What makes a good RTS?

starcraft was the best and it still is. Tons of ppl stil play it and many make a living out of it.


and im top 100 in canada starcraft.
 
of course no game was as fun and addicting than starcraft in terms of RTS. now i'm not all that hardcore a RTS-gamer but it had diversity, simplicity of play but also that depth that just worked out so well
 
C&C:Generals


I still want someone to make an RTS for Nintendo DS, the touch/second screen would add alot to the mix...
 
Simplicity between units of a race, some hierarchy of funds and things u can get iwth it (i.e. starcraft style) and the best thing of all, all races even in some way, but each race having an advantage over another. Thats why starcraft is so great, i just wish there was a sequal to starcraft, an updated version.
 
i've only played 3 or 4 games of SC in my life. do the units in starcraft have features like "this units attack is effective against infantry and light armored vehicles" "this unit is effective against buildings and heavily armored infantry" etc?
 
The Empire Earth is the best. All others bow down. EE2 sucks from what I've seen the multiplayer to be. RON clone. No others worth talking about right now, look at EE2 and decide if you like it.
 
is there any RTS that lets you have 2 players control one side?

the big turn-off for RTS games to me is the fact that no one person controlling a side can ever be as effective as 2 controlling a side when you factor in money-making, defense, offense and expansion involved in a game. its simply impossible for one person to carry out what theoretically is possible in planning. there is just no way to achieve it with one person, even with hotkeys. its like playing a 4v4 counterstrike match with you controlling one guy, and stupid AI controlling the rest. or in real life appointing one general to take care of building US bases of operations in iraq while at the same time mounting offensives and worrying about income.

i just imagine much more interesting games if there was an option in a game like c&c generals to have 2 to a side. you would possibly see much more precise and well-thought out real time strategy.
 
The Myth series by bungie was and still is my favorite RTS of all time.

It actually "gasp" put the focus on actual strategy in the combat. You had a finite number of units at your control, you couldn't simply "build a building, harvest, pump out units galore", you had to THINK about what to do, how to win, use the terrain at your advantage (hills with archers, ambushing units, hiding in the water, etc).

The story was very well done, and very well presented/told, it had a nice "epic" feeling to it. Not to mention it had an original feel to it all, where so many rts games use the ole avg "elves/orcs/humans" etc it had quite a few unique characters and things to it.

Probally one of othe strongest parts of the game though was its Multiplayer. It easily had one of the best communites of players, they had bungie.net which ran as the gateway (like blizzard.net).

There was ranked rooms which would keep record of your scores and such, you gained ranks as you won more and more battles. You could just dick around in non-ranked if you wanted aswell. It was very crowded aswell, many many players, you would always have someone to play with.

Another strong point, was the Tools, it is the half life of the RTS worlds, there's literally thousands and thousands of conversions, new maps, new units, player made stories, etc. One of the most popular was the WWII total conversion.

The community was so strong with this series that even after bungie was bought by microsoft and they took it down, the fans wouldn't let it die. They took the game and created their own multiplayer gateway and they've even patched it up themselves and have fixed bugs and other things.

www.playmyth.net
www.mythdev.net

I really do wish there were more RTS games that get out of the damn tiring "build this, harvest, pump out 10000000 units and destroy everyone with no strategy involved."

My other "favorites" include:
Sommandos series
Lords of the realm II
Sacrifice
Stronghold
The total war series
 
Empire Earth rules in my book. What makes a good RTS to me is the controls. EE has ruined me for other RTS because of how you can easily handle all the troops, send people scouting everywhere without having to tell them where to go, etc, plenty of variety, etc.
 
I said it once, I'll say it again... Total Annihilation from CaveDog.

Great interface... well balanced units... being able to make the game play faster or slower... Ability for others to mod the game / create new maps & units...

I just wonder what new toys Chris Taylor puts out for us in Supreme Commander...
 
Eihli said:
i've only played 3 or 4 games of SC in my life. do the units in starcraft have features like "this units attack is effective against infantry and light armored vehicles" "this unit is effective against buildings and heavily armored infantry" etc?
Click to expand...

