StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Defense is needed initially to enusre your base and you will survive an assault then I like the pull and backhand approach Probe the base find the weakness, feint an attack elsewhere. While the attention is diverted hit the weakened section with enough fire power to break through. Eliminate critical spots first and then, a methodical sweep usually does it. An organized offensive with a few men works better then a mass charge. Except with a zerg rush. I also like to use the terrain against an opponent. I also try to elminate the deadliest and softest targets first before turning attention to the rest. That and only keep required players on the field.

As we tested a number of combinations, the Chinese infantry general can ruin the days of attacking generals. Using the heavy fortified bunkers with 10 roket launchers is really a good combination...
In general, I prefer the Chinese over the US.

Just to emphasize the point, I drove a huge armor force of Paladins and Crusaders at TWO bunkers that were filled with Tank Hunters. The entire force was wiped out, and the Chinese general responded with a nice artillery barrage.

Not to mention, Black Lotus, the l33t Chinese haxxor g1rl, is quite useful. She can take over buildings in a fraction of the time normal infantry can, and I always like hacking the enemy supply centers with her.
- Ra

Dahak wrote:As we tested a number of combinations, the Chinese infantry general can ruin the days of attacking generals. Using the heavy fortified bunkers with 10 roket launchers is really a good combination...
In general, I prefer the Chinese over the US.

Helix with Minigunners as air-defense.

It works surprisingly well. Until they finally switch to air-guard to knock 'em down.

SirNitram wrote:

Dahak wrote:As we tested a number of combinations, the Chinese infantry general can ruin the days of attacking generals. Using the heavy fortified bunkers with 10 roket launchers is really a good combination...
In general, I prefer the Chinese over the US.

Helix with Minigunners as air-defense.

It works surprisingly well. Until they finally switch to air-guard to knock 'em down.

We played it as a test game to prepare for a re-match of the last multiplayer. And we tried how well you could defend a base when you spent almost everything for defense.
Two friends played the attackers, and I had the pleasure of defending.
The infantry general worked pretty nice. I basically covered my base in fortified bunkers with rocket troops. Of course I went down, but it did cost them way more than it did me. Wasted several waves against me. Was rather surprised how well it worked...

I'm generally fairly aggressive, I try to attack while I build up my economy just to keep them on the defensive and hopefully damage their resource collection. When I'm outclassed though, I tend to turtle up. I've rarely used any advanced tactics because I'm just too lazy to do them.

In FPSs I'm really aggressive though. Like I'll run in and keep attacking, knowing the odds are like 6:1 against me. This usually results in me dying a very stupid death or having half the enemy team go "OMFG" after I end up coming out on top, which does happen fairly often.

I always turtle, often to my detriment. If I survive my own stupidity of building units only when I need them right that very second and focusing entirely on infrastructure, I'll go with artillery and air strikes to slowly wear down my opponent's defenses and production capabilities before making the final charge. Nothing pleases me more than bypassing most of the enemy's defenses to strike at some critical building, which is why I love the NOD drill transport thingy and the Allies' Chronosphere in Tiberian Sun and RA2.

The turtle tactic I used to have in GC2 was great. You just have around 6 mobile rocket artillery units and have at least 4 acting as ABM systems to shield your units inside from any aerial or arty attacks. You have a few APCs and arty units yourself that can aid in any attacks. I think the tactic was so common online, that the developers had to drastically alter the unit specs.

I used to do similar task forces in C&C: Generals too. Only if you're the US for instance, you have at least enough Paladins or laser HMMWVs to deal with any aerial attacks or missiles and arty, but also have Tomahawks to help clear the way for Crusaders and HMMWVs with missile infantry in and the TOW upgrade.

My personal tactic is to build shit loads of infantry at first for defenses to guard my resource gathering campaign. Then when I’m set in that area I build all the best shit I can buy then with my overwhelming military force I toy with my enemy (if human I damage there confidence let get back up and destroy there confidence again rinse and repeat HE! HE! HE!) when the stakes get to high I murder the enemy.

Turtling will get you completely and utterly destroyed in any of the RTS that I've played, although I'm primarily a Starcraft:Broodwar player. When you turtle, you yield map control to your opponent. You're essentially containing yourself. You've done nothing but giving your opponent free-reign to expand over the entire map, while you sit still, doing zilch. Unless you're playing one of those shit-tastic money maps, any decent RTS player will simply expand, power with an economy that's several times more productive than yours, mass units, and overwhelm you. Turtling is one of THE worst newbie tactics in nearly every RTS ever invented.

