StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Uraniun235 wrote:Generally, the distinction between "RTS" and "RTT" (real-time tactics) is that RTS involves basebuilding whereas RTT involves a fixed amount of units for the given scenario.

Is that what they're calling Ground Control these days?

I dunno. I got SupCom up and running just great but I find myself growing incredibly bored about 5 minutes into playing. This C&C looks to be fitted to the gills with style and flash, and that's exactly what I'm looking for. Supreme Commander may have the ability to throw zillions of units on the screen at once but I'm definately more excited about playing C&C3 than I am about getting into Supreme Commander. CoH is pretty sweet because it's WWII version of Dawn of War, which also rocks. Basebuilding is a frustration still, but I never felt the same building crunch in C&C that I did with Blizzard's style of RTS.

Speaking of Ground Control, that game was hardcore badass all the way. I'd like to see a little more of that in C&C3, but I'll take what I can get.

Covenant wrote:Basebuilding is a frustration still, but I never felt the same building crunch in C&C that I did with Blizzard's style of RTS.

Because in Blizzard's RTS getting shit together takes half an hour. I don't know how people can stand Starcraft and WCIII when it's all hurry-up-and-wait nonsense. I'll take C&C blitzkrieg any day of the week.

Speaking of Ground Control, that game was hardcore badass all the way. I'd like to see a little more of that in C&C3, but I'll take what I can get.

Goddamn right. They went balls out with that one. It was actually quite a challenge in the late game to complete the missions, and made it much more intense knowing you couldn't just go queue up another attack force.

Am I the only person who has no problem with basebuilding?

I'm iffy. I've been seriously spoiled by Dawn Of War.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:

Covenant wrote:Basebuilding is a frustration still, but I never felt the same building crunch in C&C that I did with Blizzard's style of RTS.

Because in Blizzard's RTS getting shit together takes half an hour. I don't know how people can stand Starcraft and WCIII when it's all hurry-up-and-wait nonsense. I'll take C&C blitzkrieg any day of the week.

Speaking of Ground Control, that game was hardcore badass all the way. I'd like to see a little more of that in C&C3, but I'll take what I can get.

Goddamn right. They went balls out with that one. It was actually quite a challenge in the late game to complete the missions, and made it much more intense knowing you couldn't just go queue up another attack force.

Yeah! And this game is a great example for how you could do that! Even if it's as basic as giving people some specific units at the beginning (spies, Mammoth Tanks) and such that can't be replaced or built at all and thus making it much more dangerous... but yes, we are in agreement there.

That's also my biggest issue with Supreme Commander, that and the relative blandness. I'm completely aware that my tastes are fairly lowbrow when it comes to RTS'es.

Nitram, I never felt that DoW had that awful of basebuilding, so I think you've got a totally reasonable outlook. It was pretty quick to do and you never had to spend so much time doing it that you couldn't focus on the action. I played Ork, so I was forced to construct hordes of units anyway. I'd like if the base management kept getting smaller and smaller over time, controlling areas is a lot more fun than controlling mineral patches, and C&C is making headway in that direction with it's new Tiberium-management techs.

Or are you saying that you don't mind the types of no-rush games where you build up for 30 minutes?

I guess I always preferred the chess-player style of tactics, as opposed to "let's see who can more rapidly work the interface" technique popular with RTS games. Nevertheless, this new one looks pretty damned cool.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:Generally, the distinction between "RTS" and "RTT" (real-time tactics) is that RTS involves basebuilding whereas RTT involves a fixed amount of units for the given scenario.

Is that what they're calling Ground Control these days?

That's what I'd heard and I rather like that definition.

I quite liked the Myth series. I might play it through again if I get the chance.

Darth Wong wrote:I guess I always preferred the chess-player style of tactics, as opposed to "let's see who can more rapidly work the interface" technique popular with RTS games. Nevertheless, this new one looks pretty damned cool.

This is a sadly dying breed of game. Some games still have this, but you almost never see them portrayed outside of specialized games. If you don't mind turn-based type games there's a bunch of Strategy style games for consoles that work this way. Even some Sci-Fi ones like Front Mission.

The new Warhammer (fantasy) game looks to be a more violent, better-for-multiplayer version of Total War styles of gameplay, but I can't quite say yet. If that does well we might get a lot of spinoffs. Really, it shouldn't be so hard to make a game like the ones that we see that encourage maneuvering. Chess, in realtime, is really not that hard to imagine. Slower units, more emphasis on their endurance (fuel, shells) and aspects of facing and terrain control would add a lot to the RTS genre.

