StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:

Stark wrote:This is madness. RTS success comes from build-tree raping. As Sun Tzu tells us, the first guy to build the uberunit wins.

Someone hasn't played Star Craft, I guess. All the BCs and Carriers in the world won't save you from a couple of Wraiths and Valks; the most badass Archons and Utralisks get owned by small numbers of marines/zealots. Hell, even Nukes aren't that powerful (unless they hit a paticularly large portion of your army; and then you were being stupid because you failed to move said army).

That's just glorified rock-paper-scissors. X trumps Y, Y trumps Z, Z trumps X. I find it annoying. I prefer RTSs that take a little more brain, say, Blitzkrieg or Kohan.

Got a shiny new Koenigstiger? Throw it into close quarters urban combat, I dare ya...

JediNeophyte wrote:
That's just glorified rock-paper-scissors. X trumps Y, Y trumps Z, Z trumps X. I find it annoying. I prefer RTSs that take a little more brain, say, Blitzkrieg or Kohan.

Got a shiny new Koenigstiger? Throw it into close quarters urban combat, I dare ya...

In rock-paper-scissors there's not possible way to determine what your opponant is going to pull until he pulls it, making the game blind luck. That's the crucial difference between that and starcraft. In StarCraft have a look at your enemy's base. Is he Zerg and you're Terran? Did you see a spire and it's only early game? If you did then it might be a good idea to get some Wraiths and Valks in the air and some Goliaths on the ground because chances are you're a few minutes away from getting rushed by the entire zerg airforce.

Not true. Careful strategy can help you to survive such errors. Besides, nobody builds just one type of unit.

I'm a fanatical SCer, so RTS of course.

Both are great when properly done. I love the real-time in games like Baldur's Gate or XCOM Apocalypse, and the turn based in Fallout is also lots of fun (of course there you're only controlling a single character) but it's unbearable in BOS - I switch to realtime, even if it's not perfect.

The turn-based in the old D&D "Gold Box" series is incredible good, fun AND fast-paced (the last one is what kills most TB games IMO). IIRC there were some games that I couldn't care less about the battles (Arcanum had shitty battles, RT simply gave me the option to kinda pretend they didn't exist) but TANSTAAFL.

RTS all the way!

In a real war, do you sit back and calmly for the other side to attack, then have them do the same? NO! You're all trying to kill each other at the SAME TIME! This element simply can not be simulated in turn-based games. The on-the-fly strategy is one reason I love RTS games. You have to act quick, and think quicker, much like in life. You can't just sit back and stare at yours and the enemies' positions for an hour before saying "okay, your turn to attack me"!

Right now I'm in love with Risk 2. It has a simetime turn thing happening. IE; We place our troops at the same time, attack at the same time, and reinforce at the same time. The only problem is that after a while it becomes a contest of who has the greater industrial capability.

Stark wrote:This is madness. RTS success comes from build-tree raping. As Sun Tzu tells us, the first guy to build the uberunit wins.

I'll tell you what. You go build mass BCs and Carriers, while my Zealots come dismantly your base 5 minutes into the game.

And yes, RTSes for me. TBSes don't lend itself to multiplayer very well, and multiplayer is truly what extends the life of a game.

Turn-based for me. I like to sit and think about a really long-term strategy then try putting it into action using different short-term strategies, then even having to change my strategies altogether just because the infidels got in the way of my plans.

I find it extremely satisfying to be able to plan, develop, and expand an empire (or whatever) and then use it to crush the opposition. Nothing like watching planet after planet fall under my banner, as I generally much prefer space strategy, then watching the enemy backed into a corner launching everything they have at me in a futile attempt to survive.

Or, you know, they crush you instead.

Then, of course, there's the economical and industrial sides to the games. Controlling the fates of millions under your rule, either for good or evil purposes, gives me thrills. I guess I'm just a complete control freak.

Both.

At once.

Total War.

I like them both and for different reasons. TBS is when I feel like building, RTS is for destruction.

Right now it's Age of Mythology (IMO, better than StarCraft but lacks the years of tweaking) and Europa Universalis 2.

I like TBS games more, long term stratagy and all that. I love my copy of Combat Mission 2 because I get the time to decide how to act and also the satisfaction of watching my enemy get crushed in real time

I like Starcraft, the idea of just beating the hell out of someone as you watch them make futile attempts to counter attack is fun beyond words. Beyond that, they're a really good way to kill two hours. There's a certain intellectual issue of tactics presented in RTS that a turn-time game just can't possess. There's no time to think "what's my next move?" when there's an enemy force fifteen seconds from your defensive line.

