StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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.

Definitely raiding. Especially early game, every resource I can deprive the opponent will become a massive advantage as I can build more workers and resource acquisition units and technology than the opponent can. In addition, it allows me to continue to spy on his technological development so I can stay 1 step ahead of him.

Yep, C&C Generals screen of tanks with artillery behind and HUMVEES on the Flanks. FUBARED

My style is a mix of turtling and sneaky assaults.

On C&C Generals, as the Chinese, as soon as my barracks is up I send those 2-for-a-dollar infantrymen out to scout every possible resource depot, then send out construction dozers to throw up resource depots. I then crank out a mobile strike force of a few battlemaster tanks and gatling tanks, which stick close to the enemy base and jump any attack force coming out of it and launch little punitive raids to keep him from building up forces that are TOO powerful.

The downside of this is that my main base and my expansions are hideously vunerable, and if my strike force is destroyed or the enemy slips out of his base I'm fucked.

HemlockGrey wrote:On C&C Generals, as the Chinese, as soon as my barracks is up I send those 2-for-a-dollar infantrymen out to scout every possible resource depot, then send out construction dozers to throw up resource depots. I then crank out a mobile strike force of a few battlemaster tanks and gatling tanks, which stick close to the enemy base and jump any attack force coming out of it and launch little punitive raids to keep him from building up forces that are TOO powerful.

The downside of this is that my main base and my expansions are hideously vunerable, and if my strike force is destroyed or the enemy slips out of his base I'm fucked.

But in most games, especially against the computer, you're fucked if you don't do it.
And the more supply depots and bonus resources you get, the better. Giving this to the computer is a bad, and very painful, idea.

You'd be surprised how many people simply turtle up in RTS games and cede control of the map.

Note to these people: No matter how many PATRIOTs you build, you ain't holding out against someone who has the resources to bring 50 Overlord Tanks against you.

I go for early expansion, then turtle my forward base, stick only a few troops in my other bases, and go a-raiding, without micromanaging. Meanwhile, I build up one of my other bases with a huge army, then use it to repel any attacks, then crush the enemy.

My RTS is only limited to Force Commander, sadly. But my strategy was pretty much the infantry rush to capture the enemy base, then keep it either in my control or destroyed.

These days my RTS skills are limited to the grand scale games of EU II and HoI, though I've played a lttle Starcraft recently. In SC, I tend to struggle in development to launch hidden attacks on my opponent's resources. They take time and I don't multitask well in SC. In Hearts of Iron, CORE mod, I am current playing the USSR, I stopped all research to produce in early 1941 35 infantry divisions in a three month run to stay even aganist the Germans who inevitably attack. However, I won the Winter War so the Finns keep sending me infantry techs and I help them with supplies, so, I've also built up a 31 division Finnish Army. My strategy in the coming months will be to delay them, namely in the Pripret Marshes. Though I might lose twenty divisions of infantry, I can replace them if the Germans are reduced to two pincers instead of three for the first months. My goal is to soak up their attacks and lead them into salients and destroy them. The Soviet strategy is to start back west afer the Germans start bleeding white, usually around 1943-4.
Now it's all about national assets. Germany is another favorite and with them it all about the pincer, encirclement, and liquidation of the opponent. I also finished a game as France, your goal there is to hope and never resign anything and tech upm and tech up the Soviets. If the BEF is strong enough and the Germans weak, France can survive, albeit barely. I honestly prefer the speed of the attack, it brings that feeling of swashbuckling fun so well exhibited in Panzer Leader and Lost Victories.

To be honest, I've grown somewhat weary of the "gather resources, build, fight" model of RTS games. I find that I prefer the combination of turn-based strategy and real-time tactics used in Rome: Total War. In terms of basic conception it reminds me somewhat of the old "Master of Orion 2" game, except that MOO2 was turn-based in the tactical mode as well. It's just too bad that there's no multiplayer campaign game in RTW, but I suppose such a thing would be hard to design. Campaign games are too time-consuming for multiplayer.

Captain Lennox wrote: I also finished a game as France, your goal there is to hope and never resign anything and tech upm and tech up the Soviets. If the BEF is strong enough and the Germans weak, France can survive, albeit barely. I honestly prefer the speed of the attack, it brings that feeling of swashbuckling fun so well exhibited in Panzer Leader and Lost Victories.

On that vein, it is possible to win as France if you start World War 2 by declaring war on Germany when they remilitarize the Rhineland. The Poles will DOW Germany when you do, and if the Wehrmacht is diverted to two fronts, it can be defeated. Sinking the Kriegsmarine in an open battle with your Atlantic fleet early on can give you a huge advantage, in that you can make amphibious attacks in the Baltic so long as the Germans don't control Denmark.

Darth Wong wrote:To be honest, I've grown somewhat weary of the "gather resources, build, fight" model of RTS games. I find that I prefer the combination of turn-based strategy and real-time tactics used in Rome: Total War. In terms of basic conception it reminds me somewhat of the old "Master of Orion 2" game, except that MOO2 was turn-based in the tactical mode as well. It's just too bad that there's no multiplayer campaign game in RTW, but I suppose such a thing would be hard to design. Campaign games are too time-consuming for multiplayer.

MOO3 was turn-based and then real-time in tactical, at least a bit. I think Imperium Galactica had the best combat interface.

Moo3 was a piece of shit. So was Imperium Galactica.

Oh man, why can't they make a TBS on par with the classics like Moo2 or SMAC?