While perhaps not an RTS in the traditional sense (you can pause time to issue orders and change the gamespeed,) Hearts of Iron is a fantastic example of an RTS in which economic development is included without relying on the over-used base construction idea. Every country starts with a certain amount of IC (industrial capacity,) which is maintained by your influx of strategic resources (coal, steel, rare materials, and oil.) You can invest that IC in building troops and weapons and supplies and the like, or you can re-invest it in increasing your IC, or do both. Depending on your strategy, you can focus on one or the other or a combination of the two.

Covenant wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:I guess I always preferred the chess-player style of tactics, as opposed to "let's see who can more rapidly work the interface" technique popular with RTS games. Nevertheless, this new one looks pretty damned cool.

This is a sadly dying breed of game. Some games still have this, but you almost never see them portrayed outside of specialized games. If you don't mind turn-based type games there's a bunch of Strategy style games for consoles that work this way. Even some Sci-Fi ones like Front Mission.

I can't rememberwho, but a game reviewer said something along those lines. Modern RTS games become "resource wars", where whoever has the most troops wins, and mostly tactics and strategy are thrown at the window, and all that matters is camping out resource points on the map.

A 'resource war' can be done right - the idea is that you fight each other over control of the resources. In turn the resources need to be sufficiently diffuse and spread out so that holding two or three key points is insufficient to assure victory.

The problem is that the dudes designing the maps often array the resources so that it becomes a battle of two fortresses sending waves of dudes against each other. Which is itself a fun thing to play, for me at least, but certainly far different from the raiding-and-skirmishing that was seen in high-level competitive Total Annihilation games.

One of the main complaints I've heard SupCom players voice is that there's no incentive to hold territory. You can turtle very effectively in that game (until the enemy gets strategic artillery), and with high tech level mass generators and reactors, you can have an uber-economy in very little 9comparatively speaking) space.

You're still screwed when T3 artilery starts knocking on your shields though. But by then you should already have nukes

I'll probably buy the game just for the FMV.

Covenant wrote:Or are you saying that you don't mind the types of no-rush games where you build up for 30 minutes?

It really depends. Am I required to dig in my heels for thirty minutes to get any decent force assembled? Or is it something I can do if I want? If I have to, I get sick of it real quick. Tiberian Sun's dragging pace and parts of Warcraft were examples, in my mind, of how to do it badly.

I do love DoW's ease of building up while still sending out the badasses. Oddly enough, I also adored Red Alert and Red Alert 2. While, as I said, I don't like being forced to do a half-hour base, I have done it at times, just coating an entire map with my ever-expanding base, blowing away all opposition.

Hawkwings wrote:One of the main complaints I've heard SupCom players voice is that there's no incentive to hold territory. You can turtle very effectively in that game (until the enemy gets strategic artillery), and with high tech level mass generators and reactors, you can have an uber-economy in very little 9comparatively speaking) space.

You're still screwed when T3 artilery starts knocking on your shields though. But by then you should already have nukes

The maps so far have been very geared towards "build a fortress and try to crack the other dude's fortress" with their resource distribution. Further, the mass extractors themselves are very easy to upgrade and simultaneously require a bit of time to build; they're not as easily ubiquitous as the basic metal extractors from TA.

I fully expect that even if the unit stats aren't friendly towards an expansion-encouraged model of gameplay, it would be trivial to mod the game such that constant raiding and expansion is encouraged more heavily.

SirNitram wrote:

Covenant wrote:Or are you saying that you don't mind the types of no-rush games where you build up for 30 minutes?

It really depends. Am I required to dig in my heels for thirty minutes to get any decent force assembled? Or is it something I can do if I want? If I have to, I get sick of it real quick. Tiberian Sun's dragging pace and parts of Warcraft were examples, in my mind, of how to do it badly.

I do love DoW's ease of building up while still sending out the badasses. Oddly enough, I also adored Red Alert and Red Alert 2. While, as I said, I don't like being forced to do a half-hour base, I have done it at times, just coating an entire map with my ever-expanding base, blowing away all opposition.