Yep. Damage taken & given is usually determined by unit size and weapon. For example, a Firebat's flamethrower only does 100% damage to small units, such as Zerglings, while it does 50% to medium units, and 25% to large units. For some units, their weapon does 100% to everything, such as Marines, Zealots, Zerglings, Reavers, Dark Templars, etc.
 
Random Maps.

I'm quite frankly depressed that there are RTS's since AoE that don't have them. How can you play Starcraft over and over on the same exact maps?
 
Whoever says starcraft doesnt have strategy and that you just "build 1000 units and attack" is obviously a total noob.


Most of the newer games tend to be way too noob friendly and do everything for you. For example, the auto scouting in EE that was mentioned earlier, or the autocasting in wc3. These really make the game so easy to play and you just sit there and watch, instead of actually microing and playing like in starcraft.
 
So some people think micro is good? I'll use an example in C&C: Generals to explain my problem with micro. USA infantry can be upgraded to carry flash bangs and then you can choose whether you want them to use a machine gun which does a little damage to all types of units, or a flash bang which doesn't do any damage to tanks or buildings but one shots infantry. This is suppose to add a new strategy, right? You counter the enemies infantry by switching your guys to flash bangs. But I'm never going to be playing a C&C game and say "Flash bangs?!?! This guy is a strategic genius! What kind of a strategic mastermind is this guy that came up with the plan to counter my infantry with flash bangs? Wow!". That's not strategy, that's just boring work that becomes repetitive and tedious in no time. And in this new game Act of War, they have a ton of that stuff. You have to capture enemy units when they surrender, you have to medivac your surrendered units, you can tell your infantry to go prone or ambush, snipers can be placed on rooftops for a damage advantage, etc. If these types of things increase strategy and make a game better, then why stop at giving infantry units the ability to go prone? Why not add food and you have to keep your units healthy? Why not add entertainment and you have to keep your units morale up. Why not have to repair tanks by having to order new tracks for them, and having to build a mechanic to repair them?
 
Eihli said:
If these types of things increase strategy and make a game better, then why stop at giving infantry units the ability to go prone? Why not add food and you have to keep your units healthy? Why not add entertainment and you have to keep your units morale up. Why not have to repair tanks by having to order new tracks for them, and having to build a mechanic to repair them?
Click to expand...

they should just add a set of 'wants' meters ala Sims for each soldier to make it more interesting. :p

i really like act of war's features but 1 commander can't take advantage of all of it effectively. thus my idea of allowing 2 people to control one team. argh!
 
One feature that I love (in single-player) is the ability to keep certain units (i.e. LOTR:BFME) and have them increase in rank over the course of a campaign. It makes you not be so careless with your units--you'll lose your veterans if you are.
 
Eihli said:
Why is having to be careful with your units a good thing?
Click to expand...

it makes it more about strategy--and more realistic--if you're not just throwing units away because you can just "grow" some more really quick. You still can, but not if you want the best units.
 
strat·e·gy Audio pronunciation of "strategy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (strt-j)
n. pl. strat·e·gies

1.
1. The science and art of using all the forces of a nation to execute approved plans as effectively as possible during peace or war.
2. The science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of large-scale combat operations.
2. A plan of action resulting from strategy or intended to accomplish a specific goal. See Synonyms at plan.
3. The art or skill of using stratagems in endeavors such as politics and business.

Having to micro a veteran/hero unit in combat to make sure he stays alive is not strategy. It does not increase the amount of strategy in a game.
 
And another thing. What does realism have to do with fun? An unrealistic thing can be just as fun as a realistic thing.
 
Eihli said:
2. A plan of action resulting from strategy or intended to accomplish a specific goal. See Synonyms at plan.


Having to micro a veteran/hero unit in combat to make sure he stays alive is not strategy. It does not increase the amount of strategy in a game.
Click to expand...

You're incorrect, and you even gave the reason why in the bolded text above. Managing elite units and not just throwing them away is a plan of action intended to accomplish a specific goal. In this case the goal is not to throw away experienced units, so that they can be used wisely when needed.
 
