RTS: What's Your Opinion?

[Naked_Lunch]

Real-Time Strategy games are easily the most popular sub-genre of strategy, while most "big-name" turn-based games barely get public recognition, most publishers are dissapointed if a big-name RTS doesn't sell a million copies.

So, in the purpose of getting a good topic going plus an easy article write-up, I'm asking for your opinion of RTSes. What you like about them, what you don't, are they hurting the genre of helping it, et cetera.

Personally, I believe RTSes are a double-edged sword, much like action-RPGs are to CRPGs. Like ARPGs, there are some (very) fun real-time strategy games such as Myth II, Warlords II and Syndicate to name a few, but there are hundreds upon hundreds of craptacular vanilla RTSes, all following the same Blizzard-branded formula: Simplistic base-building, spamming shock troops, and mastering hot-keys. You might have noticed all the RTSes I mentioned as good had no base-building in them or shifted the focus away from it. Base-building more often than not is nothing more than building stupid place after stupid place in a linear fashion that leads you to only one destination: The uber-powerful unit. So basically the one who builds the base the fastest wins and in the end, all bases are the same.

I'd like it if more RTS games had X-Com style building, where the buildings weren't just housing for units but rather upgrades for your army as a whole i.e. building satellites to spy on the enemy, who could counter with jamming singals and so on. Actual strategy would be nice in an RTS.

Combat is really the same, too: Sheer numbers win. Strategy is thrown out the door in favor of spamming zerglings over and over again. Sure, some RTS games boast unit formations and crap like that, but that's really more of an organizational tool than a strategical one (Developers just include to make it look like they did something to fix the hideous pathfinding prevailent in most RTS games, I think),

But as I said before, there are some good RTSes that rise above this, because the emphasis is shifted to actual battles and units rather than base-building. You build the bases to build the units, it should be that you build the base to supplement the units or upgrade them, shifting the focus so that the economic side of an RTS and the strategial side is equal.

So that's my 2 cents to get you guys started. Make me proud

 

[S4ur0n27]

I have to agree, overall, with your points. Though some of these Blizzard-styled RTSes, I've liked. Warcraft 2 and 3 were, for me, good games. Enjoyable at least, especially the second one as when it came out it was near revolutionnary(gameplay-wise as well as graphically).

In my mind, Myth I and II were the best RTses ever. They had, at the time, good graphics, but they also succeeded in balancing very much the races. Okay, there were only 2 and you could only play as one in singleplayer, but the multiplayer part was very well balanced.

They also gave importance to a bunch of stuff that are nowadays thrown in as "features" in RTSes, like terrain advantage, formations, AI, etc.

For me, these games were perfect.

Most RTSes I play now, I only play for a few minutes : the singleplayer gets boring after 1-2 maps; the story often sucks, or if the story is good, the story-telling sucks. The AI is also kind of blend and unoriginal.

The multiplayer, in turn, often is too inaccessible since you have to play with a bunch of kids who plays 12 hours a day; they master the hotkeys, they know every secrets in every maps. I work, I have a family, I don't have that much time to spend on a video game. Give something that's easy to learn but tough and long to master.

I liked the good old 2D maps, very simply designed, in the older games like Warcraft I and II, or the firsts C&C.

This is my opinion, quickly summed up, since I gotta go work D:

 

[Naked_Lunch]

The multiplayer, in turn, often is too inaccessible since you have to play with a bunch of kids who plays 12 hours a day; they master the hotkeys, they know every secrets in every maps. I work, I have a family, I don't have that much time to spend on a video game. Give something that's easy to learn but tough and long to master.

That's my big beef with most RTS games nowaday, as winning is not a matter of planning out your army against what you think the enemy may have or terrain advantages, but rather mastering the hotkeys and pumping out zergs. It shouldn't be player's reflexes that win, but rather their intellect and strategical planning.

 

[S4ur0n27]

I think it was in Shogun : Total War, but I really digged the skirmishes in the game. You have a set number of points which you'd spent on units for the battle.