If I turtle, it's only to act as a diversion or as an addition to my main attack force. It is, like you say, a dead end tactic, if played by a moron. So long as you don't see it as some amazing deus ex machina or the only tactic you can do, you'll be fine. No tactician uses just one method to win, except lamers with tank rushes.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:If I turtle, it's only to act as a diversion or as an addition to my main attack force. It is, like you say, a dead end tactic, if played by a moron.

While those are valid uses of it, the major problem with turtling in any circumstance is twofold: the amount of resources you're sinking into unnecessary static defense, and time lost as a result of it. Defense in most RTS (again, from personal experience) should be an adaptive thing, sufficent to cover your needs without wasting a significant sum of your cash inflow. For example, you don't rush an engineering bay as Terran in order to build lots of Missile Turrets rapidly. Instead, if you're in a position were you're going to need it (suppose your scout reveals that the enemy is rushing to air units), then you build just enough defense anti-air defense to protect your base. Units are infiniately more valuable than static defense once you've got just a bit of the latter, as they can move, and thus attack the enemy.

You'll be surprised how fast turtling will lose you the game against a decent opponent. In most RTS, it doesn't take long to expand, so if you turtle for, say, several minutes, that's pretty much the game.

There's a reason why a 'turtle' is almost always a very derogatory term in the Starcraft community.

RUSH RUSH RUSH. You'll get schooled all to hell in Starcraft if you don't rush rush expand rush rush. Big hurry, places to be, monsters to kill.

Every once in a while, on team maps, turtling is fun though. As long as the other two jokers can hold the fort, your massive army can easily deliver the killing-blow to a weakened enemy.

Otherwise, remember that time three Zealots appeared in your base and wrecked it before you even got your feet on the ground? Sorry, that was probably me. It's really an awful tactic.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:It's really an awful tactic.

But valid. I hate people who complain about rushing: the games are made that way. House rules are one thing, but expecting everyone else in the world to be considerate when the devs don't care to fix the 'issue' is stupid.

My strategy of choice involves slowly draining the life out of my opponents economy. I keep tabs on ALL resource centers from very early on. Once he puts in the effort to expand there, I send my army and destroy it utterly.

Lather, rinse, repeat

His army should be taken down bit by bit so that he has to dig into his constantly dwindling resources to stay on par with me, and I normally tech up such that he must put further resources into hix existing units just to keep up with me.

Sometimes they just leave the game in disgust

The more resiliant ones start turtling in their base, at which point, I get my Tiger Sharks (my own little term for Siege units, since Tiger Sharks eat Sea Turtles), and then lay waste to his main.

It takes quite a while since I rarely take direct action against him, but it works quite well most of the time.

I generally use a combo of Porcupine and Octopus, but occationally go Eagle if the opponent is slacking.
If you understand the above, you are a true nerd.

I understood Eagle and Porcupine's easy enough to figure, but what the hell is Octopus?

Octopus is an old stratagy from TA. Generally, you build a whole hell of a lot of small independent bases that are connected via defensive buildings and others through natural defensive positions. Your base looks like an Octopus (big main base with tons of tendrils ending in small bases) The small bases are designed to grind enemy assualts to a halt and allow you to always flank attackers.
It only works in massive games like TA though because it requires something like 100 buildings and the ability to still field an impressive army.
I got out of TA multiplayer at that time (no more LAN friends and Mplayer started sucking) but I think the different Creep stratagies replace it (you creep an army across the map and after conquering an area, you build a small firebase with a nuclear landmine at the center. Anyone trying to take it gets a nasty multimegaton suprise.

Another favourite of mine in a game like Rome: Total War, is the massive outflank maneuvre. Pin them in place with archers, onagers and skirmishers, while cavalry and fast infantry envelop for the kill.

In nearly 20 games of R:TW at LANs, ranging from 1 on 1, 2 vs 2, 3 a side, 6 vs 2, and 8 player melees I have lost 2 games. The first was due to my opponent being cheesy and taking nothing but horse archers (try and beat that army, its damn near impossible) and I took out most of it and the third player entirely before dying. The second was a 4 vs 3 game where sheer weight of numbers crushed us. Though, admittedly I fought a running rear-guard action for nearly 30 minutes before losing my last unit (2 carthagian armies filled with elephants and sacred band cavalry finished me off).

