RTS the way to go.
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
-
Doc
- Sergeant
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
why do so many people think that Turned based games are more realistic? Did Lee wait for grant to poistion his troops before he attacked? Did Napolean tell his eneamys that it was there turn? Of course not. If you are aiming for realistic game play then how can you even think of ussing a turned based system when we live in a real time world (although just imagine what a turne based world would be like... long wait times is all i can say). Look at Europa Universalis II a prime example of how a verry historicaly accurate game uses real time game play. And all of you that complain that a RTS MUST have tank rushes or that RTS is a simplier form well if you can't figure out how to brake a tank rush then maybe stratgy isn't the genera for you, and who said the simpliest way is the best way?
-
tkobo
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 12397
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !
The biggest problem with the majority of RTS's on the market is that they are aimed at the mass market.NOT people who are truly into strategy.
They are far too dumbed down and simplistic.
Theres a reason why 6-8 year olds can play, win, and master the Command & Conquer type games.
Theres also a reason why 6-8 year olds generally don't get taught trig.
This however is far from their only problem.
RTS's seem to think that everything should be known about every unit under your control and that they should act exactly as YOU order them WHEN you order them.
This is extremely unrealistic.
There is also often zero consequence to the players choice of orders.Build your 100 zerg units,launch them in a suicide attack and gain some ground.
Thats forget all about all of your men that just died and the families and friends back home who would soon be looking for your head on a pike.Lets forget about all your political rivals who will be more than happy to help those who want your head.
Lastly,lets forget all about the actual men and women in those units.Who for some reason carry out the insane orders issued to them despite the fact that those orders may no longer even make sense.
Yes,maybe when you issued the orders they fit the situation.But the situation changed and being in real time there was no time for the godlike being issuing the orders to change them so such and such unit just stood there and got killed by the advancing enemy.
Turn based is by far the best way to represent the intelligence of individual units becuase you can order each unit to do what it probably would have done if it was made of real people.
In RTS's often this can not be done.The game is often more about who can click the fastest and NOT about the strategy involved.
This is why the so called tactics of the zerg rush work in an rts.
AI as its stands now is no match for an intelligent human.RTS's rely on AI and very simple orders and strategies.
Turn based games do not make the player rely on the AI anywhere near as much.Turn based games allow a much deeper strategy to be employed and a MUCH truer reaction on the part of the units represented.
RTS is really a misnomer when it comes to strategy games.Everything is accelerated about an RTS except the players reaction time.In REAL time it would take days for the operations to be set-up.It would takes hours,days and months for the units to advance and defeat their foes.But this would be kinda boring for most so its all accelerated. All of course but the human end.
Which is of course the end that formulates,adjusts and reacts to strategies best.
Now RTS is not a bad thing .It simply is done badly in the majority of the current crop of games.
The best system for a real strategy game would be a hybrid between RTS and Turn Base.
A system that made sure that no unit was denied an intelligent action simply because the player wasnt fast enough with his mouse.
They are far too dumbed down and simplistic.
Theres a reason why 6-8 year olds can play, win, and master the Command & Conquer type games.
Theres also a reason why 6-8 year olds generally don't get taught trig.
This however is far from their only problem.
RTS's seem to think that everything should be known about every unit under your control and that they should act exactly as YOU order them WHEN you order them.
This is extremely unrealistic.
There is also often zero consequence to the players choice of orders.Build your 100 zerg units,launch them in a suicide attack and gain some ground.
Thats forget all about all of your men that just died and the families and friends back home who would soon be looking for your head on a pike.Lets forget about all your political rivals who will be more than happy to help those who want your head.
Lastly,lets forget all about the actual men and women in those units.Who for some reason carry out the insane orders issued to them despite the fact that those orders may no longer even make sense.
Yes,maybe when you issued the orders they fit the situation.But the situation changed and being in real time there was no time for the godlike being issuing the orders to change them so such and such unit just stood there and got killed by the advancing enemy.