I think this should be exploited better in order to make longer lasting game instead of quick skirmishes. In other words, let's pick a vanilla RTS, say AoE. You give 300 points to each players, and each picks buildings(strategic ones like towers, walls, etc depending on the game type), units, etc.

 

[LlamaGod]

Kohan kicked ass, it was an excellent RTS design, of course everyone ignores it and keeps making AOE/Warcraft clones.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Hmm, that reminds me: I still have to get it and the expansion. Too bad I just blew all my money on the UnReal World.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Dammit, you guys gotta post some more in-depth replies so I can make a big article about it and post it on slashdot or something so this site can further spread its seed of coolness.

 

[Atrokkus]

So basically the one who builds the base the fastest wins and in the end, all bases are the same.

Wrong.
Well, not in StarCraft's case, at least (I will not discuss other RTS like AoE or Warhammer40k).
You want tactics? You got them right there in SC, for without them you are dead meat against a human adversary.
You were saying something about uber-units? Well, guesss what, 10 fast carriers are easily countered by much cheaper, but more numerous and effective units. For instance, against that you could go for cheap wraiths with cloak ability. Locate the carrier fleet when it's on the move, and attack from the behind, because observers will lag behind a little, and then use comsat to reveal them and destroy them, leaving carriers blind. Yes, that involves a lot of micro and deft hands, but hey - it's *real-time* stretegy, it can involve reflex by definition. Don't want that? Then TBS is better for you, or some other less micro-intensive RTSs like Kohan. However, please do not mistake micro with mindless shooting a la Serious Sam. Without a quick mind and careful strategies you WILL lose, no matter how lightning-quick you are.

Combat is really the same, too: Sheer numbers win.

Classic example: two high templars vs 20 hydralisks. Who wins? You can never tell for sure. It all depends on tactics and battle circumstances. Storm their asses and if the enemy is not quick enough to react (and even if he is, but circumstances are against him) he'll lose them all.
1 Dark archon + 5 zealots + 2 dragoons -> 10 ultralisks. Huzza? A clever use of Maelstrom is the key here.
Take Hallucinations, for instance. They can easily make an impossible battle merely challenging, and what's more important: they might actually pressure your opponent psychologically.

I can keep on going with this, but I hope you've gotten the point by now.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

I do indeed see your point and acknowledge those facts, but also that those strategies and tactics are usually overshadowed by Blizzard implementing moronic design decisions a la ZERGLING RUSH

Yes, that involves a lot of micro and deft hands, but hey - it's *real-time* stretegy, it can involve reflex by definition. Don't want that? Then TBS is better for you, or some other less micro-intensive RTSs like Kohan.

And that is exactly why I like TBS better because it doesn't rely on your reflexes, but rather more on careful planning and strategic thought. Not to say that all RTS are all relfex-based shit, which is not true for as I stated before I like quite a few RTS games but the mass majority, especially aisine Ensemble games and Blizzard games are knowing what stupid fucking building to build and not actual strategy.

I hate resource collecting, I hate with all my guts. At least the resource collecting we have now. JA2 had resource collecting, but it was done in a damn good way. Instead of building stupid units that run off and get fucked up the ass, you captured a mine and that was it. Gold, money, silver, whatever was put into your coffers, provided you had the airport to ship them out.

That's a design lesson I think more RTS designers should take to heart, that people don't want to micromanage retarded stuff like that. For resource collecting, you should only have to capture the mine and a place to ship it. For example, in fantasy RTS you could capture a magic ore mine and then have magic ore pour into your coffers that lets you build more powerful weapons. But, you can also build I dunno, a gryffn outpost or something that can be used to ship ore out for trade. And from there you can choose how much you'll export for money and how much you can keep to develop new weapons.

I think you'd agree that's much better than the now standard "click peon and right click tree" setup.

