Are old-school RTSes a dying breed?

[Azron_Stoma]

To me I always liked the "Empire Building" feel that some of the older games gave, like in Age of Empires how it felt not so much like a "base" as much as a city/village, and of course destroying them was rather satisfying as well.

Also since it's been standard for so long, taking out enemy units always felt like it was just a means to an end, that end being the destruction of the enemy base and all their structures. Meanwhile they writhe and claw to survive by making new units from what little they have left. dragged kicking and screaming into oblivion. Having there being no base kind of makes it feel somewhat anticlimactic, but that's more something to get used to as a matter of change.

The biggest problem I always had with base building was the reset button that almost invariably came along with it. I felt that Dark Crusade/Soul Storm's campaign system was an excellent way of mitigating that, while on the offensive you did build bases for each new territory, you got to use those bases (at least part of them) if that same territory was attacked later on.

The only problem was that the units didn't persist from mission to mission, save for the bodyguards.

Empire at War was almost a real time Total War game with "days" that passed automatically rather than Turns that passed at your leisure. Units and structures would of course continue from battle to battle (taking into account casualties etc of course), the only problem being that the battles themselves were very small scale, in both the size of the maps and the population capacity, also some issues with Pathfinding in the space maps and unit balance all round, (especially in Forces of Corruption). You also lacked the RTS style stuff when in the battle itself, where units would come from production structures only as reinforcements and no additional ones could be built during combat.

I personally feel that Bases could come back as long as there is a better persistence of them, that not only would bases stay during campaigns, but units would as well, with a more traditional system like Dawn of War 1, with the sort of persistence of Empire at War.

That's what I was expecting with Dawn of War 2, didn't quite turn out that way, while Marines, Chaos, Tyranids and Eldar I can picture not requiring bases, Orks and Imperial Guard especially it's hard to Imagine them without, which is probably why IG aren't in DoW2.

[Stark]

You mean persistent bases, like Earth 2150 did like 10 years ago?

[Teleros]

The biggest problem I always had with base building was the reset button that almost invariably came along with it. I felt that Dark Crusade/Soul Storm's campaign system was an excellent way of mitigating that, while on the offensive you did build bases for each new territory, you got to use those bases (at least part of them) if that same territory was attacked later on.

Except that all you did was take as long as possible on each campaign mission (in DoW:DC, I never really got into Soulstorm) in order to build the most ridiculously huge minefield possible, place forward barracks close to each possible enemy start location, etc etc. Utterly trivialised defensive missions.

[Steel]

You mean persistent bases, like Earth 2150 did like 10 years ago?

Or like Warzone 2100 did a couple of years before that?

[Vendetta]

The biggest problem I always had with base building was the reset button that almost invariably came along with it. I felt that Dark Crusade/Soul Storm's campaign system was an excellent way of mitigating that, while on the offensive you did build bases for each new territory, you got to use those bases (at least part of them) if that same territory was attacked later on.

Except that all you did was take as long as possible on each campaign mission (in DoW:DC, I never really got into Soulstorm) in order to build the most ridiculously huge minefield possible, place forward barracks close to each possible enemy start location, etc etc. Utterly trivialised defensive missions.

And when they removed that feature in Soulstorm, precisely because it broke defence missions (you could start defences with a tier 1 base by garrisoning the province), the qqing could be heard for miles around.

[Stark]

Except that all you did was take as long as possible on each campaign mission (in DoW:DC, I never really got into Soulstorm) in order to build the most ridiculously huge minefield possible, place forward barracks close to each possible enemy start location, etc etc. Utterly trivialised defensive missions.

Just like in Warzone where you always waited for the timer to run out to revamp your units, get maximum money, etc.

This is why I find people talking about innovative ideas they want to see so amusing.

[Samuel]

Just have it so that there is an area around your capital that gets carried over to the next mission and have the area expand each mission. It allows you to choose what gets carried on, while preventing exploitation.