ThomasE66 said:
You're incorrect, and you even gave the reason why in the bolded text above. Managing elite units and not just throwing them away is a plan of action intended to accomplish a specific goal. In this case the goal is not to throw away experienced units, so that they can be used wisely when needed.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect. The word strategy in definition 2 is defined as "1.
1. The science and art of using all the forces of a nation to execute approved plans as effectively as possible during peace or war.
2. The science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of large-scale combat operations." in definition one.

So, a more accurate translation of definition 2 is not:
"plan of action intended to accomplish a specific goal."
but instead:
"A plan of action resulting from the science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of large-scale combat operations intended to accomplish a specific goal"

Hell, by your modified definition, I devise strategy every time I go get some food from the kitchen. That's a plan of action intended to accomplish a specific goal right?
 
Eihli said:
Hell, by your modified definition, I devise strategy every time I go get some food from the kitchen. That's a plan of action intended to accomplish a specific goal right?
Click to expand...

Actually, yes. Perhaps I should clarify. When I say there is more strategy involved when taking care of units instead of the all out "crank 'em out and send them to their death" strategies, you should understand that to mean that the strategy is more complicated. Which for me, is a thing I like to see in a RTS and that just happens to be what this thread is supposed to be about.

And realism...well yeah, I like realism in a game. But that, my friend, is entirely opinion.
:)
 
What makes a good RTS ... hmm

Well for starters I would say it must be passed on a clear cut paper, rock, scissors model. There should be resource management, but not micromanagement ... that is more for a turn base strategy.

There should be a varitey of sides, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.
 
Honestly one of the reasons I like EE is because there is troop management, but not annoying micro management like in W3. In EE you dont just crank out troops, though you can and will just lose if thats your only strategy. You have to crank out the right types of troops to counter other types of troops or strategies. I cant stand it when you're trying to wage a battle but you have to hunt down and find individual troops to do one specific type of power that a lot hinges on, but you can't find them or the one guy dies. It wastes precious time and though games aren't necessarily realistic, I have a hard time seeing an army today have their one special general guy out in the fray with the magic key to winning the victory. I'd rather have a bit of epic scale with sections of the army I know do specific things that I can rotate in and out in bulk via hotkeys, etc. "Bring the horse dudes in on the left flank, the shootin' dudes on the right flank, and charge the elephants up the middle" instead of "send magic bob in with power #1 (gotta remember to go back and make sure he uses it at the right time) and then make sure magic jim does this one thing at this exact moment, etc."
 
without micromanagement the game is just clicking units to get money and then building fighters and sending them all at once, think Red Alert, fun, but not for long.
 
Dome said:
without micromanagement the game is just clicking units to get money and then building fighters and sending them all at once, think Red Alert, fun, but not for long.
Click to expand...

Meh ... Micromanagement = simcity
 
I cant wait for AOE 3, I won so much money from yournaments from the other 2, It's the most addictive game Ive ever played.

Hopefully 3 lives up in terms of gameplay to it's amazing graphix
 
The map must be a weapon. If holding higher ground means no tactical advantage, then there's no tactics. You just make sure you make a rock, paper, and scissors unit and hope you have more of the rocks if your opponent has lots of scissors.

Super weapons must not be the end-all be-all. If I want to play without making super-weapons, I should be able to do so. A game should not boil down to who gets their super weapon first.

Tier 1 units should still have a use at the end of the game.

Rushing should = suicide.

I shouldn't have to tell every resource gatherer what to do every second of the game. i should be able to que commands.

Oh, and formations are nice too :)

That's why my favorite RTS of all time is:

Total Annihilation.
followed by Age of X

If I put my reactors flush up against a mountain, bombers won't be able to bomb it effectively. if I place a big bertha on a hill, it can shoot all the way across the map.

Nukes are countered by missile defenses. Nukes aren't made ineffective, as the defenses have a limited range and can also be tricked. A big bertha fires so slowly that after the first hit, unless its very well defended, its going down.

The Krogoth, arguably the strongest single unit in TA can be taken out by 2 peewees and 2 spider tanks, both tier one units. (maybe the spiders are 2...)

