StarDestroyer.Net BBS

1. The thing I hate the most is when unit formation balance doesn't seem to work.

There just isn't enough room on certain maps, especially naval maps. You might have a great number of ships and naval counter weapons, but you can't use them effectively. Take EE, for example.

You have battleships, cruisers, frigates, and subs. This makes for good combos, but there just isn't enough space. You can have your Battleships guarded by subs and cruisers, but if you spread your units out so they don't get nuked/ and or clank into each other and stop moving, none of the ships seem able to create an overlapping field of fire. Only a small portion of your units attack at once. If you bunch them all together to fix this problem, then they die because they are massed.

2. Clankers: I really don't like when your units can't pass through each other. I can understand how realism is cool and all, but when you start losing because your units run around in circles and bounce into each other and the walls, it gets annoying.

3. AA guns that have a hard time shooting down planes. In EE, you can, many times, have a battery of about 25 AA guns bunched in an area and they still get taken out by the bombers they are meant to shoot down. These aren't big air-fleets, mind you, but groups of maybe 9-10. You have to fill the entire map with rows upon rows of AA guns and walls for them to kill planes in any reasonable ammount of time. (At least this is my experience)

4. Crappy defenses. I Like to play defensively once in a while, but when all you got are towers and walls, and your towers can't shoot over the walls, it gets old. Some games are better than others, like EE walls. AOM walls you can take out with light spear infantry.

5. Imbalance between ages. Earlier ages should not be more powerful or nearly as powerful as the age that comes after it. In Empires; Dawn of the modern world, the WW1 fighters from several civs are more powerful/equal to the WW2 fighters. Again in Dawm of the modern world, Medieval ships are nearly as powerful as French Battleships from WW2! What were they thinking!??!



6. Ueber spells that have no counter. Empire earth did this well, they gave counters to priests and prophets and excellent defenses against them. Some games, liek Dawn of the Modern world have no such defenses and they can randomly stuff volcanos and quakes in the middle of nowhere with no warning and no way to stop it.

7. Only being able to upgrade your units with ONE upgrade. DMW


8. Games where the whole idea is micromanagement, or how fast you can click your mouse button.

for the AA cannons on EE, Make Gun Battrys of 4 cannosn next to each building, and perhaps 6 for more importent ones, this plus mobile AA is very effective, and if its n a nnavle base, have your planes attack and then get your triton subs to start up the ICBM's right into any land forces around, they will do this auto matically if you have air support.

Unit limits. I know they're there for a reason, but I want hundreds of Zerglings, dammit!

Oh, and unit selection limits, such as imposed by Warcraft 3, Starcraft, Ground Control 2, and sundry others. No idea why someone thought that was a good idea.

i would like it if developers devolped the idea of scrolling in and taking over a solider and helping him do his task ala' Dungeon Keeper 2

3rd Impact wrote:Oh, and unit selection limits, such as imposed by Warcraft 3, Starcraft, Ground Control 2, and sundry others. No idea why someone thought that was a good idea.

It was to get rid of the rush. Worked great, huh?

That one thing I hate about RTS games. The "S" is being taking out of the equation. To win a game, you have to use certain "strageties" everyone else is using. Whoever has the fastest index finger wins. The thinking part is disappearing.

When mobile units have longer firing ranges than any stationary gun emplacement in the game, rendering said gun emplacements completely useless since the enemy can just park a unit outside the gun's range and destroy it without ever being fired at.

When the game requires you to micromanage pretty much ever action from every unit, making the game just a frantic click-fest instead of anything that actually incorporates some strategy.

When a short voice-clip plays every time you click a unit or give it an order. Some of them are okay the first few times, but they all become incredibly annoying after being repeated a billion and a half times over the course of a battle. (I hate it when RPGs do this, too.)

2. Clankers: I really don't like when your units can't pass through each other. I can understand how realism is cool and all, but when you start losing because your units run around in circles and bounce into each other and the walls, it gets annoying.

On the other hand, ambushing an enemy while he's bunched up somewhere and can't easily escape or attack because his men are tripping over themselves is fucking sweet.

3. AA guns that have a hard time shooting down planes. In EE, you can, many times, have a battery of about 25 AA guns bunched in an area and they still get taken out by the bombers they are meant to shoot down. These aren't big air-fleets, mind you, but groups of maybe 9-10. You have to fill the entire map with rows upon rows of AA guns and walls for them to kill planes in any reasonable ammount of time. (At least this is my experience)

In my experience, the best defense against enemy aircraft has been aircraft of your own.

5. Imbalance between ages.

I personally don't like the concept of ages at all, myself.

In any case, this is mostly a play balance issue, because otherwise the game could easily devolve to giving the victory to whomever advanced an age first.

7. Only being able to upgrade your units with ONE upgrade.

I don't even care for unit upgrades at all, myself.

It was to get rid of the rush. Worked great, huh?

If you have to intentionally develop an inefficient interface and thereby hobble the player in order to balance the game, there's something wrong with the game.

i would like it if developers devolped the idea of scrolling in and taking over a solider and helping him do his task ala' Dungeon Keeper 2

Might be useful for Real Time Tactical games, but IMO it should have little place in an RTS, because the scope of the battle should be too great for such attention to be given to any single unit for a significant amount of time.