But there's no doubt of my love of the drama of turn-time, particularly in Star Trek: Birth of the Federation (not that I haven't played Civ and MoO2) where the issue of politics comes into play quite a bit. It's possible, albeit difficult, to win a turn based game without declaring war and with only minimal combat. In BotF, my highest scoring games have come from Alliance victories, using the economy to force my opponent to ally with me just because of my capacity to build power fleets not because of any existing fleets (even though a Sovereign or two at my borders usually helps). You can play a turn-based game in any way you want, RTS (unless it's a scenario) forces you into exactly one way to win; war.

I think the bottom line is you just have to go with what feels right for you.

Me, I love Starcraft but that being said I was quite heavilly into games like SMAC and Space Empires 4.

Play whatever you're in the mood for.

Spyder wrote:Did you see a spire and it's only early game? If you did then it might be a good idea to get some Wraiths and Valks in the air and some Goliaths on the ground because chances are you're a few minutes away from getting rushed by the entire zerg airforce.

Doesn't work. You have to marine rush him instead. Getting Wraiths and Valks
+ Goliaths is impossible against a Mutarush unless the Zerg player is an idot.

I think medival style combat is best. Turnbased strategic mode
real time tactical mode with formations. Combat Missions solution
is also a nice one.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:RTS all the way. I HATE TBS games with a passion. I hate having to sit at the screen managing economy some of the times, and other times finding I can do little at all.

In RTS you have everything you need at your fingertips, whenever you need it. You don't waste time building cities that run properly, you build bases that can churn out as many units as possible. While in TBS, victory in battle relys purely on number of units, in RTS strategy (while much more on-the-fly) takes a bigger role in battle so you can even achieve victory over a foe with larger forces and more firepower.

Man drag selecting your entire force and right clicking a single unit so your entire "army" stands in one spot and shoots until the enemy units health is gone is not strategy. Its lame dull and designed to trick people into thinking they are "uber army commanders". Play a game where you have to rely on REAL tactics/strategy and you would probably be toasted.

I like TBS and I like RTS. I do NOT like

Real-time
IbuiltmybaseupfasterthanyouandrushedyouwitheverythingIgotstrategies

A proper RTS is something like Total War or Close Combat, games where you have to actually think and be forced along with the fact that its real-time. "Thinking" is the keyword here. Starcraft doesn't have it

Super-Gagme wrote:I like TBS and I like RTS. I do NOT like

Real-time
IbuiltmybaseupfasterthanyouandrushedyouwitheverythingIgotstrategies

I agree, I don't like that. The only RTS games I can remember liking are Warcraft 3 (specifically for the prettyness of it) and Command & Conquer: Generals (for the extreme comedy).

Super-Gagme wrote:

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:Real-time
IbuiltmybaseupfasterthanyouandrushedyouwitheverythingIgotstrategies

Well, the problem here is to not get caught with your pants down. If the US airbase in Saudi Arabia had nothing but Barracks and Air Fields, you really can't complain when a bunch of terrorists comes in to destroy that base. If you had some guard towers, Patriot Missile Systems, etc. you would have stopped him. (Using the C&C: Generals analogy).

Frankly in most games, the rush will be successful only if the rusher is far more skilled than the rushee. In Warcraft 3 for example, most games begin with a quick rush which the other side fights off, then counter attacks with escalated forces, which the other side also fights off, etc. The only time a rush really works is if the other guy is out creeping (which is bad intel), gets creepjacked (again, bad intel), or if he plain sucks (which he would have lost to the other guy anyways).

And rushing is a valid strategy on TBSes as well. It's just that most TBS have atrocious PvP designs that no one ever plays them online against another human being, while the computer is designed to give you time to build up. In fact, in Alpha Centauri, it's rather easy to rush down your computer opponent and get a win within 25 turns or so (unless of course, you get a lot of islands).

The problem is typical RTSs like C&C just comes down to a flashy version of Rock Paper Scissors. The strategy involved is base building and "army" composition but other than that no actual combat strategy/tactics are used.

Super-Gagme wrote:The problem is typical RTSs like C&C just comes down to a flashy version of Rock Paper Scissors. The strategy involved is base building and "army" composition but other than that no actual combat strategy/tactics are used.

C&C does have a problem with the "hard counter" (ie. a unit can counters another so well). This also affects Age of Empires/Mythology (a single pikeman can stop about 3 Cavalry).

