[RTS] What are the arguments against pre-build?

[CaptHawkeye]

If Sins had more detail in its fleets than C&C style "smash blobs together" it would have been grand. I remember when I read the manual I had gotten the impression the game was like 1940s style mid-war naval doctrine. With Carriers forming the center of a fleet, battleships playing big escorts, etc. I had thought the game was going to be like "Recon reports carrier in enemy system. DEPLOY RAID!"

"Oh noes the recon was incorrect it's just a merchant freighter!"

"Ack we are defenseless!"

Then I played the game and saw it was pretty much not that.

Anyway, one of the things I always liked about WiC was that it didn't hold back. The game literally got going the moment everyone's units hit the ground. Though i'd love to see, in some cases, an "early game" of sorts. Involving infantry placement and recon units in someway.

[Exonerate]

One argument I would put forth against pre-building is that it takes away the early game scouting and adaptation. If you're pre-building, then you and your opponent are pretty much committed to some set of options in the immediate future. Some builds/techs/etc have bad matchups - if you're not pre-building, you can simply scout early on, see what your opponent is doing, and adjust to whatever it is they're doing. Of course, your opponent can also do the same, so usually you both have to adopt some robust strategy that doesn't purely rely on surprise. Taking that away, I think, pushes the game closer towards rock-paper-scissors, which isn't nearly as fun or interesting. Some have claimed that the early game is redundant because you always end up opening the same way every time, but that isn't always true; there are games where trade offs between units, economy, and tech have to be made at a very early stage. With pre-building you have to make those same decisions blindly.

[Stark]

Except prebuild will a) be limited to the very core actions, as in Sins or b) designed around a build tree that minimises 'bad matchups'. The idea is to reduce the suck, not trap people into losing even faster.

[defanatic]

I think pre-build would mainly be useful for games that you tend to do the same things at the start of every game, and the only thing that decides how well you do in the first 3-8 minutes of the game is how quickly you get everything down. It shouldn't be the case if your build order has a choice, and those choices are balanced by how long they take (e.g. build times, and stuff), or if the game is mostly about units and not build orders (like C&C 4).

[Stark]

If you think prebuild means you 'skip' the start of the game, you're not paying attention. If you think prebuild is relevant to games not design for it, you can't read.

[ArmorPierce]

I actually like the beginning build up part of the game. Yes you got to look at the clock and time yourself but I like that too. I also like that games are done inside half an hour when playing multi-player. Pre-built bases would slow down the pace of the game (from how long it takes to play the game standpoint, moreso if there is defendingbuildings/units at the start) which is why I don't like it in a RTS and I only play RTS for the multi-player and will usually not even play through the campaign.

[Stark]

Who says you're prebuilding a whole base? Why would it slow the game down?

[Feil]

I definitely agree on prebuilt bases as an option in RTS. I think the one I felt that the most in was Dawn of War, where (and I'll admit I was never stellar so maybe this was more a function of my incompetence) it seemed like every game I played had nearly the exact same first five minutes. It's like, really? Can't we skip ahead to the point where we start to send out raiding parties?

I don't want to be rude, but this is probably just a function of your incompetence (or possibly your map selection, although there are only one or two maps I can think of would promote that sort of game). It would be nice to queue your headquarters build order and the first few things you want your units to do once they leave the headquarters before the game starts, but that's the first minute of the game, tops. Most games I played saw gunfire as soon as the second or third 'capping squad' had time to run across the map and start harassing the other guy's requisition points and possibly their builder units, and a significant percentage were over by the five minute mark - with neither side having 'rushed'.

Dawn of War would be a great candidate for more advanced, pre-game configurable latent behavior for units, unlimited zoom-out on the map, and a pre-game queued command system that takes away some of the clicky hell of the first thirty seconds of gameplay, though.

[Stark]

That's a pretty odd criticism when nobody is talking about anything beyond the first few minutes of the game. DoW doesn't have a base-centric economy anyway (and it'd be a better game with no base at all).

[ArmorPierce]

Who says you're prebuilding a whole base? Why would it slow the game down?

Well if the whole base is not prebuilt so you have some choice in the matter I guess that gives you some leeway to do your own thing so that's different.
I was thinking it from a 'Age of' game series. There was actually a map where there was a prebuilt base with walls around it I believe and the buildings were pretty strong compared to the units. To take out buildings would take either overwhelming force and/or siege weapons. In Age of Mythology buildings were weaker and it worked out better. If buildings are too strong you also face people using defensive buildings offensively but I guess they are ways to limit that. If the buildings are on the weaker side, it wouldn't slow down the pace of the game I guess.

Anyway I like the actual scramble at the start to set up your economy (which is why I didn't like Warcraft 3 as much as Age games, less economy oriented more individual unit micro oriented). What I don't like is straight set in stone build orders because every map is exactly the same everyt ime.

[Stark]

Oh so you jet didn't read the OP, that's okay. The point is to avoid the boring first period, not skip to the end. I even gave examples.

[Vastatosaurus Rex]

Assume the build tree (and game) is designed with prebuild in mind, rather than it being hacked in later.

Pre-building allows players to spend a set amount of resources 'before' the game starts (time, money, etc) to configure their starting base/force before play starts, generally within a limited area. It's used to allow games to avoid the early resource stalls or early-game being built around furious teching.

In my experience the early phase of RTS games is generally incredibly boring (few of the interesting units in play) and yet often determines the outcome of a game. Prebuilding allows the 'fun' part in the middle of the tech tree to be reached without ten minutes of houseruled truce or without encouraging rapid raiding.

Obviously there are issues with it; people who spend it all on units could convievably swamp defences, but this is a balance and tactics issue rather than a design issue. This system is also used in games like Ground Control that allow players to choose their units before play starts.

I don't think I've ever played a game with the kind of prebuilding you describe, but yes, I would like an alternative to the standard "build up your base and gather your resources" gameplay.