Generally I try to strike a balance between acting offensively and expanding for resources; the exception being a few games of Ground Control 2, back when the ABM shields were extremely effective in numbers: A common team tactic would be to build a firebase packed with artillery cannon and shield generators, with defensive units and repair trucks just within the boundary. This formation would then begin to shell the enemies' shield bubble as additional units performed flanking maneuvers. From a distance, all you would see would be a pair of glowing domes connected by two streams of arcing tracer fire.

Dark Hellion wrote:I generally use a combo of Porcupine and Octopus, but occationally go Eagle if the opponent is slacking.
If you understand the above, you are a true nerd.

I understand it. Worse, I even had the original source file printed off and by my side when I played TA.

The one time I was a successful porcupine was on "Painted Desert" - I went up against 3 computers, all maxed resources, hardest difficulty, allied together. I had a defensive perimeter and auto-targeting radar. Annihilators were mixed up with missiles and plasma cannons. Nothing could even get near me. I think that game lasted 4 hours. I found that I hit the unit max when I realised I couldn't build up my defences as tough as they were.

That was the last time I played Porc. Otherwise, I play octopus. All the time, in any game. I will usually have a forward firebase, or two, with bunkers all over the place (starcraft). It's simply a matter of cutting your supply lines as short as possible. The closer your units are to the frontlines the sooner your army can be reinforced with fresh troops. I usually don't go Eagle because building up an air-only infrastructure is foolhardy to me. Swarmers aren't any better, because I'm a fan of those long hour campaigns.

3rd Impact wrote:Generally I try to strike a balance between acting offensively and expanding for resources; the exception being a few games of Ground Control 2, back when the ABM shields were extremely effective in numbers: A common team tactic would be to build a firebase packed with artillery cannon and shield generators, with defensive units and repair trucks just within the boundary. This formation would then begin to shell the enemies' shield bubble as additional units performed flanking maneuvers. From a distance, all you would see would be a pair of glowing domes connected by two streams of arcing tracer fire.

Bah to this nonsense. I don't play Virons because they're beyond gay, but for NSA it's infantry, infantry, infantry. Not only are they capable of taking out all types of units and able to move through forests, but since most people pack slower AT and AA weapons they're almost invulnerable. Throw in APCs and they're highly mobile and capable of performing virtually any task.

JediNeophyte wrote:
Bah to this nonsense. I don't play Virons because they're beyond gay, but for NSA it's infantry, infantry, infantry. Not only are they capable of taking out all types of units and able to move through forests, but since most people pack slower AT and AA weapons they're almost invulnerable. Throw in APCs and they're highly mobile and capable of performing virtually any task.

Mmm, Siege Troopers. And thanks to the now more sensible shields, my days of turtling in GC2 are over. (Barring one friendly game in which we attempted to construct an actual turtle silhouette using shield domes.)

my variance of tactics depends heavily on what rts i'm playing. The three that i play most often are DOW, Startrek armada II and Age of Kings.

Dawn of war usualy plays out as a slow creep across the map: Expand, fortify, expand, fortify..... with occasional "fire and forget" forces sent at the enemy to keep him on his toes. It works okay, but it does drag the game out a bit, and the unit cap does tend to get in the way.

Armada plays out much the same, unless the map has chokepoints on (a fair few of the armada maps have pretty potent natural chokepoints on them) in which case I'll fortify the chokepoints right off the bat.

Age of Kings i tend to wall up and turtle(map permitting), coming out only when I've got an army of suitable size.

Interestingly enough, I find static defenses very usefull in DOW and armada, 'cause you've got the natural resource points on the map that are focal to the game and that you can't move. Even though I also employ a mobile defense force, the defenses often make the difference between arriving to help defend the supply base and arriving to re-take it.
Don't get as much mileage out of static defenses in AoK though, not outside of main base defense anyway. Must be because the resources are more noticeably finite in AoK and you've also got a lot more ground to cover with those defenses.

I had a kind of "harassing" strategy in SC which usually involved being protoss and the use of either dancing Dragoons or dropped dark templar. Unfortunately, I still lost quite a bit, since I wasn't much of a base manager.