 

[Ryuken]

Games like StarCraft, Age of Empires and Dawn of War are good enough but the problem is that there are too much titles of that rts subgenre. There is certainly an audience for the latter games, but there are also lots of people who don't want to memorise all those special abilities of all the sides (otherwise you don't know what you're fighting against) or master the hotkeys/speedfreaking when they want to compete with others. I am not saying it doesn't involve tactics, just that things are really frenetic.

Real-time strategy is usually fast but why can't there be a game where things start very slow and you can actually take it easy for a while? Or where it isn't a shame to actually pause from time to time? I am not asking for a second Knights & Merchants where it could take a very long time before you were actually creating military units but just a kind of a 'sit and relax' instead of 'let's go loco from start to finish' would be nice.

Another thing that's disturbing is the fact that games like SC and AoE keep sticking to the same 2D-template. The only thing that's 3D is the looks, not the hit-physics or gameplay beneath them. Archers in Age of Empires III f.e. work exactly like those of Age of Empires II (arrows 'follow' the enemy unit and always hit). Judging from the demo, units in Star Wars: Empire At War are looking neat but they all shoot right through rocks and walls with their laserbeams as if physics don't exist.

I can appreciate games like Myth or even Dark Omen but I also love to have something to defend, something that really says 'you're owning and exploiting this turf'.

Another problem in rts's is indeed the singleplayer. Skirmish is mostly alright but campaigns are really not that good anymore. Blizzard-games always have a story set in stone but that doesn't always provide a good campaign (WarCraft III vanilla anyone?) and if they do get it right like in The Frozen Throne, it doesn't have much replay value. I would love to see more meaningful choices like in War Wind and especially Original War. There you were presented with different paths, neat events like when you suddenly encountered a soldier of an unknown third group you could take him prisoner, kill him or even release him and each outcome would have had a different impact on the missions later on. If you reached a goal in OW within a certain timespan you would get a bonus which really meant something for the rest of the campaign too instead of just a WarCraft III-esque confirmation like 'hey cool, now you did that secondary objective, you get a huge bonus to make this single mission even more easy!'.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Another problem is how most (If not all RTSes) singeplayer is nothing more than skirmish maps linked together with some story. I think it'd be neat to have Civ-esque RTS where there's just a huge map and you're presented with a general objective and you complete on that map and then once you complete that you get another one and so on and so forth. The main overarching goal would be to conquer all the territories with the objectives as a way of gaining new units (For example, one objective could be to attack an enemy caravan and when you attack you find out there transporting new weapon blueprints).

That would totally kick ass.

 

[Atrokkus]

That would totally kick ass.

Yeah, but not in real time. It'll be a great thing in turn-based, and this actually have been implemented somewhat in Homm3.

I would love to see more meaningful choices like in War Wind and especially Original War.

Yeah, more strategic choices is always good. However, even without them, StarCraft will always be the best RTS in terms of storyline, for me.
However, it would be even more difficult to implement such freedom in StarCraft's template, because of the sheer scale of the conflict, and sheer number of factors affecting it. You could turn several stones, but that would be it. You can't have choices in every mission, lest the story itself would have to be overly simplifed.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Yeah, but not in real time. It'll be a great thing in turn-based, and this actually have been implemented somewhat in Homm3.

Why wouldn't it work in real time? The only problem I see would be that if you use realistic unit sizes then traveling around could be a pain, but that's why you could create tranpsort systems like planes, trains, monorails, etc.

 

[Kraszu]

I do indeed see your point and acknowledge those facts, but also that those strategies and tactics are usually overshadowed by Blizzard implementing moronic design decisions a la ZERGLING RUSH

Zerling rush is just a strategy, spawning pool now cost 200 and you should have no problem whit defending a rush. 4pool criples your economy so much that it is a win or loose stragy (usually loose i guess about 80% on average level maybe it is wining strategy on noob level)

Basic guaide about 9pool in ZvP http://iceni.nsgp.net/testie9pool.txt

It is not : Make ManY LinGs ATACK aNd WIN like you think, and you would think that if you would play vs zerg that decided to 9pool since you are new to game he would just kill you whit 1st atack and you would say that he don't use strategy just mass lings fast and that is the hole game.

