What's your RTS Playing Style?

[Ace Pace]

I prefer ELite units for defense, and offense should be a mix, with first line being generally weaker(unless I have the cash for all elite), with the second line Elite.


Wee, you up for a game? You'll win but it'll be fun.

[Gandalf]

And here's a strategy question - do you prefer many weaker units (swarming) or a few elite units. And does it make a difference whether you use them for defence or offence?

I'm pretty defensive, and I prefer a swarm of defenders. When it comes time for offense, same philosophy. Hopefully I can just tech them up, in the long run making them making them more economical than their expensive couterparts.

Many moons ago, I was playing C&C Generals, I got the 2 for 1 Chinese troops. I filled three screens with pure infantry infantry. Of course, this failed me with WC3. I couldn't amass my army, and got beaten down by elite units.

[The Jester]

To be honest, I've grown somewhat weary of the "gather resources, build, fight" model of RTS games. I find that I prefer the combination of turn-based strategy and real-time tactics used in Rome: Total War.

Honestly speaking, why do they include building and resource gathering as part of an RTS? I mean, your typical RTS doesn't typically pack a complicated economic model, it is merely build as many collectors as you can and try to build as many units as possible. Depending on speed settings, you spend several minutes or more, just getting your war machine rolling. Is this particularly fun considering that most of the time you will be following the same patterns that you did the last time you had that matchup? I loved the original Ground Control for the concept of eliminating unnecessary base building and resource management, (Dark Omen also did away with building and mining, though I never played it). The player should be doing what he bought the RTS game for in the first place: making war on his enemies, not playing nanny to his Peon's ensuring they aren't doing something dumb (like not working).

Success in an RTS is usually the result of having a superior economy over your opponent (and the ability to click faster also tends to help a lot). I would like to see my victories as a result of good tactical decisions and outmaneuvering my opponent (using a few less than a hundred clicks just to make my troops dance) not because I made a successful kamikaze attack on their mining operation setting them back far enough that I can just stomp them.

And on a different note, would somebody please make an AI which knows what No Man's Land looks like (in any game). Turtles tend to be encouraged because they are used to playing the computer who blindly sends in troops to be slaughtered piecemeal trying to pretend its Field Marshal Haig.

[Uraniun235]

The idea behind economy-driven RTS games is that the resources are supposed to be something you fight for; i.e. you want to capture and hold a given piece of land because it will get you more money. It's supposed to encourage more aggressive play.

The player should be doing what he bought the RTS game for in the first place: making war on his enemies, not playing nanny to his Peon's ensuring they aren't doing something dumb (like not working).

This isn't a flaw so much with the concept of RTS as it is with the implementation.

[The Jester]

The idea behind economy-driven RTS games is that the resources are supposed to be something you fight for; i.e. you want to capture and hold a given piece of land because it will get you more money. It's supposed to encourage more aggressive play.

The problem is that the economy becomes too great a focus of the game. A player becomes set on optimal build orders and trying to get an edge economically as opposed to concentrating on tactics for when his troops meet his opponent's in battle. It has been shown in plenty of games that resources are not necessary in order to create an incentive for players to be aggressive.

The player should be doing what he bought the RTS game for in the first place: making war on his enemies, not playing nanny to his Peon's ensuring they aren't doing something dumb (like not working).

This isn't a flaw so much with the concept of RTS as it is with the implementation.

The problem is that running your economy (particularly in the beginning of a game) becomes a very dull and menial task. You shouldn't be playing a game the same way you mow a lawn. Though you probably don't notice it so much, but you're not having fun or stimulating yourself very much. I want to see my bombers make attack runs, not be churned out of factories.