When mobile units have longer firing ranges than any stationary gun emplacement in the game, rendering said gun emplacements completely useless since the enemy can just park a unit outside the gun's range and destroy it without ever being fired at.

This is a difficult point to balance; tilt it too far one way, and the game could easily devolve to building masses of towers against each other. As you pointed out, too far the other way and towers can be largely useless.

There are two major approaches I can think of to balancing towers.

1) "Siege units"

Create certain mobile units that possess great range, designed to destroy said emplacements while being weak against most other mobile units.

2) Inaccuracy/Limited power

Some fixed emplacements have superior range to any mobile unit, but these emplacements are either not guaranteed to hit their target every time, deal a markedly limited amount of damage to their target, or both.

In my opinion the best approach is a combination of the two, with the ideal objective being that a well-fortified position can be charged at with many units but will inflict severe casualties in the process, or that it can be assaulted with heavy units that take time to deploy to the area. The latter ties up the opponent's time and units in order to protect the assaulters and coordinate the attack, or even outright denies the area to the opponent if he lacks the resources or will to press the attack and seize the fortified area.

When a short voice-clip plays every time you click a unit or give it an order.

I personally prefer the old C&C's simple voice responses ("Yes sir", "Roger", and so forth), as I agree that more complicated ones can get a tad annoying at times.

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.

Just make the fixed fortifications and mobile units have the exact same range. The mobile units would have the advantage of speed and flexibility, while the fixed units can withstand much more punishment. That seems most reasonable to me.

Anyway, what I dislike most about RTS games myself is shitty pathfinding (this is a problem on every RTS game I've ever played), which is a similar issue to the "clankers" issue brought up in the OP and stupid/inflexible combat AI. Absolutely maddening things like units that come under fire and don't react because the attacking unit is outside their range (hey dumb-fuck, here's a hint: move!) are really annoying.

I hate inefficent/useless base defences, like pill boxes that do bugger all against machine gun fire.

Or another pet hate is psychic enemy units, I mean if i have a sniper completely hidden in the woods or up a hill how can the enemy automatically zone in on him.

Also i hate special forces units in games that are pathetically useless, c&c suffered from this IMHO.

Pretty much every concept, idea, and mechanic thrown into Warcraft 3.

Of all those, I hate the lack of emphasis on actual tactics and strategy. My friend told me I should get WC3, so I picked it up and played a few games against him. So here I have my night elf archers sitting on ridges covering the ascending valley between them (a choke point if there ever was one), with a couple of tree-protector-thingies up there as well, when my friend just comes charging in with a bunch of melee units led by one of the retarded heroes, ubered up to level 5 or some crap and they just slaughter my defenses with not a single casualty.

I'll take Blitzkrieg any day. Replace night elves with German infantry, trees with StuGs, and Hero and Co with a bunch of infantry led by a single Pershing. Much more satisfactory results.

Darth Wong wrote:Just make the fixed fortifications and mobile units have the exact same range. The mobile units would have the advantage of speed and flexibility, while the fixed units can withstand much more punishment. That seems most reasonable to me.

IMHO it is a much better compromise to have a Generals sort of system in which only a few units match or beat the range of defensive structures, but they are aircraft and tank fodder.

Healing units is too tedious in some RTS's, requiring micromanagement, or is not automatic- I liked Tiberian Sun's medics- sprinkle them in w/ your troops- I don't like Sudden Strike's ambulances- one should be able to give orders to a group to have the injured automatically board an ambulance.

Of course, I'm the kind of person who makes combat extremely slow against even a computer due to the habit of waiting until every unit is fully healed before moving. Eg Freeciv- will take 4 turns per city to wait till bomber health is full.

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. 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!

Fucking range balancing is stupid. I *HATE*, as DW says, that if a unit is outranged it almost never has the AI to close and engage. It rather just sits there doing nothing. Its ridiculous when a weapon is powerful because it outranges everything else, when usually it can't even shoot as far as it can see, and it still has 100% accuracy, can't fire on coordinates sent from other units etc. Example - Chinese arty in C&CG. The very idea of balance when we're talking about artillery vs immobile targets with known coords is laughable. But hey, the maps are 5k a side

Also, I hate AA implementations. Either they're useless, as the OP says, or they're way too powerful. Four or five air defence buildings in C&CG can shred thousands of bucks worth of planes... planes that come that close for no reason. Range balancing, anyone? They couldn't just force you to use the CAP command.

But really I think it all comes down to lazy AI coding. Each unit exists in a tiny world of its own, oblivious to anything anyone else knows. Tanks don't automatically align their weapons (or best armour, if relevant) with incoming threats detected by others, AA doesn't line up with the inbound airstrike before they can personally see it, there's no 'skirmish' AI setting to ensure that your arty always retreats before any units can reach them, etc. I'm not sure why, but game devs seem to think micromanagement is good.