Turn based is by far the best way to represent the intelligence of individual units becuase you can order each unit to do what it probably would have done if it was made of real people.
In RTS's often this can not be done.The game is often more about who can click the fastest and NOT about the strategy involved.
This is why the so called tactics of the zerg rush work in an rts.
AI as its stands now is no match for an intelligent human.RTS's rely on AI and very simple orders and strategies.
Turn based games do not make the player rely on the AI anywhere near as much.Turn based games allow a much deeper strategy to be employed and a MUCH truer reaction on the part of the units represented.
RTS is really a misnomer when it comes to strategy games.Everything is accelerated about an RTS except the players reaction time.In REAL time it would take days for the operations to be set-up.It would takes hours,days and months for the units to advance and defeat their foes.But this would be kinda boring for most so its all accelerated. All of course but the human end.
Which is of course the end that formulates,adjusts and reacts to strategies best.
Now RTS is not a bad thing .It simply is done badly in the majority of the current crop of games.
The best system for a real strategy game would be a hybrid between RTS and Turn Base.
A system that made sure that no unit was denied an intelligent action simply because the player wasnt fast enough with his mouse.
-
George Geczy
- General
- Posts: 2688
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
- Contact:
The Turn Based / Real Time discussion as part of the design of Supreme Ruler 2010 was certainly one of the interesting things we've had to deal with. From the very beginning (early 2000) the SR2010 design doc stated that the game could be run both as turn based or real time, though the engine design went through an interesting change earlier this year that allowed it to play much more smoothly as a 'real time' game.
I quite agree with Doc that Europa demonstrates a very good use of 'real time', though I would be very cautious in describing any game like Europa or SR2010 as an "RTS" (that term has a lot of Command-and-Conquer baggage attached to it).
As Tkobo mentions, a true 'real time' game would move time at a 1:1 rate, making a game-day take up 24 hours. Then you'd have lots of time to think about your next moves
A click-fest RTS puts too much emphasis on the click/rush and too little on strategy, and that is what we are looking to avoid.
My early guess is that people playing SR2010 in multiplayer will choose to play in turnless (aka real-time) mode, and those playing single player will often choose turn-based. And due to our use of simultaneous resolution, I think our turn-based gameplay will be far more realistic and interesting than most games that do a "you move, then I move" approach.
-- George.
I quite agree with Doc that Europa demonstrates a very good use of 'real time', though I would be very cautious in describing any game like Europa or SR2010 as an "RTS" (that term has a lot of Command-and-Conquer baggage attached to it).
As Tkobo mentions, a true 'real time' game would move time at a 1:1 rate, making a game-day take up 24 hours. Then you'd have lots of time to think about your next moves
A click-fest RTS puts too much emphasis on the click/rush and too little on strategy, and that is what we are looking to avoid.My early guess is that people playing SR2010 in multiplayer will choose to play in turnless (aka real-time) mode, and those playing single player will often choose turn-based. And due to our use of simultaneous resolution, I think our turn-based gameplay will be far more realistic and interesting than most games that do a "you move, then I move" approach.
-- George.
-
XeroMan
- Lt. Colonel
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Aug 15 2002
- Location: Newfoundland
Sorry Doc, but RTS's are simpler, no doubt about it. It has to be - in RTS you have to have simple commands and a simple mission.On 2002-10-14 14:11, Doc wrote:
why do so many people think that Turned based games are more realistic? Did Lee wait for grant to poistion his troops before he attacked? Did Napolean tell his eneamys that it was there turn? Of course not. If you are aiming for realistic game play then how can you even think of ussing a turned based system when we live in a real time world (although just imagine what a turne based world would be like... long wait times is all i can say). Look at Europa Universalis II a prime example of how a verry historicaly accurate game uses real time game play. And all of you that complain that a RTS MUST have tank rushes or that RTS is a simplier form well if you can't figure out how to brake a tank rush then maybe stratgy isn't the genera for you, and who said the simpliest way is the best way?
Turn based games give you the chance to do real empire building. Although Pax Imperia is a notable exception (among others) I challenge anyone to do detailed empire building with the multiplayer flying by at speed 7.
