StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Stark wrote:Howedar, I think its a shame the idea of 'defensive structures' has survived Maginot. You and I both know the idea is ludicrous, simply because of all the reasons they often suck in RTS.

IMHO defensive structures are a necessary evil. IRL, nobody fights from fixed bases anyway, and certainly your most important units aren't immobile and weak. Combined with tiny map sizes and completely defenseless REMFs, I think RTSs of the standard pattern need defensive structures.

Artillery, airstrikes, manuever. I want an RTS with more deployables like semi-mobile sams, tractorable artillery and the like. Every infantryman needs an entrenching tool!

Agreed.

PrinceofLowLight wrote:Man, this entire thread is like a giant reminder of why I love Total Annihilation so much.

Of course, old games have their own problems. TA was made before the Idle Worker button was invented. No formations, so units have to play catch-up. But these are minor.

Like I said before, no formations is a mixed blessing because on the one hand your groups don't stay as one, but on the other hand you know as well as I do that if your armies could only move as fast as your slowest unit your army would be ass-raped 7 ways to sunday before it got to the enemy base.

Howedar wrote:

Stark wrote:Howedar, I think its a shame the idea of 'defensive structures' has survived Maginot. You and I both know the idea is ludicrous, simply because of all the reasons they often suck in RTS.

IMHO defensive structures are a necessary evil. IRL, nobody fights from fixed bases anyway, and certainly your most important units aren't immobile and weak. Combined with tiny map sizes and completely defenseless REMFs, I think RTSs of the standard pattern need defensive structures.

True... at least for fantasy RTS Kohan increased scale and included organic militia. In fact I can't say enough good things about Kohan
Sudden Strike was interesting in that there was no 'base', and you could set your crap up anywhere. But it was really 'tactical' level, rather than 'strategic'. But ambushes worked, flanking worked, you just ran out of infantry too fast.

Artillery, airstrikes, manuever. I want an RTS with more deployables like semi-mobile sams, tractorable artillery and the like. Every infantryman needs an entrenching tool!

Agreed.[/quote]

Bunkers are okay, but I'd rather see a game where you build fortifications and arm them, rather than build stand-alone gatling turrets like in C&C. Who doesn't want a map to end up crisscrossed with trenches, foxholes, firepoints, wrecked tanks, burning villages, unexploded cluster mines...

RTSs just need to throw off the legacy of Dune 2 and realise that a much better game can be built now. But I guess the market is 12yos, and they're idiots, so proper gamers get crap games.

Howedar wrote:If all defensive structures are longer ranged than offensive units, what's the fucking point? If you can just build more and more buildings to protect yourself, it's not strategy anymore. It's SimBase.

Who said 'all'? I said 'some'. And there are other factors to consider as well, such as cost; very powerful towers should come at a steep price, limiting their use to critical areas and at the price of several mobile units. Yes, you could build a highly-fortified, initially impenetrable base, but you'd effectively concede much of the battlefield to your opponent, who could then use the extra resources to build an assault capable of smashing even the most powerful defense line.

Would it be cruel and mean to point out that so many of these don't apply to Homeworld? Though they have no defensive structures at all....

Uraniun235 wrote:

Howedar wrote:If all defensive structures are longer ranged than offensive units, what's the fucking point? If you can just build more and more buildings to protect yourself, it's not strategy anymore. It's SimBase.

Who said 'all'? I said 'some'. And there are other factors to consider as well, such as cost; very powerful towers should come at a steep price, limiting their use to critical areas and at the price of several mobile units. Yes, you could build a highly-fortified, initially impenetrable base, but you'd effectively concede much of the battlefield to your opponent, who could then use the extra resources to build an assault capable of smashing even the most powerful defense line.

I said "all".

Temjin wrote:

Badme wrote:Eh. Most still have strategy, but the problem for most casual players is that you have to be good at the 'mechanics' portion of the game first for it to even matter. It doesn't matter if you predicted my attack and had a flank waiting if I have 30 marines and you have 15 zerglings, does it?

