make them shine. Warcraft III and Dawn of War are the best examples.

In Warcraft III your starting hero choice is the most important decision in the game and all heroes have tremendous impact on the game as a whole. In my opinion they elevate the gameplay by offering interesting choices and encouraging exploration and early aggression by the virtue of amassing experince, which turns into levels that allow you to pick up new abilities or upgrade the existing ones.

In Dawn of War heroes aren't as impactful, but they still offer some extra abilities, as well as providing a significant boost to your armies, so they end up being between "meh" and "great". It also helps that Dawn of War had excellent visual and audio direction.

Honestly, I would love to see a spiritual successor to Kohan with Kohans having as much impact as the heroes do in Warcraft III. I think it suits the idea of Kohans being super important element of the game. As they were implemented, they served mostly as extra support elements replacing the company's captain. They are impactful, certainly, but not quite as meaningful as they ought to be. At least in my opinion.

 

[markec]

Like everything else if done right it's good.

I enjoyed them in Warlords Battlecry since there was a large number of ways you could build them giving you variety on how approach the game.

Be a fighter that is good against units, be a support for your units, assassin that focuses on killing heroes, merchant that boosts economy etc.

 

[Dadd]

I can see how heroes could be good in a game built around heroes but generally they demand too much attention for what they add to the games.

 

[J1M]

I would like to see an RTS try to hit a spot somewhere between RTS and MOBA, where you only directly control hero units and what to build. Non-hero units would be automated with basic standing orders, such as "join up with the hero", "defend base", etc.

Would be an interesting experiment, and shift the game towards "strategy" instead of "micro".

 

[Dadd]

HoMM3 but real-time. How about that?

 

[Kabas]

I enjoyed them in Warlords Battlecry since there was a large number of ways you could build them giving you variety on how approach the game.

It's a great feeling watching your deamon going from an amateur who fumbles a basic quasit summon to a grandmaster summoner who overwhelms his foes with hordes of succubi conjured from nothing.

 

[Johannes]

Very different style of gameplay, and APM is much more important than in something like AoE.

AoE is way more mechanically demanding than WC3, exactly because of the larger scope - in WC3 you handle a hero and his supporting goons mostly, in AoE you have to manage a full empire, way more workers, way more units, several fronts to fight on. I prefer that to the hero wankery but it certainly takes more APM.

 

[JarlFrank]

Very different style of gameplay, and APM is much more important than in something like AoE.

AoE is way more mechanically demanding than WC3, exactly because of the larger scope - in WC3 you handle a hero and his supporting goons mostly, in AoE you have to manage a full empire, way more workers, way more units, several fronts to fight on. I prefer that to the hero wankery but it certainly takes more APM.

I guess my point was that it takes different types of actions, and it's easier to recover from mistakes precisely because of its larger scale. A single skirmish in AoE can give you a leg up, but is unlikely to be decisive. In WC3 a single encounter can be a lot more decisive due to smaller army sizes and higher importance on micro.

 

[Johannes]

Very different style of gameplay, and APM is much more important than in something like AoE.

AoE is way more mechanically demanding than WC3, exactly because of the larger scope - in WC3 you handle a hero and his supporting goons mostly, in AoE you have to manage a full empire, way more workers, way more units, several fronts to fight on. I prefer that to the hero wankery but it certainly takes more APM.

I guess my point was that it takes different types of actions, and it's easier to recover from mistakes precisely because of its larger scale. A single skirmish in AoE can give you a leg up, but is unlikely to be decisive. In WC3 a single encounter can be a lot more decisive due to smaller army sizes and higher importance on micro.

Maybe battles are more decisive in WC3, but that doesn't mean they take more APM to do well in. APM is most of all needed for good macro.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Depends on how well they are implemented. I will always have fond memories of Sauron in Battle for Middle-earth with his iconic slow walk and his destroying of whole buildings and throwing of whole enemy squads back with a hit of his mace. Badass / 10.