Turn based allows for far more depth, thought and complexity than RTS. I would suggest that you look at AOW2 for the concept of a simultaneous turn based game. As for comparing games to real life, that's the kicker isn't it? I've seen a very good game covering the civil war era, and it was turn based. Both sides gave thier orders, and then the turn played out.
Also, at the risk of sounding snotty, I suggest you look at the hardcore wargaming sites on the web. I think you'll find that the majority of hardcore wargamers prefer turn based games. The insinuation that we are unable to understand the complexities of strategy because we prefer turn based opposed to RTS is laughable. As for living in a real time world, real life is not like the cartoon G.I. Joe.
-
Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22106
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
Another example of a turn based strategy game that is a little more current but dealing with a different era would be Medieval: Total War. I'm currently enjoying the game when not busy working on ours. It has a number of features that we have seen before and had intended to do in a similar fashion. Although turn based, it is simultaneous truns. Meaning I can try and move troops from province A to province B only to find that at the same time, my opponent was massing an attack on province A! The biggest drawback the game suffers is that there is no quick way to set and maintain a balance on the territory you control. Due to this, you must constantly pay close attention to each of your provinces (there are a lot in the later game!). Because of this, the only multiplayer their game offers is a "skirmish" mode where you pit two armies against each other. There is no way to go in as the French and your friend as the Germans and conquer Europe together (or crush him for that matter...)
Our current design still holds that we will be able to offer large scale scenarios so that players could, map by map, play a multiplayer "conquer the world" ladder game. In fact, the economic and infrastructure models haven't changed from our original turn based system, it's simply a fact that time is moving steadily forward and the turns just "happen" as each day passes. Some adjustments had to be made for units to flow better but our original concept for the game has survived.
Our current design still holds that we will be able to offer large scale scenarios so that players could, map by map, play a multiplayer "conquer the world" ladder game. In fact, the economic and infrastructure models haven't changed from our original turn based system, it's simply a fact that time is moving steadily forward and the turns just "happen" as each day passes. Some adjustments had to be made for units to flow better but our original concept for the game has survived.
-
Doc
- Sergeant
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
The two total war games, both Europa Universalis show that RTS is not simple for the "click fests". Also those games that you mention as haveing "baggage" you probably haven't even played (a special note goes to the person that said the zerg have families and friends... please play the game before you bash it). OH and lets not forget the close combat siries. They happen to be some of the most realistic WWII games out there. The fact that you bash games like StarCraft Command and Conquer and Red Alert and WarCraftI, II, II probably means that you haven't played them, or if you have played them expecting crap (in which case you got crap). And the comment about the 6 year old mastering a RTS shows howlittle you know (also when a 6 year old is having fun while he's learning the rules to a turned based game then i'll switch sides immediatly). So please play a RTS and try it out for once i think you will be surprised.
-
tkobo
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 12397
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !
Actually I worked in a computer cafe for about a year(and hung out there for about 2 years,1 year before i got the honnor to work there and about 1 year after I left the employ).Ive also been computer gaming since the late 70's.Ive played with all age groups from about 4 to 50.The PC Coffeeshop was a great place.It was the first plave I came into contact with a high speed connection.They had an isdn.Of course once I learned enough about networking to set up my own AND got a cable connection I spent more time home than at the shop.
We rented computer time to play games or surf the net at the cafe and had a lan of anywhere from 4 to 12 machines at any given time.People could also bring their own machines into the cafe and hook them into our lan.
Command and conquer and warcraft were very big with the younger crowd.And yes I have played the greater majority of them.And yes I have also tried to teach many of the same kids who could win every scenario in the Command and conquer clones to play games like close combat or harpoon.The learning curve was simply too severe for them.
In fact at that time I can without question say I had played over 80% of the games on the US market(mainstream).
Now close combat(series) and shogun(total war series) are among the few RTSs that get it right.Harpoon alhtough not really classified as a RTS is another example of it done right.
