StarDestroyer.Net BBS

JediNeophyte wrote: Rise of Nations - though I haven't yet played Throne of Patriots, this RTS has set the new standard for future games.

I can't agree with that sentiment. For me, RoN was a game that tried to cramp a lot of ideas into an unfitting package. Forgetting for a moment about the problem of wooden ships sinking WWII armored battleships:

- unit creation is way too rapid to make for an enjoyable game. After you raze an enemy city and defeating the bulk of enemy forces in a battle royale, you'll probably have to endure tons of attacks from small groups of units that just keep coming at your troops. Worse yet, if you don't micromanage your army during such raids, it will probably get badly mauled after a little while.

- managing more than one battle is a huge pain in the ass. By the time aircraft get involved, any war is a string of click-pause-click

- the diplomacy system sucks ass

- ships are produced at an astonishing rate. All you need is to forget about your fleet shelling an enemy dock for a short moment, and you get a fireship right in the middle of your formation.

- Somehow, ships from all eras can detect and effectively attack submarines. I can understand destroyers (that's what they're for) doing it, but sloops also have no problems whatsoever, even when fighting nuclear attack subs.

- from the industrial era and up, the battles look dumb

- there's no need to buy transport units. On one hand, it simplifies at least one issue. On the other, any tiny nation can mount giant amphibious invasions as long as they have even a single dock.

- Biplanes shooting down F-22s. 'nuff said.

- Why can't you raze more than one building at a time? There's a shortage of torches?

RoN is an attempt to shoehorn "Civilization" into "Command And Conquer", and it failed miserably.

It works perfectly when one remembers that mountain-city-walled-vet-pikeman can defeat tanks with regularity in the original Civ.

SWPIGWANG wrote:It works perfectly when one remembers that mountain-city-walled-vet-pikeman can defeat tanks with regularity in the original Civ.

Yes, but that was in the ancient age of computer gaming. I think that after a decade of this joke running around, game developers should have figured out a way to solve this problem by now.

You forgot Home World. Barring that, Starcraft Takes it easily.

Homeworld, end of story. Compelling, emotional storyline, good engine, fun gameplay, and decent online play.

I had a friend who lost a WW2 era battleship to Musketeers in Civ2. He wasn't happy.

Alyeska wrote:I had a friend who lost a WW2 era battleship to Musketeers in Civ2. He wasn't happy.

What was it, 1,500 musketeers vs the battleship? It's in situations like that where the whole hitpoint system goes off the deep end.

I don't care how many frappin musketeers you have, or where they're entrenched. You could fire ten thousand muskets at a battleship ten feet from you until you hair went grey (apologizes to any grey-haired forumgoers) and not do appreciable damage to it. Except maybe making it list to the side a bit due to the weight of lead plastered against one side of the hull.

Alyeska wrote:I had a friend who lost a WW2 era battleship to Musketeers in Civ2. He wasn't happy.

Ouch. IIRC, the Civ2 combat system was supposed to minimize chances of that happening, but I guess occasionally there is a (very rare) chance that it can still occur.

Warcraft 3 promised an epic game, with big armies and the such. Ended up feeling like a bloody RPG.

So I voted Warcraft 2.

JediNeophyte wrote:To this day the unit AI still impresses me by blowing away that of the latest games. I recall not too long ago I had a team of Brawler gunships attacking some enemy defenses - a fluke plasma shot blasted one of them, critically damaging it. I was about to click on him to tell the poor bugger to go home and repair, when the Brawler automatically returned to base, repaired itself, and returned to its squadron without a single click on my part.

Now thats what I call good unit AI. Why do so few games have this level of AI?

Bill Door wrote:Now thats what I call good unit AI. Why do so few games have this level of AI?

Something like StarCraft/WarCraft doesn't because they're designed for fast play/disposable soldier play. In other words, imagine a zerg rush - do you, as the player, really give a shit if that Zerg army has excessive casualties? Or marine rush. Or Zealots. In SC you tend to throw away your troops.