Definately with you there. They should always offer a turtle side that is geared towards an area-control mindset, so people who choose to play defensively can do so and just understand that the benefits they gain are offset by the territory they lose. From what I see of C&C 3, they want a match to take 15-30 minutes tops. So... I bet the basebuilding is gonna be fast and furious. SupCom encourages longterm turtling because of the a) massivity of the maps and b) utter dominance of endgame units. That and the infamous Tier 3 Gunship raids. But SupCom is designed to be a multi-hour game. That may not be for me, but some people really like that.

SirNitram wrote: While, as I said, I don't like being forced to do a half-hour base, I have done it at times, just coating an entire map with my ever-expanding base, blowing away all opposition.

I agree heartily. I love playing with re-deploayble MCVs in C&C games, so you can slowly buld your way across the map with 'secondary' bases. Of course, in single player missions it's fun to capture the enemy structures instead of destroying them. There's something satifying about looking at the mini map and seeing three-quarters of it covered in your color.

Bah, stupid Engineer rushes. Just blow the dang things up and be done with it.

SirNitram wrote:Am I the only person who has no problem with basebuilding?

You, me and all of Korea.

Covenant wrote:Definately with you there. They should always offer a turtle side that is geared towards an area-control mindset, so people who choose to play defensively can do so and just understand that the benefits they gain are offset by the territory they lose. From what I see of C&C 3, they want a match to take 15-30 minutes tops. So... I bet the basebuilding is gonna be fast and furious. SupCom encourages longterm turtling because of the a) massivity of the maps and b) utter dominance of endgame units. That and the infamous Tier 3 Gunship raids. But SupCom is designed to be a multi-hour game. That may not be for me, but some people really like that.

GDI has been described as the turtler faction, though this is certainly in comparison to Nod and the aliens. They'e probably pretty quick base builders as well.

Oddly, the aliens have been described as being a faction for rushers, but from what's been revealed about them, they seem more like turtlers to me. They have the ability to reseed tiberium fields, removing the need to roam far afield from the base or to strike before the supply of cash runs out. Also, many of their units are supposed to be fairly lame until you get to their really high tech shit, which is supposed to be some of the most powerful units in the game.

Uraniun235 wrote:A 'resource war' can be done right - the idea is that you fight each other over control of the resources. In turn the resources need to be sufficiently diffuse and spread out so that holding two or three key points is insufficient to assure victory.

I kind of liked the way they did it in Generals, where you had to seize control of a supply depot and build your base, but you could eventually have money-generating structures. To be honest, I hate the "harvester" game mechanic. It forces a whole extra level of micromanagement, where you have to constantly keep an eye on your harvester. Some people may find that a great strategic layer of the game, but I find the exercise of directing, protecting, and attacking harvesters to be annoying as hell. At least if you must have harvester units, they should be cheap and expendable.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Harvesters are always as expensive as one of a factions beastly teched up tanks, and it's too easy for them to get ambushed out in the fields (or use some retarded path finding and wander through an enemy base). Whenever me and my buddies would play C&C, there was always a 'no attacking harvesters' rule.

At least in Generals, it's your own damn fault if you don't build a turret next your supply depot and your trucks get reamed by stealth fighters, or whatever.

I think Tiberian Sun actually had a multiplayer option wherein the harvesters were immune and left alone by the combat units, or something like that. Or supposed to work like that, at least; I never played much multiplayer TS and I can't recall if we even used that option or not.

In any case I never cared much for the harvester system either; I vastly prefer the metal extractors of TA and Supreme Commander.

Uraniun235 wrote:I think Tiberian Sun actually had a multiplayer option wherein the harvesters were immune and left alone by the combat units, or something like that. Or supposed to work like that, at least; I never played much multiplayer TS and I can't recall if we even used that option or not.

In any case I never cared much for the harvester system either; I vastly prefer the metal extractors of TA and Supreme Commander.

I prefer the modified metal system of TA spring, where instead of small little metal patches you can harvest from anywhere, but a harvester as a big radius that it draws from, and you can't overlap them, and some areas produce more than others. It makes area control more important, but makes it a little less of a hassle to start cranking the metal out.

I get frustrated with SupCom's metal miners, honestly. The link system slows me down and it's an annoying extra step to maximize your output, and contributes greatly to the overly turtled nature of the game. They're essentially like stationary harvesters. On one hand they're not too dissimilar from DoW control points in the idea that as you advance your lines you create a wall of extractors across all available spots. However, they're so easily whacked by raiding forces that it takes way too much effort to maintain them. I think harvesters are LESS frustrating, since then I can at least build defensive structures around my one resource patch without needing to armor an entire side of the map.