But the flank attack should matter. In most RTS games, if you attack a group of enemies from both the front and the rear, it's as if you're just attacking from the front. The units are just as vunerable to the rear as to the front.

I just want more actual strategy in my RTS games instead of rote manuevers.

Homeworld does this. Example would be attacking carrier from the front, spraying fire all over the hanger bay, or attacking cruisers from sides (actually, does the armor vary, or do you do this to avoid the guns)?

Pu-239 wrote:Homeworld does this. Example would be attacking carrier from the front, spraying fire all over the hanger bay, or attacking cruisers from sides (actually, does the armor vary, or do you do this to avoid the guns)?

Yeah, the cap ships do have lower armor behind and the sides.

That's also one of the reasons why Homeworld is one of my favorite games.

SirNitram wrote:Would it be cruel and mean to point out that so many of these don't apply to Homeworld? Though they have no defensive structures at all....

Well, HW2 does with the platforms, but they're easy enough to kill.

Howedar wrote:I said "all".

I'm confused. I assumed because your post directly followed mine that you were responding to my post. Was I wrong in assuming this?

Temjin wrote:

Pu-239 wrote:Homeworld does this. Example would be attacking carrier from the front, spraying fire all over the hanger bay, or attacking cruisers from sides (actually, does the armor vary, or do you do this to avoid the guns)?

Yeah, the cap ships do have lower armor behind and the sides.

That's also one of the reasons why Homeworld is one of my favorite games.

I've only played Cata though. Anyway, I hate the fact that you have to make microgroups or formation switching or any of a number of other tricks in order to succeed in multiplayer. This is probably solved in HW2, but I don't have it, so can someone confirm? I'm also not a big fan of fighter warfare, preferring a near all-capital ship fleet.

phongn wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Would it be cruel and mean to point out that so many of these don't apply to Homeworld? Though they have no defensive structures at all....

Well, HW2 does with the platforms, but they're easy enough to kill.

What's the point when you can go over, under, or hyperspace through them though? Also, is the mothership mobile?

Temjin wrote:

Badme wrote:Eh. Most still have strategy, but the problem for most casual players is that you have to be good at the 'mechanics' portion of the game first for it to even matter. It doesn't matter if you predicted my attack and had a flank waiting if I have 30 marines and you have 15 zerglings, does it?

But the flank attack should matter. In most RTS games, if you attack a group of enemies from both the front and the rear, it's as if you're just attacking from the front. The units are just as vunerable to the rear as to the front.

I just want more actual strategy in my RTS games instead of rote manuevers.

Re-read my post. Of course the flank attack matters: It's the primary method of killing Terran pushes when you're Protoss, for 1 example. What I'm getting at is that intelligence/strategy really only comes into play when both players are equal at the mechanics level. That's why intelligence is so important for high-level Starcraft: everyone has sick macromanagement, map knowledge, rote micromanagement, etc. It's also why intelligence is essentially useless to the 'newbie' or 'casual gamer' level.

EDIT: Typos!

Pu-239 wrote:What's the point when you can go over, under, or hyperspace through them though? Also, is the mothership mobile?

The idea is that you can use them to defend resourcing zones and such. They're a handy bit of firepower in a pinch.

Your MS is indeed mobile, but it is a fat pig.

The thing I hate most is excessive paper-rock-scissors unit 'balancing', where an entire swarm of units is useless against a single unit that counters them. While it's OK for limited use (a couple units here and there), when it gets applied to everything in the army, it makes playing a pain in the ass. I had to stop playing Rise of Nations and Age of Mythology because of it.

If there are too many counter units, the game does become tedious after a while. AOM has considerable numbers of them, especially the expansion. Everything is a counter to something else.

Preferentially trying to flank the enemy is tactics, not strategy. Ideally, a group of units would (once grouped) have a collective AI rather than a group of individual AIs, and it would intelligently attempt to do things like flanking the enemy once it is engaged.