Another thing is, in SC the units have a 'kill count' that tells you how experienced your unit is - except, they don't 'level' up that way WC3 heroes do. Conversely, Total Annihilation has units that CAN level up - PROVIDED THEY STAY ALIVE. That's why in SC, which is designed for fast play, your units will never be any better than what they are (with the exception of upgrades). In TA, if your units stay alive, they can get much better in quality. In SC individual units don't matter all that much, in TA they do.

Crayz9000 wrote:Right, forgot about the turn-based part.

Guess it's just impossible for one person to actually manage a game of strategy in real-time.

Europa Universalis II?

But for what we think of as RTS games, I can't pick between TA, SC, Ground Control and Homeworld

Homeworld, end of story. Compelling, emotional storyline, good engine, fun gameplay, and decent online play.

You've never seen evil scouts in action have you? (note: thats a formation-mash-exploit)

Now thats what I call good unit AI. Why do so few games have this level of AI?

Ai don't make the game, the game makes the game.

Ai is like eye candy, one can get the same effect by changing gameplay mechanics a little. While it is nice seeing Ai controlled TA units duke it out, when it comes down to it the game play in terms of player management is exactly the same. By removing one micro option one opens another, like flying aircraft off the map, or the run away slasher army, or something like that.

In SC you tend to throw away your troops.

Maybe you do, but good players would never just leave their units to die, they spend unholy amount of effort microing their units for maximum effectiveness, with tricks like "cloning", the classic "loss leader" and a whole bunch of other things. In late game BC/Carrier battles, throwing away units is results in guanteed loss.

SWPIGWANG wrote:

I wrote:In SC you tend to throw away your troops.

Maybe you do, but good players would never just leave their units to die, they spend unholy amount of effort microing their units for maximum effectiveness, with tricks like "cloning", the classic "loss leader" and a whole bunch of other things. In late game BC/Carrier battles, throwing away units is results in guanteed loss.

No, actually - *I* don't throw away my units. That doesn't change the fact the unit AI in SC is subpar compared to TA. In TA, if a Brawler is damaged it will withdraw and head for the nearest repair pad or carrier. In SC if a unit is damage it... just sits there and dies.

You're talking about good players playing SC. I'm talking about SC's GAME ENGINE. Just because a good player can micro to the point of precision doesn't actually mean SC's unit AI changes or anything. It just means they're fucking good at playing SC. If you don't 'attack/move' your units everywhere you go, and they happen to be ambushed whilst 'on the move' then forget about them engaging their enemies. They'll just keep on moving and get slaughtered.

Metal Fatigue and Kohan: Immortal Sovereigns.

Lately I've been playing Ground Control 2 for sheer combined-arms. Somewhat similar to TA in that respect, but a much more fluid game. Hellfires, it's an RTS with drop-in multi, and it actually makes sense

Starcraft no doubt about it. The graphics are dated but gameplay remains impressive. Everything is finely tuned and well balanced.

White Haven wrote:Lately I've been playing Ground Control 2 for sheer combined-arms. Somewhat similar to TA in that respect, but a much more fluid game. Hellfires, it's an RTS with drop-in multi, and it actually makes sense

There's Ground Control 2?

PeZook wrote:There's Ground Control 2?

It just came out.

GC2's got some of the most fun multi I've ever run across. AWESOME combined-arms useage, flexible enough to support drop-in play, and a whole host of other spiffyness. That it looks frappin beautiful is just icing on the cake. As an aside, I voted for TA, because out of the choices given it kicks the crap outta the others

Temjin wrote:

PeZook wrote:There's Ground Control 2?

It just came out.

Does it pick up the story where DC left off, or is it completely unrelated?

Starcraft, by FAR.

And where's Dune 2, the one that started it all????

And I'll have to go with Homeworld.

HemlockGrey wrote:Bah. Those are all "Real-Time Tactical Games Pretending To Be Strategy So That They Can Get Picked By PCGAMER As Editor's Choice and Have Everyone Acclaim Them As Awesome Games And Thus Drown Out Real Strategy Games" (RTTGPTBSSTTCGPBPAECAHEATAAGATDORSG)

Amen brother!