However comparing or lumping C&C with Close Combat shows the differences quite clearly.
Although both are considered RTSs,its kinda like saying tic tac toe and chess are both the same kinda game.Its only an accurate statement when looking at them from the farthest most extreme view point.
Command and Conquer is at best an extremely dumbed down version of game play when compared to close combat.
You some how missed the entire point on consequences.Not sure I can say it any better.
Consider life the ultimate stratgey game.I'm talking REAL life,not the board game.
Now consider what makes life the ultimate strategy game.Its choices,consequences and variations.The more of these a game has the more strategy it will be possible to employ.
Consequences are extremely important to strategy.Theres a major difference in the strategy required for a unit if it can be destroyed in one shot as compared to a unit that takes 6 or 8 shots.
Compare a tank in Close combat to a tank unit in Command and conquer.
The weakest unit in close combat can destroy the strongest(tank) unit in a single shot.
This means that the player has to think out the use and placement of his units with alot of care.
This simply isnt the case with the command and conquer clones.
This clearly shows that one game requires alot more strategy than the other.
Simply put,the more life like(realistic) a game is the more strategy required in it.
You seem to be getting a little agitated(this is shown to me by the wrong asumptions you make about my gaming experience instead of keeping your debate to facts known) and I dont think I can explain the differences much better than I and others already have,so i will make this my last post on this thread.
Oh and by the way,one of the biggest failings in Europa (first version)is that unit movement makes no sense.
Once orders are issued to move a unit to another area a unit is considered to be at and moved back to any area in which an enemy unit moves into while said unit is crossing it.So units are either here or there with no inbetween.
This is extremely badly done.And is NOT how REAL TIME is supposed to work as there is no real accounting for the distance a unit has moved within a region in a given time frame.
have a nice day.
We rented computer time to play games or surf the net at the cafe and had a lan of anywhere from 4 to 12 machines at any given time.People could also bring their own machines into the cafe and hook them into our lan.
Command and conquer and warcraft were very big with the younger crowd.And yes I have played the greater majority of them.And yes I have also tried to teach many of the same kids who could win every scenario in the Command and conquer clones to play games like close combat or harpoon.The learning curve was simply too severe for them.
In fact at that time I can without question say I had played over 80% of the games on the US market(mainstream).
Now close combat(series) and shogun(total war series) are among the few RTSs that get it right.Harpoon alhtough not really classified as a RTS is another example of it done right.
However comparing or lumping C&C with Close Combat shows the differences quite clearly.
Although both are considered RTSs,its kinda like saying tic tac toe and chess are both the same kinda game.Its only an accurate statement when looking at them from the farthest most extreme view point.
Command and Conquer is at best an extremely dumbed down version of game play when compared to close combat.
You some how missed the entire point on consequences.Not sure I can say it any better.
Consider life the ultimate stratgey game.I'm talking REAL life,not the board game.
Now consider what makes life the ultimate strategy game.Its choices,consequences and variations.The more of these a game has the more strategy it will be possible to employ.
Consequences are extremely important to strategy.Theres a major difference in the strategy required for a unit if it can be destroyed in one shot as compared to a unit that takes 6 or 8 shots.
Compare a tank in Close combat to a tank unit in Command and conquer.
The weakest unit in close combat can destroy the strongest(tank) unit in a single shot.
This means that the player has to think out the use and placement of his units with alot of care.
This simply isnt the case with the command and conquer clones.
This clearly shows that one game requires alot more strategy than the other.
Simply put,the more life like(realistic) a game is the more strategy required in it.
You seem to be getting a little agitated(this is shown to me by the wrong asumptions you make about my gaming experience instead of keeping your debate to facts known) and I dont think I can explain the differences much better than I and others already have,so i will make this my last post on this thread.
Oh and by the way,one of the biggest failings in Europa (first version)is that unit movement makes no sense.
Once orders are issued to move a unit to another area a unit is considered to be at and moved back to any area in which an enemy unit moves into while said unit is crossing it.So units are either here or there with no inbetween.