Pu-239 wrote:Healing units is too tedious in some RTS's, requiring micromanagement, or is not automatic- I liked Tiberian Sun's medics- sprinkle them in w/ your troops- I don't like Sudden Strike's ambulances- one should be able to give orders to a group to have the injured automatically board an ambulance.

LoL You heal units in Sudden Strike? In the middle of battle? Madness. Hardly any of mine survive assaults, and its not like they had much health to start with...

I'm surprised no one brought up Total annihilation yet.
Probably the best RTS up to now.

Oh, I also hate the area effect weapons in AoE/AoK which automatically damage your own units in a melee fight.

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.

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.

Darth Phoenix wrote:I'm surprised no one brought up Total annihilation yet.
Probably the best RTS up to now.

I was wondering going through all these lists going. "Huh, TA doesn't have that problem... or that one... or that one... huh..."

The only problems with TA. It still suffers from clunkers, entire armies can get fucked up royally. And defenses for TA are generally too powerful, a grouping of 6 stationary artillary and a few Annihilators at a choke point, with a bunch of AA, can stop most any attack. The annoying thing about TA is that although you can select as many units as you want, they don't stay together so you have your fast units running off and getting slaughtered by the time your slower heavier units show up. Of course, this is a bit of a mixed blessing as if you only moved as fast as your slowest unit, your army would be totally demolished by the time you reached the enemy base. The biggest problem has got to be the dumb as hell AI though.

AA to air units seems to be fine generally, there are certain air units that do very well against AA. The ranges in general are fine. If you have sight at normal, you CAN hide units behind hills and in forests so an enemy army can't see them unless they get close. Possibly the greatest part, firing while moving, always been infuriated that your army is getting slaughtered and instead of being able to pull them all back while still doing cover fire you can't? Not in this game. Also a great thing, units MISS, certain units are more accurate then others but if you have a long range cannon, it's not for sure going to hit the unit it's aiming at, in fact it might hit a different unit, or a group of units destroying them all.

All in all Total Annihilation is a WONDERFUL game with a few flaws.

EDIT: Almost forgot, in all but one unit, ground units can shoot at air units or ground units, and air units can shoot at air or ground units. I once had a grouping of Cruisers take out a bomber that was harrassing them with a lunky shot.

When mobile units have longer firing ranges than any stationary gun emplacement in the game, rendering said gun emplacements completely useless since the enemy can just park a unit outside the gun's range and destroy it without ever being fired at.

When the game requires you to micromanage pretty much ever action from every unit, making the game just a frantic click-fest instead of anything that actually incorporates some strategy.

When a short voice-clip plays every time you click a unit or give it an order. Some of them are okay the first few times, but they all become incredibly annoying after being repeated a billion and a half times over the course of a battle. (I hate it when RPGs do this, too.)

I can understand some units, but sometimes they go a bit overboard. DMW is perhaps the worst offender of all of these complaints.


1 Battlehips are another woe. THey are so ill-thought when it comes to range. Many times, they have short-ass ranges that prevent them from actually serving as island bombarding tools. The DMW battleships hae a range of seven.... artilly can up to 13, so people just build 800 artillery pieces and blast your fleet which can't really get near anything. Combine the short ranges with the fact that modern battlehips have a hard time defeating ones from the Medieval period.... Sometimes....even INFANTRY has the same range as a battleship...wtf?

2 Oh, and tanks do more damage than battleships. I hate that too. Tiger tanks do 500+ damage and have nearly equal range to battleships. B-ships only do about 200-300 depending on civ. SOme ony do 150. To me, that is messed up game balancing.

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.

3 That seems good then, or at least what Mr. Wong said above. I hate having some units which are supposed to have long ranges, have short ranges, however.

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.

I can understand that, but AI could annoyingly just sweep into your base without some defense static systems, like walls. Snipers could run all over. That would suck a bit. Walls notifiy you of ground attack and temporarily blocks them. I think that is a good idea. THe EE AI likes to send huge swarms of cheated-resource armies after you, and I don't know what the hell I would do if I didn't have ways to block them.

4. I wish planes would not run out of fuel, but ammo. I hate when my planes run out of fuel and move in a straight line past 100 AA guns in an enemy base and go all the way back. It might be better to allow you control of them so you can avoid obstacles/enemies while going back to base, yet not be able to defend yourself or something.

Temjin wrote:

3rd Impact wrote:Oh, and unit selection limits, such as imposed by Warcraft 3, Starcraft, Ground Control 2, and sundry others. No idea why someone thought that was a good idea.

It was to get rid of the rush. Worked great, huh?

That one thing I hate about RTS games. The "S" is being taking out of the equation. To win a game, you have to use certain "strageties" everyone else is using. Whoever has the fastest index finger wins. The thinking part is disappearing.

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?

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.

Unit caps. I want battles of EPIC proportions, dammit! WC3 usually ends up feelings like just an RPG with a bunch of henchmen.

Deceptive map sizes. Why bother making a big map if it's half water (in a game with no naval units) and trees? WC3 again. Most WC3 maps I've played on might as well have been indoor corridor crawls.

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.

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.

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.

Well, you can set your construction units on patrol and they'll wander around on their assigned path doing whatever they feel is good. Not so useful if you want to build a structure, but you have queues for that