However, Commander and Conquer: Generals has fixed this problem; a tank is no longer completely useless against infantry (it's still a poor choice, but 3 tanks no longer fall to 1 rocket trooper). Starcraft/Warcraft never had this problem; they had soft counters where it would be more cost efficient to use Unit X against Unit Y, but I can still kill a Huntress with about 1.5X the cost in Footmen ( even though Huntresses are weak against ranged, and strong against melee. So if you have a good economy, you could zerg the enemy and win even if you didn't have their counter units. The only hard counters in SC/WC is Ground Melee cannot hit Air, and Magic cannot hit Magic Immune, but those are pretty obvious counters.

And secondly, RTSes generally have a lot more tactics than TBS. They have less strategy, because a superior tactician who uses high ground, focus fire, flanking, air drops, etc. can overcome a superior strategist who has the "counter units".

Thunderfire wrote:

Spyder wrote:Did you see a spire and it's only early game? If you did then it might be a good idea to get some Wraiths and Valks in the air and some Goliaths on the ground because chances are you're a few minutes away from getting rushed by the entire zerg airforce.

Doesn't work. You have to marine rush him instead. Getting Wraiths and Valks
+ Goliaths is impossible against a Mutarush unless the Zerg player is an idot.

Depends how you've built your base. If you were going for an air tactics build then it's entirely possible, otherwise you're probably right.

Silver Paladin wrote:And secondly, RTSes generally have a lot more tactics than TBS. They have less strategy, because a superior tactician who uses high ground, focus fire, flanking, air drops, etc. can overcome a superior strategist who has the "counter units".

High ground? Flanking? Please direct me to a typical RTS (C&C, AoE, Starcraft) in which these are a factor. And what precisely is Focus Fire?

Super-Gagme wrote:

Silver Paladin wrote:And secondly, RTSes generally have a lot more tactics than TBS. They have less strategy, because a superior tactician who uses high ground, focus fire, flanking, air drops, etc. can overcome a superior strategist who has the "counter units".

High ground? Flanking? Please direct me to a typical RTS (C&C, AoE, Starcraft) in which these are a factor. And what precisely is Focus Fire?

In AoE, if you have archers and on the high ground they have better accuracy against troops down below meaning they kill better. Flanking helps a whole lot when attacking an enemy because it means your troops are well spread out and will be able to attack his sides quicker in which the opponets rear troops may not be able to attack if he's in line formation.

In AoE, you have to worry about a lot of things because you have to micro-manage your economy and your troops. The economy is very important to pay attention to because it decides what units you are making. It also helps when you scout the enemy's base early.

If he's mining stone then he plans to bring towers up. If he's getting into gold, it's either he's going to send himself to the next age quicker or build archers or man of arms. If he has more farms then that usually and might mean he has too much wood and want to build scouts and etc.

Then there is the different types of maps. Each map has it's own needs and do's.
A water map would always carry out sea rushes or making transports and land on your opponets islands. You have to figure out what may happen.

Yucatan has a lot of food thus a civilization like the Mongols in the game has an advantage as they can take in the meat quicker etc.

etc etc etc.
Not to mention each, civilizations has it's own advantages and disadvantages in the game and no civ truly counters or is more over-powering then the other.

IMO, AoE:II is the most complicated RTS game because there are too many possibilities to choose to attack and defend from.

Cyaround,
Jason

Super-Gagme wrote:

Silver Paladin wrote:And secondly, RTSes generally have a lot more tactics than TBS. They have less strategy, because a superior tactician who uses high ground, focus fire, flanking, air drops, etc. can overcome a superior strategist who has the "counter units".

High ground? Flanking? Please direct me to a typical RTS (C&C, AoE, Starcraft) in which these are a factor. And what precisely is Focus Fire?

In Starcraft, units on Lower Ground will miss units on High Ground 30% of the time. A similar bonus is in effect in Warcraft, although I don't know the precise number. This also affects units who are "under cover" such as under a tree.

By Flanking, I mean hitting the rear lines of spellcasters/artillery. There's no inherent bonus for hitting them there, but spellcasters/artillery are weak against attack. The most "well known" example of this is "Creepjacking", where the enemy would hit you right as you're creeping, so you get trapped against the creep. While your front lines are being hit by the creeps, your rear line gets ravaged by his forces. I've won many games where I've beaten a superior player (ie. my friend who is 9 level higher than me on Ladder. And trust me, I don't let him forget about it. ) simply because I creepjacked him.

Focus Fire is where your direct all of your units to attack a single unit, killing him. Because a unit at 20% HP does just as much damage as a unit at 100%, it's in your best interest to kill him.