This is extremely badly done.And is NOT how REAL TIME is supposed to work as there is no real accounting for the distance a unit has moved within a region in a given time frame.
have a nice day.
-
Doc
- Sergeant
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
My point is that RTS games are more realistic because you don't play life in turns. Oh and Europa UniversalisII is much better then the first and is the prime example of how massive stratagies are carried out in real time, while Close Combat is a prime example of how small scale combat can be done in realtime.
-
Mojo
- Warrant Officer
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Jun 08 2002
While I enjoy EUII to a certain extent, I can't help but lament on how much better it could've been having a hex-based map (I like hexes because they offer many degrees of freedom) turned based with perhaps weekly or 10 day turns. The merchant system is annoying, maintaining a monopoly in a province known by many is impossible, and the Portuguese, English, and Spanish did this historically. Also, combat turns into simple "amass a horde and rush" ala Command and Conquer and Starcraft. Don't get me wrong, I still play EUII, but mainly because no other recent games let you play that era of history with the whole world included.
-
Doc
- Sergeant
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
IN EUII i would disagree totally. First of in the bigining (just like in history) i was able to take out opposing armies with smaller armies BUT more calvery. While latter Calvary dicreased and infatry increased which made big armies more practicle (again this happened in history). Then the cannon become the supreme being on the battlefield with my 100 cannons and and 10 infatry i could desimate armies twice my size that had merely large amounts of infantry (yeah i'm talking about russia..). All of htis happened historicly.
As for the monoply thing when i played as Bremen (I united germany at this point as was pusing on poland and balkans) i had monopolies in Paris, Malien and the one in Portugal (yes i was filthy rich thanks to those).
As for you turned base comment i think that EUII would lose a lot of its edge (and take a **** load of time) if i had to wait for AI to finish there turn and then wait for me to finish mine. Sure this is fine for Chess but theres nothing like watching a master trap unfold before your eyes in real time (like when i suckered the french army to invade deep into germany and then i cut them off invaded france and waited as attrition took its toll until the 100k army was little more then 5k. THATS STRATAGY!).
As for the monoply thing when i played as Bremen (I united germany at this point as was pusing on poland and balkans) i had monopolies in Paris, Malien and the one in Portugal (yes i was filthy rich thanks to those).
As for you turned base comment i think that EUII would lose a lot of its edge (and take a **** load of time) if i had to wait for AI to finish there turn and then wait for me to finish mine. Sure this is fine for Chess but theres nothing like watching a master trap unfold before your eyes in real time (like when i suckered the french army to invade deep into germany and then i cut them off invaded france and waited as attrition took its toll until the 100k army was little more then 5k. THATS STRATAGY!).
-
Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22106
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
I can’t really comment much on EUII since I’ve barely played it. It actually put me to sleep. Really! I played it for about half hour trying to learn it, then thought “wow, I’m a little tired†and proceeded to have a 4 hour nap!! Not usually a good sign for a game. Now, most of the games that have been mentioned so far, everyone here at BattleGoat Studios has played. Are you kidding! That’s one of the greatest perks of being in software development! You can go out and buy the latest game, play it for 10 hours, and when someone asks what your doing you get to say “hey, this is research!â€
Doc, you stated that RTS is the only way to have a realistic game. I disagree. I follow your argument about some turn based games sit and wait to see what you do, then they react and you wait. I agree that these are unrealistic. However, in games like Medieval, all players are completing their turns simultaneously. This is what the real world is like. Don’t think of that game as being turn based. Think of it as 10 minutes real time followed by 23h 50mins compressed into a summary. In the Total War games, when you hit end turn, you see the events, and it is again immediately your turn again. This is the style of turn based that was always envisioned for SR2010.
I played hours and hours of Starcraft, WarcraftI, II, III, C&C, Red Alert. I still pull out Starcraft every now and then. It is a good game. But, it is not the format I would want for a “conquer the world†game. Our game tries to take turn based and real time elements and combine them so that players like tkobo can get the depth they are looking for while players like yourself get the real time element you are looking for. Let’s call it “Progressive Time Strategy†and call ourselves the pioneers of the PTS genre...