[Steel]

Just have it so that there is an area around your capital that gets carried over to the next mission and have the area expand each mission. It allows you to choose what gets carried on, while preventing exploitation.

Eeer... That is precisely the system in WZ 2100 from over 10 years ago. Get it for free from WZ resurrection project and marvel at its innovations.

However the system is massively open to abuse as you leave the last couple of AI buildings to prevent the mission ending so you can construct vast impenetrable lines of bunkers and turrets backed by sensor towers linked to massive artillery emplacements and rocket batteries further back in order to totally block any possible direction in which the map could expand.

Great stuff, but still not a perfect system.

[Stark]

That's just a result of the unlimited per-time resourcing, though; and the tech makes the defences yuo make generally useless by the time anyone shows up. Certainly not the best, though.

EDIT - thanks for mentioning Warrior Kings, ando. It's sort of a 3D more interesting Age of Empires, but the Battles tech routes are pretty interesting.

And the maps can have randomly placed resources and barbarians like Kohan, and that is simply the shit.

[Samuel]

Just have it so that there is an area around your capital that gets carried over to the next mission and have the area expand each mission. It allows you to choose what gets carried on, while preventing exploitation.

Eeer... That is precisely the system in WZ 2100 from over 10 years ago. Get it for free from WZ resurrection project and marvel at its innovations.

However the system is massively open to abuse as you leave the last couple of AI buildings to prevent the mission ending so you can construct vast impenetrable lines of bunkers and turrets backed by sensor towers linked to massive artillery emplacements and rocket batteries further back in order to totally block any possible direction in which the map could expand.

Great stuff, but still not a perfect system.

No, I mean a small area around your capital so you can only fit in a few buildings, not the entire map.

[Stark]

The base map in WZ2100 expands over time. Try knowing what you're talking about.

[Darth Wong]

I think the root problem is that there are two kinds of gamers:

1) The kind of gamer who just wants to waste his time on an entertaining diversion.
2) The kind of gamer who thinks gaming is something you should take "seriously", and who thinks that games should always be designed so as to require the utmost skill and attention.

I suspect that the second kind of gamer is the type that is rejecting old-school RTS games, because everyone has figured out how to beat them easily, and so they are not much of a "hardcore skillz" game any more, and in multi-player games people find the "build sequence" and other wanker techniques to be tedious.

Personally, I belong more to the first school of thought. I only ever have half my mind on a game when I'm playing it, and it's supposed to be an entertaining diversion. I kind of like a game where I can build up a base and then enjoy watching my army curb-stomp the stupid AI. But I don't take games too seriously; I often don't bother finishing single-player campaigns, and I don't get into the online multiplayer action. For me, they're just something I use to de-stress occasionally.

[CaptHawkeye]

Fuck this noise. What does he want everyone to do? Play Starcraft again? Usually when guys cry into their beer about the "good old days" of a genre, it's not because they want to go back to a time when developers were being experimental and trying cool new things.

It means they just want to play Starcraft again.

I will say one thing of the good ol days that I miss. Poser nerds who balked about how RTS games had real strategy. THAT was funny shit.

I suspect that the second kind of gamer is the type that is rejecting old-school RTS games, because everyone has figured out how to beat them easily, and so they are not much of a "hardcore skillz" game any more, and in multi-player games people find the "build sequence" and other wanker techniques to be tedious.

I reject the old school games because we've played them all 100 times over. I do not want to spend $60 dollars to play Starcraft again. Frankly I rarely play RTS games online, because the servers are often dominated by guys who play so aggressively that the spirit of the game is lost.

That leaves things pretty slim though, since most current RTS games have zero concept in mind for single player. They usually just award the AI a 100% resource bonus and say "voila, skirmish mode". I'd rather play against AI that's no challenge at all than AI that blatantly cheats. Since the gameplay itself is usually what draws me in to a game, and not the meaningless aspects of the competition so I can look cool on a post-game scoreboard.