So basically the one who builds the base the fastest wins and in the end, all bases are the same.

1)Well it obvious that you didn't play even on average level sc, you have counter other player actions. If somebady would turtle and just tech i can take expo since my oponent waste minerals on def i don't have to protect it well, macro and it is easy win for me.
2)It is not true that most advenced units are uber like it was mention in sc every unit is usefull in every stage of the game and sometimes it is better to have more cheap units then few expensive (it is more complicated since every unit is specific).

And that is exactly why I like TBS better because it doesn't rely on your reflexes, but rather more on careful planning and strategic thought. Not to say that all RTS are all relfex-based shit, which is not true for as I stated before

I agree on the first part, but the true is that sc requaire both to by very good in strategy and to be fast. It is about strategy and execution.

I like quite a few RTS games but the mass majority, especially aisine Ensemble games and Blizzard games are knowing what stupid fucking building to build and not actual strategy.

You are talking about Build orders, it is not as simplistic as you think for exemple whit zerg (on some maps) i can expand whit 12 drone then pool[...] vs terran and i cnow that i can make sunken fast enought [i can not defent bunker rush throught, but usually i can do it and terran that do it also loose someting (he had to make barack faster so he is litle behind in economy). Bunker rushes are uncommon]. Timing is very important concept in planing a strategy in rts, i had to cnow whot to expect if he made 2 barack he is pomping marines and when (you never cnow exeaclly, and you can't becose you never got 100% info so he can do someting and switch to someting that i will be less prepered for, but the swith is also cost and time[...]). As for the building to make usually in TvP T goes tech becose marines are rather uslles(vs T and P), but the real strategy begins later even if both players are plaing standard (that still is couple posibole BO) they have to adapt, even throught the same units are usually used the % ammount of thanks in army can be very diferent, diferent suport units are added, you can go drop and many more.
Important concept is controling the number of expansions of your oponent
and so the map control, you have to flank, choke are also important strategic palces. The same units are used but each game is diferent just like in chees that could seem very simplist for somebady new to them. To learn basic BO you don't need much time, the real strategy begins later. The problem is that it is hard to find games for new players, they are killed fast by the same units, and think that game have no depth strategy behind it and it is only based only on speed and coping BO.

I hate resource collecting, I hate with all my guts. At least the resource collecting we have now. JA2 had resource collecting, but it was done in a damn good way. Instead of building stupid units that run off and get fucked up the ass, you captured a mine and that was it. Gold, money, silver, whatever was put into your coffers, provided you had the airport to ship them out.

Peaons in sc are weak since you can kill them fast and you have to make many of them that change strategy in the game. Zerg economy is intresting since you build drones and units from the same larvas.

Another thing that's disturbing is the fact that games like SC and AoE keep sticking to the same 2D-template. The only thing that's 3D is the looks, not the hit-physics or gameplay beneath them.

Not really true since you can miss units that are on highter ground + you don't see them from low ground.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Peaons in sc are weak since you can kill them fast and you have to make many of them that change strategy in the game. Zerg economy is intresting since you build drones and units from the same larvas.

You still have to collect resources in the traditional (and stupid) way.

RTS also suffer from a big problem which is once you get into a battle (i.e. right click on the enemy) there's not much you can do from there. The units just mash at each other in melee while you have some archers stand around and shoot for a bit.

A nice feature to have would be better use of formations for reasons other than pathfinding. Medieval Total War had great usage of formations and I think that should be come standard. The battles in MTW were a fuckload more interesting than a stupid 4 man melee in Warcraft III.