Doc, you stated that RTS is the only way to have a realistic game. I disagree. I follow your argument about some turn based games sit and wait to see what you do, then they react and you wait. I agree that these are unrealistic. However, in games like Medieval, all players are completing their turns simultaneously. This is what the real world is like. Don’t think of that game as being turn based. Think of it as 10 minutes real time followed by 23h 50mins compressed into a summary. In the Total War games, when you hit end turn, you see the events, and it is again immediately your turn again. This is the style of turn based that was always envisioned for SR2010.
I played hours and hours of Starcraft, WarcraftI, II, III, C&C, Red Alert. I still pull out Starcraft every now and then. It is a good game. But, it is not the format I would want for a “conquer the world†game. Our game tries to take turn based and real time elements and combine them so that players like tkobo can get the depth they are looking for while players like yourself get the real time element you are looking for. Let’s call it “Progressive Time Strategy†and call ourselves the pioneers of the PTS genre...
-
Doc
- Sergeant
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
If you do have simoltanious turns then maybe it would be alright, but i think that the tension doesn't build like when you actualy see that huge as army invading your country with only a small well equiped army to stand in its way. And then to see the action being played before you as you charge counter charge and flank your way to victory. RTS forces you to make discions in a pinch where the time is really against you and you can see the danger moving in, that is waht i imagine a real president must feel.
-
George Geczy
- General
- Posts: 2688
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
- Contact:
Our current multiplayer test games have certainly had some of that 'excitement' of seeing the front line armies clash and have to decide quickly about how to deploy reserves, fall back, etc. The multiplayer test games we've played were in 'turnless' (aka real time) mode, but at the slowest speed setting - yet even then they can still be 'action packed', and if it wasn't for breakthrough units needing to pause for fuel and supplies, we'd end up with an RTS rush.
However, the additional elements of SR2010 - supply lines, zones of control, terrain effects, fuel/ammo inventories, etc - all get thrown in to the mix, and make it impossible to just rush in & kill. In our two most recent games, the ultimate winner was initially thrown back and had to retreat and regroup, yet was then able to grow and make gains after the attack fizzled out. (A little lucky diplomacy didn't hurt either.)
To some extent, with both a turn-based and a turnless option, it's like two games in one - but we'll only ask you to buy it once
-- George.
However, the additional elements of SR2010 - supply lines, zones of control, terrain effects, fuel/ammo inventories, etc - all get thrown in to the mix, and make it impossible to just rush in & kill. In our two most recent games, the ultimate winner was initially thrown back and had to retreat and regroup, yet was then able to grow and make gains after the attack fizzled out. (A little lucky diplomacy didn't hurt either.)
To some extent, with both a turn-based and a turnless option, it's like two games in one - but we'll only ask you to buy it once
-- George.
-
Juergen
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Jul 05 2002
Alot of things have already been said about RTS but I think I will write down my own experiences here.
First off: I played most of them.From Dune2 to Empire Earth.I have played them alone and with friends(where possible).
And when I bought them I didnt expect them to be "crap".
I do think I know what I talk about.
There are several reason I dont play "classical" RTS games anymore.It is a bit hard to isolate these problems since they work together and create the hated "tank-rush" problem.I will try anyway.
1)Speed(player) is too important.
Speed determines simply too much in an RTS.
If you are slow then you have a good chance of loosing.This is the case because:
-the faster you are the more resources you will have
-more speed means more units because the faster you order them the faster you get them
-reacting fast and accurate is vital because you will loose units that could have been saved if you reacted more quickly
2)Simpleness
There simply is no denying it.Classical RTS just dont have the complexity of a good TBS.
Thats a fact,it may be hard to nail down but I dont think that this needs to be discussed.
Its all about amassing a horde of units and destroying the opponent and preventing the enemy from doing the same.
Things like economy and science are just there to fuel the armies and are not a goal in itself as in real life.