[Commander 598]

I think the root problem is that there are two kinds of gamers:

1) The kind of gamer who just wants to waste his time on an entertaining diversion.
2) The kind of gamer who thinks gaming is something you should take "seriously", and who thinks that games should always be designed so as to require the utmost skill and attention.

I suspect that the second kind of gamer is the type that is rejecting old-school RTS games, because everyone has figured out how to beat them easily, and so they are not much of a "hardcore skillz" game any more, and in multi-player games people find the "build sequence" and other wanker techniques to be tedious.

Personally, I belong more to the first school of thought. I only ever have half my mind on a game when I'm playing it, and it's supposed to be an entertaining diversion. I kind of like a game where I can build up a base and then enjoy watching my army curb-stomp the stupid AI. But I don't take games too seriously; I often don't bother finishing single-player campaigns, and I don't get into the online multiplayer action. For me, they're just something I use to de-stress occasionally.

I think you have forgotten to factor in the people from Group 1 who don't want to spend ~30 mins playing Sim Base and getting their build orders perfect but actually want to see things happen.

[Covenant]

And I'd just like to make it so the amount of attention and skill I apply, regardless of if it's the utmost or not, is done in the fun parts of the game rather than the endless repeating of the same minor tasks. If the purpose of a game is to be fun, then the aspects of which are not that fun should slowly get whittled down over the years.

Frankly, the 'modern' RTS is a product of more and more casual gaming influence, things designed to run on minimal engines, use very light UI's, replicate board-games and stuff people already know, and most importantly to shave down on the time before play. They're designed so someone with a job can come home, play a single match in 15-20 minutes, feel satisfied, and then go do something important. Having to spend an hour or more on a game where a good portion of that is micromanagement, economy tweaking, and base-building can be extremely frustrating for someone who is trying to get the most "bang bang warfare" out of their half hour of free time.

I mean, I'd rather play a game than watch a TV show, but any free time besides a cold, rainy weekend I'm going to nearly always lean towards the entertainment that gives me the most fun for my time.

It's not like you couldn't make basebuilding fun, but oldschool RTS games didn't do that. I bet I could hash out a rough concept for a RTS with a huge emphasis on basebuilding (some kind of versus tower defense merged with defense of the ancients games probably) but that's not what people moan for with an old-style RTS.

[Darth Wong]

I think you have forgotten to factor in the people from Group 1 who don't want to spend ~30 mins playing Sim Base and getting their build orders perfect but actually want to see things happen.

People who want instant action shouldn't play games with "strategy" in the name. That's what Call of Duty and Unreal Tournament are for.

[Stark]

Casual players are more recotive to change in any case; it's often the 'hardcore' players who look for games that use their existing competitive skills. It's good that big-name RTSs are slowly becoming more 'modern'.

RTS games can have immediate action just fine. They're hardly strategy games at all, and the concept of 'strategy' doesn't need to lead to a pile of econ time before anything happens. Games like WiC and mods like Demigod work by creating immediate, cooperative play and more absract games like Ruse encouage similar. Even DoW etc strongly encourage early raiding.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, but at the end of the day, the word "strategy" refers to what you do before engaging the enemy, more than what you do while engaging the enemy, which is tactics. Any game which dumps you instantly into battle is arguably not a strategy game at all. If you prefer it that's fine, but don't call it "strategy".

[Samuel]

Strategy is the big picture- you can still do it during combat. If deciding where to place your men is tactics, deciding what upgrades to purchase, units to recruit and gear to select would be the strategy portion.

[Darth Wong]

Well just how far do you want to stretch that? Is Halo a strategy game because I have to decide whether I'm going to pack the rocket launcher and the assault rifle or the sniper rifle and the SMG?

[Formless]

Perhaps "grand strategy" would be a better term, then?