Strategic level games can be multi in a non-turnbased way - I'm just not sure there's a market for it. Too much of the game market is dominated by FPS clones and RTS clones: games that do anything new always seem to fail.

Even some of the late 90s 'simultaneous resolution' games are good, once you get past to virtually non-exisitent interface design.

Well Galciv was pretty successful, IIRC - as it came from a small, indy company who distributed it mainly through internet downloads. The only 'problem' is a lack of multiplayer. Otherwise, a real nice game with a sequel on the way.

CaptainChewbacca wrote:MOO3 was turn-based and then real-time in tactical, at least a bit. I think Imperium Galactica had the best combat interface.

And MOO3 was shit. Boooooring. You could have sat a monkey in front of that game and he'd possibly won, because the computer takes almost everything away from the player.
God, was that game boring...

Dahak wrote:And MOO3 was shit. Boooooring. You could have sat a monkey in front of that game and he'd possibly won, because the computer takes almost everything away from the player.
God, was that game boring...

Conversely if you weren't on the Senate, you could be kicking ass and taking names, winning every battle you fought, then suddenly lose because some asshole in the core got elected to unite the galaxy.

I couldn't believe they took out the old 'reject the vote' option.

You know, I've heard MoO3 bit, but I really didn't know too many details. And now I know too many. Excuse me while I weep.

Imperial Overlord wrote:You know, I've heard MoO3 bit, but I really didn't know too many details. And now I know too many. Excuse me while I weep.

Oh, you don't know the half of it.

And you don't want to, trust me. If somebody offers you the game for free, smack them in the face with it and declare a lifelong vendetta.

The worst part was that they really did come up with a fascinating backstory, and had all sorts of plot elements incorporated to set up for a sequel, but the execution was so horrid that...

Well...

Words fail me.

Petrosjko wrote:

Dahak wrote:And MOO3 was shit. Boooooring. You could have sat a monkey in front of that game and he'd possibly won, because the computer takes almost everything away from the player.
God, was that game boring...

Conversely if you weren't on the Senate, you could be kicking ass and taking names, winning every battle you fought, then suddenly lose because some asshole in the core got elected to unite the galaxy.

I couldn't believe they took out the old 'reject the vote' option.

It seems I must have fallen asleep before it got so far...
Did I mention it was boring?

SC: superior macro-management.

I don't take huge risks but I do like to rush. I play terran but what I mean is I'll rush to tanks or vultures or dropships. Reasons being it has the enemy reacting to me and gets me a chance to see what he's planning. Dropships rule.

Other than that, map control is key and I'd sooner outbuild than outhink the opponent. Not that I'm lazy like that but I don't have Korean APM (actions per minute) so I'll focus on macro, not uber-1337 unit control thank you. (the early game is the exception -- a big victory early will pave the way)

My favorite thing to do is fight the infantry general on zero hour as the nuke general............need i say more............

I always like playing as the Air Force general on Zero Hour. He's got point-defense lasers on all the aircraft, so combined with the countermeasures upgrade, you can fly past a hundred Stinger Sites and not even lose your breath. Combine that with some airmoble infantry (using Combat Chinooks, no doubt) and you have all the attack power you need. The only thing you need to fear is gun-based defenses, which will get your aircraft quite easily.

And tanks? Meet my cloaked Comanches.

If I'm digging in, I'll play as the Superweapon general. EMP patriots? Mwahahahaha! Some jackass sends a bunch of MiG's, and all of them crash with one shot. The EMP Patriot is arguably the best defense in the game.
- Ra

More Rome Total War stuff:

Game at a LAN on Sunday.

Me - SPQR
Others were Egyptians, Gauls, Seleucids and Macedonians.

Rolling hilly country is the terrain.

I started on a hill with the Egyptians in a valley to my right. Concerned about a Cretan attack on my left flank I had to split my force a bit more than I would have liked for the deployment.

Turns out the Cretans and the Gauls decided to both sandwich the Seleucids who were on the other hill. I redeploy quickly and start pouring fire onto the Egyptians with my archers from a range at which only his onagers can respond, while moving cavalry and wardogs around behind the hills, through a gully to attack his rear. He tries charging up the hill with chariots as my wardogs and cavalry smash his lines. He's gone inside of 5 minutes of the start of the game.

I pull back to my hill, redeploy and wait. Some wardog handlers start moving towards the Seleucids who are falling back towards me so I try and use the handlers as a bait for the General's unit who are very close to ambush range for my Arcani. The player smells something not quite right and re-directs his withdrawal.

The Seleucids and the Gauls and the Cretans all wail on each other with ranged weapons to no real effect. A few Cretans try to flank me and are cut down by Archer Auxilia before they realise that there are arrows in flight.

Then, the Seleucids and Gauls having all but wiped out the Cretans turn on me. After a 20 minute defense of my hill, all that is left is an Urban Cohort and Archer Auxilia who play cat and mouse with Seleucid heavy cavalry for another 10 minutes, whittling down to breaking point 2 of their units (and coming dangerously close to killing their general at several points. They then both break as it becomes clear all is lost.

Thats a fairly accurate description of my play style. Rapid over-powering strikes from multiple points, combined with a solid defense and versatile quick-response force. My Rome: Total War record now stands are about 16 wins, 2 draws, 2 losses. Not bad at all considering the 2 losses were from being double or even triple teamed.

And here's a strategy question - do you prefer many weaker units (swarming) or a few elite units. And does it make a difference whether you use them for defence or offence?