What's your RTS Playing Style?

[Fire Fly]

What's your playing style, in regards to real time strategy games? Is it aggressive? Lots of moving and aggressive probing, raids, and attacks? Is it defensive? Lots of cautious behavior, fortifying your positions, and slow?

I have to admit, I like to turtle sometimes because its fun to build a large, impregnable fortress bristling with gun turrets, mine fields, bunkers, shield generators, etc. I find it satisfying to build up a large army first and then attack; I enjoy reviewing my troops, to see my hard work before me. I dislike playing against people who like to rush because where is the strategy in that? It becomes a fight in whoever can build the fastest wins. I want a battle with two large opposing forces that has to outmaneuver and outgun the other.

Overall, I tend to be more cautious because for some reason, I get this unusual attachment to my troops. I don't like loosing men. But I've also noticed that the one who's more aggressive tends to hold the upper hand. I play against my brother via LAN and when I do shift gear into an aggressive behavior with lots of coordinated attacks, I find myself holding the cards. But at the same time, I find it unsatisfying because if you just attack, attack, attack, you don't allow for your opponent, AI or human, to counter attack you.

How do you others play when it comes to real time strategy games such as Warhammer DoW, Star Craft, War Craft, CoC, and the likes?

[Captain tycho]

Dawn of War, its an aggressive rush to seize a few key control points, then sit back and build up an army, goading the enemy, and then crushing them under my boot. BWAHAHAH!

It's been a long time since I've last played SC, but my strategy was usually turtling via vast amounts of marines, siege tanks, and missile turrents, then multi-nuking my opponent and using wraiths to kill off his resources. It didnt work that often, but it was quite fun to use.

For AoE type games, I focus on defensive play. Lots of walls/towers/bunkers, huge amounts of artillery and ranged units, although I only turtle in team games, where I act as a 'safe haven' for my allies troops.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

I have to admit, I like to turtle sometimes because its fun to build a large, impregnable fortress bristling with gun turrets, mine fields, bunkers, shield generators, etc. I find it satisfying to build up a large army first and then attack; I enjoy reviewing my troops, to see my hard work before me. I dislike playing against people who like to rush because where is the strategy in that? It becomes a fight in whoever can build the fastest wins. I want a battle with two large opposing forces that has to outmaneuver and outgun the other.

Yes.

For this reason I tend to prefer games like Sudden Strike II and Blitzkrieg, though I don't get to build cool bases in those.

I'm still waiting for the perfect RTS...

[weemadando]

Mix of turtling and devastating assaults.

In DoW, building turrets and minefields while grabbing strategic points with tac and assault squads is my general method of assault.

Then a MASSIVE attack with a unit cap limited force on a single location. I trust my defenses.

This of course changes a great deal when there are specific game modes.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Well, since I despise groundforces in EE, I like to build a lot of Air Power consisting largely of heavy bombers and nuclear bombers. I just nukie nukie nukie the map. Faster.

Oh. I usually play on islands and island turtle

[weemadando]

Oh yeah...

And if in a "realistic" or "tactical" strategy game.

Spotters and artillery baby.

Katyushas, Panzerwerfers, MLRS, Paladins, Wespes, Hummels, Hogs, Smerch... They are all beautiful.

Now if only more games had a CAS option - Force 21 was a notable exception. CAS in that had the potential to be REALLY nasty.

[Gandalf]

I like to turtle and do small sorties as often as I can. And ranged warfare wherever I can if it's a sword/shield era game.

Of course, I win against other humans less than 10% of the time, but I'm ok on a team. Mainly because I spend time ordering my armies. Everyone in formation and at full health etc.

[Stark]

You can't really complain about rushing when it's trivial to fix but devs never do: it's obviously there on purpose.

I'm far, far, FAR too defensive. My first experience with any RTS is usually thinking I'm doing really well, then being utterly pwnzored by the Army of Doom the AIs have built. I get better, though Games like Dawn of Rush are only fun if everyone agrees not to be a tard: not the sign of a good game!

[HemlockGrey]

Aggressive. I love constant, probing attacks.

[Imperial Overlord]

I love building the real cool end game unit, which means that I usually get to focused on getting them an neglect sufficiently harrassing my enemy or building up my defences. Yes, this means I lose a lot.

[Dead_Ghost]

Usually, I always play the same style: fortify my main base adequately, then do small attacks to keep the enemy busy while upgrading my units to full. Then build a large force, throw it at the enemy, and build another just for safety precautions. You never know if the enemy, whether an AI or a Human player, has an ace up his sleeve.
I think that the first units I build in every game (which allows such) are resource collectors, then defence turrets around the base, a "medium-sized" group of defensive units along with a few artilleries, and that's it. From there on, I build small attack groups and order them to attack the enemy resource collectors, in order to keep them busy and "distraught", while simultaneously upgrading my units the most I can. Finally, I build a large attack force, consistent with all sorts of units available (for "versatility"), and launch the attack. Usually, I start building another force like this while the attack proceeds, just in case...

[Dahak]

It depends...
Single-player, I'm all for the turtel-in, build-up style. I'm building as much as I can, and then start rolling over the enemy in a big, unfriendly wave.
In multi-player, I forced myself to adopt a quick, rushing style, as you'd give your human opponents too much time to build up an army. So I have aquired a talent for rushing with Protoss (rushing is, of course a relative term ).

And I like annoy-moves, like Reaver-drops, Arbiter-recalls, and stelathed templar having a party in a base

[NecronLord]

Mostly a combination of tutling down and mass-infantry charges*

*I don't usually expect these to work, but they are fun.