While I don't have much to add on the matter of things that I hate in RTS, I second the recommendation for Kohan and it's ilk (dunno about the sequel, though). Unlike a certain other fantasy game, defensive structures are not overpowered; all they do is deploy a preset militia to aid in the defense of whatever fortress or city the militia is bound to.

Since you command numerous fixed groups of units (a few frontline units, a commander, and some support units) you can easily execute flanking manuevers and other such advanced tactics on a larger scale than most RTSes. And since all structures are contained within one single "icon" on the map, development of your armies is easy (and resource gathering is automatic, which allows you to focus entirely on the destruction of your foes)

Also, I would like to recommend Cossacks, which, although being insanely difficult in single-player, does manage to side-step most of these problems by allowing massive numbers of units (although if you want massive armies you'll play a Total War game), numerous formations, a balance between fixed defenses and artillery (which is the only thing capable of demolishing walls and towers) as well as excellent unit balance and integration of advanced tactics (in which such brilliant tactical ideas as the "Frontal Charge" tend to result in massive, thoroughly unwelcome casualties).

Well I've only really played AoE II and Galactic Battlegrounds with Clone Campaigns, but I'd have to agree with the lack of strategy. when me and my cousin play each other, we have strategy. When I get online, or play agains the computer on any level it's get five soldiers as quick as possible then send them in to kill the workers and just sit there. Then another five will walk up and just blow evertying up and all you can do is sit there. Woe to the dumb ass that misses the one worker that makes my AT AT factory!!! DOOM!!!

phongn wrote: TA had defensive structures that massively outranged any mobile unit, but those weren't unbalancing.

As for air-defense, you really should have aircraft up for interdiction, not just ground-based air-defense units.

In TA every unit with a weapon has at least 1.5 times the weapons range than its light-of-sight range. Also all weapons take time to get to their target and arent instant hit.

Units will only fire when stuff is in line-of-sight( LOS can be provided by other units ), so a single standalone unit has much greater weapons range than it does LOS range.

Aircraft are fast, they will cross a single missile tower's LOS in well under 30 seconds, and the missile tower can only fire once every 8 seconds or so. Added that you arent going to hit every time (the missile misses).

The subtle interaction with Light-of-sight being much less than a unit's weapons range is one I've never seen used again after TA.

PrinceofLowLight wrote:TA was made before the Idle Worker button was invented.

True. But TA Demo Recorder adds that functionaility.

Ctrl-B is your friend

My main gripe lately is TA, because I've been playing that with Vympel.

1. Stealth Fighters are too powerful, and we've made it a rule that they're not built. They're too fast, too powerful, and don't show up on radar (even if you build an AWACS plane).

2. Naval units. On TA's bigger maps with seas you expect to have epic battles with all sorts of naval ships. What ends up happening?

* No visibility as naval units can't seem to see much farther than a few pixels around them (and if you're on a sub, then forget it...).

* Because there's no visibility you have to rely on Radar/Sonar... whoops, you can't because only ONE unit has a radar tower and it's a non-combatant (the so-called 'carrier' even though it's little more than a mobile air repair pad). This means you have to use scout ships as 'spotters' (what the fuck is this, WW1 combat? This is supposed to be the FUTURE!) which are easily killed OR use scout planes (UAVs, which is futuristic, but shouldn't be required) which are ALSO easily killed.

* Also Radar, on a LARGE map, is fucking horrendous to target manually (especially if you have a small screen already, like from a laptop). Incredibly, in TA you have to build a VERY expensive and time-consuming building in order for your units to target enemies based off of radar! They should be able to do that automatically! But even if they can't, then the building in question should at LEAST be cheap to build.

* No maneuvrability. Carriers and Battleships move like a drunken whale. I want playability, not 'realism'.