Walls actually do something in TA. With simple missile turrets and dragon's teeth, you render any begining ARM rush inneffective. The debris left by the rushing attackers acts as a shield for you and hinders enemy movement.
 
Ashtaka said:
The map must be a weapon. If holding higher ground means no tactical advantage, then there's no tactics. You just make sure you make a rock, paper, and scissors unit and hope you have more of the rocks if your opponent has lots of scissors.

Super weapons must not be the end-all be-all. If I want to play without making super-weapons, I should be able to do so. A game should not boil down to who gets their super weapon first.

Tier 1 units should still have a use at the end of the game.

Rushing should = suicide.

I shouldn't have to tell every resource gatherer what to do every second of the game. i should be able to que commands.

Oh, and formations are nice too :)

That's why my favorite RTS of all time is:

Total Annihilation.
followed by Age of X

If I put my reactors flush up against a mountain, bombers won't be able to bomb it effectively. if I place a big bertha on a hill, it can shoot all the way across the map.

Nukes are countered by missile defenses. Nukes aren't made ineffective, as the defenses have a limited range and can also be tricked. A big bertha fires so slowly that after the first hit, unless its very well defended, its going down.

The Krogoth, arguably the strongest single unit in TA can be taken out by 2 peewees and 2 spider tanks, both tier one units. (maybe the spiders are 2...)

Walls actually do something in TA. With simple missile turrets and dragon's teeth, you render any begining ARM rush inneffective. The debris left by the rushing attackers acts as a shield for you and hinders enemy movement.
Click to expand...

/salute
 
Eihli said:
Hell, by your modified definition, I devise strategy every time I go get some food from the kitchen. That's a plan of action intended to accomplish a specific goal right?
Click to expand...

Yes, that would be a stragegy for putting dinner on the table. You can't pick and choose when you want a definition to apply, but since you don't seem to use logic in your arguements then I'll agree that we disagree and not waste anymore time on pointless disagreements.

EDIT: And I didn't modify any definition, I quoted verbatim.
 
ThomasE66 said:
Yes, that would be a stragegy for putting dinner on the table. You can't pick and choose when you want a definition to apply, but since you don't seem to use logic in your arguements then I'll agree that we disagree and not waste anymore time on pointless disagreements.

EDIT: And I didn't modify any definition, I quoted verbatim.
Click to expand...

Don't make me get the definition of verbatim for you :/

And I never meant to say that getting food didn't take strategy by the definition of the word. But do you want that in the game just because it adds "strategy"?
 
Eihli said:
But do you want that in the game just because it adds "strategy"?
Click to expand...

...yeah. That's what we're doing here right? discussing things we think make a good RTS? For me units gaining rank is a positive because: 1) it's more realistic. No commander (except maniacal dictators) like to see their troops die or has the ability to "grow" more units as soon as the others die 2) Units that have been through many battles should be able to make quick work of inexperienced noob units. 3) I like more complicated strategy.


And I agree with Ashtaka---"rushing should=suicide". I realize rushing is a "strategy" but I prefer a longer campaign with both sides hammering each other with large armies.
 
Where do you draw the line? Do you want guns to heat up and accuracy to change based on barrel temperature? Do you want to have to stock units with ammo and have to return to base to replenish supplies when they run out? Do you want civilian reporters in the field, and if you accidently kill one it gets reported by your nations media and lowers the overall morale of your troops? Buy sleeping bags for your troops and tell them to rest before a fight so they have more endurance before an attack? And if you tell them to sleep in a building that you captured they'd get better rest?
 
Eihli said:
Where do you draw the line? Do you want guns to heat up and accuracy to change based on barrel temperature? Do you want to have to stock units with ammo and have to return to base to replenish supplies when they run out? Do you want civilian reporters in the field, and if you accidently kill one it gets reported by your nations media and lowers the overall morale of your troops? Buy sleeping bags for your troops and tell them to rest before a fight so they have more endurance before an attack? And if you tell them to sleep in a building that you captured they'd get better rest?
Click to expand...

hmmm....maybe :D

it could be like Oregon Trail. Half the army could get malaria and die. The Oxen can break their legs and the wheels fall off the wagons. And the women and children can all get snake-bitten.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top