When I want to win quickly and without overwhelming casualties, I depend on outranging the enemy with artillery. This was best done in Dark Reign, where the Imperium faction had a superweapon with unlimited range - Spotters away!

[2000AD]

Turtling and building up a massive force.

The only time i haven't turtled was when me and my mate tested out the sneaky bright lance rush on Kasy Luten for DoW.

[Darth Wong]

Any tactic is good as long as it doesn't involve superweapons. Turtling and then building up a superweapon arsenal is a really chickenshit tactic. But conventional defensive strategy is quite reasonable.

[Rogue 9]

I play defensively until I get my Army of PWNING DOOM ready, then sweep forth to take the field. Sadly, this doesn't always work. I really like games such as Ground Control where you get an army, an objective, and a map to play on. No need for base managing, just maneuver warfare all the way.

As for turtling to build up superweapons, never played an RTS with superweapons, unless you count such things as Orbital Bombardment in DoW, which isn't really the sort of "OMGWTFPWNED!" across-the-map nuclear bombardment that some games have.

[Stravo]

I'm huge on turtling. Mostly because I love to watch assaults beaten back by my defenses.

For instance in AoE I'm huge on throwing up a massive curtain wall of double stone around a large area encompassing some nice resources and then start building up cavalry forces and send them out on skirmishing raids, killing villagers and the like and scouting out avenues of approach for the enemy bases.

I then slowly build up a massive army and wait.

The enemy usually comes with a big army and flings themselves against my stone walls and they get slaughtered. THEN I sortie out my own massive army and crush him since he just dropped his load on my walls a moment ago.

[NecronLord]

Any tactic is good as long as it doesn't involve superweapons. Turtling and then building up a superweapon arsenal is a really chickenshit tactic. But conventional defensive strategy is quite reasonable.

But the AI was so... vunerable to it.

[Dahak]

Any tactic is good as long as it doesn't involve superweapons. Turtling and then building up a superweapon arsenal is a really chickenshit tactic. But conventional defensive strategy is quite reasonable.

I remember a Multiplayer game of C&C Generals. Two friends of mine and me were playing it for the first time against some others who were a mit more experienced.
The first game ended in a MASSIVE overkill of superweapons, as these asshats never, ever used normal weapons but relied solely on the use of their multiplicity of superlasers. It was...underwhelming...

[Glimmervoid]

In age of empires 2 I would always play on the Japanese real world map. I would always build a giant wall across the island. It would be a lair of normal wall followed by a lair of tower then another wall then some canon towers then another wall. There would also be tredushayas beyond the wall.

I would do a similar thing in red alert 2.

And in half-life 2's multi player I gather all the gravity gunable objects and take them to a single room.

[Petrosjko]

Turtle up, build a large resource base and then bludgeon my enemy to death with a combination of rapier thrusts against strategic locations followed by an overwhelming blitzkrieg aimed at the heart of their power.

[Lord Revan]

Very defensive, tend to make sure that good base defensives (in either units or structures) before I attack, though when I do attack I tend to be quite aggressive.

[Uraniun235]

I prefer to slowly expand, solidifying my hold on my territory with a massive force designed to crush anything in it's path. I also like to try and establish air supremacy, less for aerial attacks themselves and more to ensure that my ground forces press on unmolested.

[Ra]

I use a defensive tactic, especially in C&C Generals and HW. I spot resources/oil wells/etc. on the map, and I take them. From the start, I have my "territory" laid out. When the enemy tries to put their own supply centers or resource controllers out there, I have enough defenses or ships to pummel them back, and to take on their forces.

From there, my tactics vary by game.

With C&C Generals, I prefer to use infantry to attack, with aerial units taking out their defenses. (Warthogs or MiG's. Raptors suck ass at taking out base defenses). After weakening the enemy enough, I can usually get Rangers/Red Guard in there and capture their base. I usually have armor for support. Building all the uber units, like the Overlord Tank, is a waste IMNSHO. Alternatively, the classic armor attack works too, but I rarely bother.
If garrisoned properly, anti-tank infantry can absolutely wipe out armored attacks. The key is to take out the clearing units (dragon tanks and toxin tractors) before they can kill your men. Having some base defenses around the garrisons helps.

In HW, I always like resource denial. Economic warfare is one of my favorite tactics. I also hate fighters, and focus on building capships with corvette support to handle any fighters. I focus on building the better units (Heavy Cruisers, etc.). Once my main battle fleet or main ground force is ready, I steamroll the bastards.
Resource denial doesn't always work, so I always prepare to fight with my big ships. Destroyers and Missile Destroyers always form the backbone of my fleet. While the standard Destroyers take out capships, the missile versions absolutely crush fighter/corvette attacks. Add a few gravwell generators, and the enemy is fucked. Cruisers usually form the core of a battle group, with her supporting the destroyers and the destroyers supporting her back. I'll build three at most in many games.

Of course, if resources are limited, I'll use frigates and maybe even fighters. But that's just what I usually do. I play HW for the great fleet battles, not scouts dogfighting.
- Ra

[Darth Wong]

Team USA in C&C Generals absolutely rules for defensive tactics because of their cloaked ultra long-range snipers. Exposed infantry simply don't get anywhere near your base, properly garrisoned missile troops will annihilate attacking armour, and large defensive concentrations of Paladin tanks backed up with Tomahawk missile launchers and laser Humvees present an almost insuperable obstacle unless you use superweapons (the only good counter to such a defense is Chinese nuke cannons). They also have the best troops for clearing out enemy garrisons; a bunch of Rangers with flash-bang grenades are walking death to building garrisons.