[Connor MacLeod]

Funny enough Ghost Rider and I have been bantering about "old" games vs newer ones and difficulty level. Bakc in the "old days" gaming was considered more of a "niche" industry than it is now. I remember when I was younger playing games like Ninja Gaiden on the NES and having to replay levels over and over and over again just because you had to do the acrobatic shit with Ryu to get him from screen to screen. As time goes on, games of any genre have changed (the virtual death of the adventure game or the FRP genre, mutating into JRPGs or action rPGs or whatever.) and designers cater to a more casual gaming audience which means that things like difficulty will be "dumbed down". That this might apply to "old school" RTS games probably would as well (even if that means downplaying or eliminating the "base building" aspects. Which frankly I've never cared for much in STarcraft. Although for some weird reason I never minded it in Warcraft 2 or even Warcraft 3.)

I know newer games I've played have gotten easier compared to games in the past I've played (at least in some ways) but I don't mind that in the least, since I never much fit into Mike's "type 2" category anyhow.

[defanatic]

Well just how far do you want to stretch that? Is Halo a strategy game because I have to decide whether I'm going to pack the rocket launcher and the assault rifle or the sniper rifle and the SMG?

That is technically strategy, but I wouldn't call Halo a strategy game.

I agree with Stark (sigh) that 'hardcore' RTS players tend to dislike change from the old style, over casual/new players. But on the other I don't have any hard numbers to back me up, so this is purely anecdotal.

[Covenant]

Yes, but at the end of the day, the word "strategy" refers to what you do before engaging the enemy, more than what you do while engaging the enemy, which is tactics. Any game which dumps you instantly into battle is arguably not a strategy game at all. If you prefer it that's fine, but don't call it "strategy".

That is, however, a bit of a flawed parallel to draw. Almost no game by default has a 'strategic planning phase' that excludes enemy contact. Games of the Old-School mold like C&C1-3, Warcraft1-3 and Starcraft all encourage early-game raiding with the intention of disrupting an enemy's long-term planning through forcing them to waste time dealing with a raid. In essence the 'base building' aspect is part of the 'tactical' game phase as much as anything.

(A lot of this following commentary is dependent on the game being played in multiplayer. In those cases, I see no way to distinguish a "base-building strategic phase" from the "early-game tactical battle phase," as your first skirmishes can easily come in the first five minutes of the game, after only one or two structures has even been begun. If you're strictly talking about the singleplayer experience, then even newschool games feature a strategic element, and arguably the most strategic game of all are the Total War series.)

I think a lot of this stems from a misunderstanding of how the games actually play, something that's pretty normal. The only games with a real "forethought" phase as you ascribe to the Strategic Thinking aspect are newschool games, such as WiC or CoH, where you actually begin play having made in-game strategic choices. Which Sub-Faction are you choosing? Armor or Support? Infantry or Airforce? In a game like Starcraft or Red Alert 1, you begin the game in tactical mode--the only 'before engagement' time you're assured is the brief window before someone places a barracks and begins producing troops with which to harass your resource operation.

For base-building to actually be a 'pre-tactical' strategic planning period, you would need to be able to construct several 'strategic choice' structures within the time before battle, and for these to play into some deep strategy in the longterm. Unless you say "no rush 15 minutes" nearly no games do, especially old games, where a fast rush was the penultimate way to win the game--followed by spamming the best of whatever unit you could rush to.

This is why that early-game aspect to Old-School games is so critical to the endgame, where you raid with a single marine or attack by placing your first structure near his base to cut something off, and basically end the game in the next 5-15 minutes because you've got a numerical advantage that only grows over time. I would assert that a diminished focus on in-game base-building (shifting towards either a baseless or 'pre-built' system where you make those strategic choices before ever hitting the "go" button) would actually bring it closer to the kind of strategic game you're talking about, and also make it a much more modern RTS.

[Vendetta]

The other thing that keeps the "Strategy" out of most older RTS games is that there is generally a fairly restrictive (and therefore easily optimised) tech order, which means that even if there were a significant period of strategic buildup before contact with the enemy there wouldn't be many player choices involved in that time. The only significant choice is frequently "do you want to intentionally harm yourself by deviating from the best order for your faction".