 

[VasikkA]

I hope the subject here is strictly about the 'classic' RTS genre, meaning the scope is in armies, not squad based action nor managing nations. Whether this acts out on a tactical or a strategical level is debatable, but hey, I don't set the standards in the gaming scene. I'll also restrain myself from talking about turn-based strategy. That's a hard thing to do, becuase I basically had an intense emotional and physical relationship with the Steel Panthers series for about 5 years, but let's not get into that.

I'll start with my all-time favorite RTS series: Total War and Close Combat. They have surprisingly many things in common. Both of these games aren't flawless, but they are built around the tactical combat instead of a plot or a setting. The combat units in both games have morale that reacts to what is happening around them and are individualized when it comes to strengths/weaknesses and experience. They're not just a health bar on your screen. I think this feature could be made deeper, much like in X-COM where you actually cared about your soldiers. In Close Combat, I remember the pain in my heart whenever I lost a bazooka unit, who had destroyed 2 tanks in an earlier battle.

I so want to break my principles and make sweet love with the guys over at Creative Assembly. Total War games featured a never before seen tactical depth that worked in a dynamic manner. Formations, morale, point of attack, height differences, ranged weapons et cetera weren't just listed below 'OMG Realistic Combat' on the back cover, but they really worked like they were supposed to. The battles didn't have a scripted pre-determined outcome. Some battles were over in 5 minutes and some could last forever and they were usually the most enjoyable ones, no matter how bittersweet the final outcome was. The tactical and strategical game modes in the latest installments were both well implemented and equally important parts of the game, supporting eachother.

Then there's another similiarity between these series, or even another dimension when you're comparing them with many other RTSs; the historic aspect. I find historic facts and assumptions more interesting contra pure fantasy and fiction. The thought of partaking in historical events arouses me. History brings also another interesting aspect to the game, namely the factions. Given the historic facts, factions don't need to be artificially balanced so that they aren't expoited in multiplayer. Playing a 'weaker' faction doesn't feel unfair, because it is true to the setting and feels more challenging and thus more interesting to play with. In one game mode in MTW, each faction had their own strategic goals instead of the usual victory through a total purification. So if you thought balancing the factions, so that they're more or less eachothers' counterparts, is the most important factor contributing to the RTSs enjoyability, you're wrong. I consider differences in both the nature and strengths of different factions is of benefit, given they're based on historic interpretations. Multiplayers may disagree with this, but I say fuck them.

To be honest, I don't care about if an RTS has a story. It could be because the story in RTSs, like in all games, tend to be cheesy. Not like you care whether the evil Zorloks enslave the kingdom of Azmighr or not. Then why even bother? The focus should be on simulating the combat into a functional and enjoyable experience in itself and not with the help of a half-assed story. I can forgive a lot of flaws and stupidities if the core is fucking diamond. Alright, let's assume you have created a kickass combat system which you've playtested the crap out of to the extent your wife and dog has left you. Then throw this in a map with other factions. Add a reasonable time frame and little as possible limitations. Conquer new sectors, build strongholds and annihilate everyone who opposes you and when the clock says it's time, you count the bodies, points, castles, achieved goals, whatever and announce the winner. Then start a new game.

Now who wants a mission-based RTS with an artificial story? I want to create my own fucking story!

I too have played and even enjoyed RTSs made by Westwood and Blizzard to some extent, but the basic characteristics of these games haven't changed much since Dune 2. I don't want to criticize Blizzard too much because they've made highly successful RTSs and apparently many people play and enjoy them so enough about that. One's personal likings may vary and I acknowledge that. In my opinion, collecting resources and building units/structures don't add anything to the game, except delay action. Base building is more about reflexes and timing than strategy. If I were a RTS designer, I'd disable resource collecting and base building and make a fun RTS lite game much like Z(by bitmap Brothers) or the RTS part in Space Rangers 2. But of course that wouldn't work, because the combat itself in these games is too shallow.

I can't comment on multiplayer, since I've never played any games online. I play games to compete with myself and am more interested in the game itself than being ranked in some stupid list with future high-school killers.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Very nice post there, Vasikka, and interesting you mention the burden of multiplayer and the balancing problems it brings.