* Submarines are SLOW. And the fact they can't see very far makes them stupid. You either need to use a spotter plane in order to ID your targets (ANOTHER thing TA lacks in it's Radar/Sonar department: enemy blips show up as 'unidentified objects' ) and thus give away your position to the enemy (because the whole purpose of a submarine is STEALTH), OR you have to manually target each blip that shows up on your sensor map, which as I've already stated is hard to do on large, naval oriented maps. Also, none of the submarines except the ARM and CORE hunterkillers look remotely LIKE a submarine - re: cigar shaped. Most of them have this stupid shape to them which frankly makes them look rediculous. AND their only weapon is a torpedo; they can't launch missiles or nuke missiles. Again, this is supposed to be FUTURISTIC combat! What the fuck is this?

* None of the units makes sense. Submarines have already been covered. The Destroyer has a gun and a DEPTH CHARGE launcher (:shock:). Same goes with the Cruiser, only it's gun is longer ranged. None of them have a air repair pad. None of them have the ability to shoot missiles (meaning they're vulnerable to aerial units). Furthermore there is a dedicated 'missile ship' which has one SAM battery and a long ranged missile launcher - except the missiles don't trach their targets (:roll:). There is also a dedicated AAW Destroyer - it has two SAM batteries and a flak cannon. This is beginning to make sense, EXCEPT IT HAS NO RADAR. There are radar/sonar jamming ships/subs, but what's the point when your fleet doesn't even have radar to begin with (and the ASW ships have a short sonar range)? The battleship is the worst offender, because it has nothing but two cannons. It has no protection from aircraft OR subs.

* Finally, aircraft slaughter fleets. You spent all that time and money building a large submarine wolf pack to raid your enemy's shoreline? Too bad, he's got a sonar plane and one or two torpedo planes - there's NOTHING those subs can do (because the torpedoes are guided and ALWAYS hit, unless the surrounding landscape somehow favours the subs from an angle of approach, at which point they're still trapped). Aircraft are also easier to build and mass into the air and can't be killed. I've already mentioned Stealth Fighters. But torpedo planes (both types) can kill fleets relatively easily, especially the seaplane variety.

* One last point. You can build nuclear silos in this game, and a 'Patriot' style interceptor missile silo as well. However, there are NO SSBs, and there is NO mobile missile defence (ALTHOUGH there is a LAND version... funny that... )

I'm starting to remember why I lost faith in this game... but it CAN be modded, and there are a few good ones out there...

ggs wrote:Aircraft are fast, they will cross a single missile tower's LOS in well under 30 seconds, and the missile tower can only fire once every 8 seconds or so. Added that you arent going to hit every time (the missile misses).

The missile missing is a rarity, actually. SOmething like the lvl1 Scout plane, which is pretty much the fastest unit in the game, invariably gets hit - almost every time.

Things like the Hawk or Vamp only survive because they don't appear on radar. ALL aircraft are mincemeat for SAM defences and flakker guns once you have a targeting array built.

The subtle interaction with Light-of-sight being much less than a unit's weapons range is one I've never seen used again after TA.

And while I agree it's a good idea, in practice it doesn't work. Witness my naval rant - those units SHOULD HAVE EXTREME VISUAL RANGE, and their weapons should hit farther than they do.

[EDIT] Playability is important to a game, not 'subtle interactions'. TA can be modded to replace all the problems I pointed out. That's the maddening thing about the game; it didn't have to be the way it is, but the designers put it out that way.

Uraniun235 wrote:

Howedar wrote:I said "all".

I'm confused. I assumed because your post directly followed mine that you were responding to my post. Was I wrong in assuming this?

It built off of your post as well as others, but it was not a direct response to your post and yours alone.

One thing I dislike about Armada 2 is how worthless starships are. Considering that most of the drama of Star Trek takes place on these ships they should not be so expendable.

The main thing that shits me in RTS's is poor AI.

Most notably, in Armada 1. If a ship comes across an asteroid field, rather than try to go around it it will just try to keep going on it's direct course.

*stares, mouth agape, at the open blasphemy of the Best RTS Ever.*

TA had some of the best naval combat ever to be found in a combined-arms RTS. The only major flaw with the game is it's so old it's hard to find, particularly the expansions.