It's basically a fact to say that multiplayer is probably the biggest part of RTS games, what with the entire nation of fucking Korea being enslaved by Starcraft. My friend is a big RTS junkie and I asked him about Rome: Total War's singleplayer. He just shrugged and said "Dunno, I just play multi."

Thus, developers are focusing less and less on SP and more on balancing MP and the maps thereof. You can see this trend in a lot of gaming genres, especially in the shooter and RPG genre (MMOs anyone?).

Now, the main problem with this is the skirmish style play of games in multiplayer. Rather than slowly build up your armies and develop strategies, it's rush rush rush. And don't say I'm talking out of my ass, every RTS game I've tried online (Warcraft III, Starcraft, Brood War, Empire Earth, Age of Empires II, Age of Mythology, Age of Empires III, Empire Earth II, Rise of Nations, WH40K) it's the same deal. Hence, why most RTS games are characterized as frenzy and overwhelming, which they most certainly are in multiplayer.

So, developers are sacrificing SP for MP. Is there a solution? Of course there fucking is, which is make seperate multiplayer and singleplayer components. Why developers don't do this I don't know. It always seems that in RTS there's a weak race that devs just threw in as a bulletin point on a box and if a noobie trys to play as it he's screwed. But put in historical context, it might be fun to play (If it's a fantasy RTS, make up a background story for it or something to that effect). I think it would be great to play as Poland in WW2 and be able to try and defend against the Germans. You'd probably lose 9,999 games out of 10,000 but in SP, it's not competetive, who cares? Like Vasikka said, it's the battle itself that's fun, regardless of the outcome.

In MP, though, playing as Poland versus the Nazis would be no fun at all, becuase the focus is shifted from having fun to trying to win and competiveness. Who cares what battle strategies/tactics you used, you lost. In MP, all that matters is the end result.

 

[Ryuken]

Another thing that's disturbing is the fact that games like SC and AoE keep sticking to the same 2D-template. The only thing that's 3D is the looks, not the hit-physics or gameplay beneath them.

Not really true since you can miss units that are on highter ground + you don't see them from low ground.

Those different layers you mean? True line of sight can be easily implemented in 2D games (Dark Reign, Original War, etc.) if there are enough objects/different sorts of terrain to make it really important for your playstyle. But only a couple of 'height levels' (they just look like a simple second floor) that influence line of sight don't exactly make up for real tactical use. It's more artificial than really 3D, sometimes there is the average unit that misses idd like f.e. the archers from the original AoE but then those guys are always shooting in straight lines. It definitely doesn't look believable enough in my opinion. Which doesn't mean that every 2D rts has to go the TA-3D simulation way but some other mechanics would be a welcome change.

Yeah, more strategic choices is always good. However, even without them, StarCraft will always be the best RTS in terms of storyline, for me.
However, it would be even more difficult to implement such freedom in StarCraft's template, because of the sheer scale of the conflict, and sheer number of factors affecting it. You could turn several stones, but that would be it. You can't have choices in every mission, lest the story itself would have to be overly simplifed.

Perhaps yeah, less choices means more resources available for a developer to polish everything up of course but still, the coolest part about the pure linear mission setup of SC+BW was that extra mission with Zeratul imo. Not only in terms of story but just, it's an extra that you have obtained. Not a big choice but still something I would have wanted more of.

Switching to one big map would be awesome too of course like Naked_Lunch mentioned, with just one loading time for the whole world and dissing the 'seperated missions/maps' structure. Some of the coolest missions in rts's I have played were the ones where you could go back to a previous map but you had to rebuild it/defend it or just attack it as another side (TA: Kingdoms). Such a thing in real-time without the pauses in between (because of briefings/loadtimes) should be possible I think. If things get big and complicated (you have 20 bases or something like that) another AI should step forward and take over some tasks. Otherwise you'll be pressing the pause button like hell.