As it has already been said there are no consequences safe the imediate effects like a hole in you resource pool.It seems that the citizens of RTS games dont care about anything and I think this makes these games hollow and lifeless.
Even Civ3 tries to simulate angry people...
3)Rushes
They are just there ,no matter how many counter tactics are available.Rushes are everything else but cool and they will always remain a viable strategy because:
-Simpleness
Having not much to worry about promotes rushing
-Speed
A fast player can get more units in a shorter time and with many many units his favourite strategy will be...you guessed it
-Less micromanagement
One of the reasons why the terrans of Starcraft(tm) are hard to play is because they have to be micromanaged to life up to their potential.Zergling and Hydralisks need little management to be effective.Because of this it is far more simple to produce an army of Hydras and just them send them to any place on the map thus doing a rush.And this is true for most other RTS games.
This frees the player up for other tasks like gathering more resources for the next rush...
These are some reasons which make tired of classical RTS games.If I had to compare games with food then I would say that classical RTS games are like fast food.
The sooner you are done with it the better.
Its desinged to be swallowed.
Real-time might be more realistic than turn-based but thats about the only thing that can be called realistic on an RTS game.Its by far not all that counts.
To be continued....my next post will be about the next generation of RTS games like EU 1+2 and what they did right
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2002-10-19 05:58 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2002-10-19 05:58 ]</font>
First off: I played most of them.From Dune2 to Empire Earth.I have played them alone and with friends(where possible).
And when I bought them I didnt expect them to be "crap".
I do think I know what I talk about.
There are several reason I dont play "classical" RTS games anymore.It is a bit hard to isolate these problems since they work together and create the hated "tank-rush" problem.I will try anyway.
1)Speed(player) is too important.
Speed determines simply too much in an RTS.
If you are slow then you have a good chance of loosing.This is the case because:
-the faster you are the more resources you will have
-more speed means more units because the faster you order them the faster you get them
-reacting fast and accurate is vital because you will loose units that could have been saved if you reacted more quickly
2)Simpleness
There simply is no denying it.Classical RTS just dont have the complexity of a good TBS.
Thats a fact,it may be hard to nail down but I dont think that this needs to be discussed.
Its all about amassing a horde of units and destroying the opponent and preventing the enemy from doing the same.
Things like economy and science are just there to fuel the armies and are not a goal in itself as in real life.
As it has already been said there are no consequences safe the imediate effects like a hole in you resource pool.It seems that the citizens of RTS games dont care about anything and I think this makes these games hollow and lifeless.
Even Civ3 tries to simulate angry people...
3)Rushes
They are just there ,no matter how many counter tactics are available.Rushes are everything else but cool and they will always remain a viable strategy because:
-Simpleness
Having not much to worry about promotes rushing
-Speed
A fast player can get more units in a shorter time and with many many units his favourite strategy will be...you guessed it
-Less micromanagement
One of the reasons why the terrans of Starcraft(tm) are hard to play is because they have to be micromanaged to life up to their potential.Zergling and Hydralisks need little management to be effective.Because of this it is far more simple to produce an army of Hydras and just them send them to any place on the map thus doing a rush.And this is true for most other RTS games.
This frees the player up for other tasks like gathering more resources for the next rush...
These are some reasons which make tired of classical RTS games.If I had to compare games with food then I would say that classical RTS games are like fast food.
The sooner you are done with it the better.
Its desinged to be swallowed.
Real-time might be more realistic than turn-based but thats about the only thing that can be called realistic on an RTS game.Its by far not all that counts.
To be continued....my next post will be about the next generation of RTS games like EU 1+2 and what they did right
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2002-10-19 05:58 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Juergen on 2002-10-19 05:58 ]</font>
-
3iff
- Brigadier Gen.
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Jun 27 2002
- Location: Birmingham, England
RTS games are (to me) more like action games. Fast reactions are vital. Strategy is very much a side issue.
I've played Civ2 games on a large map with hundreds of units. It might take 10 minutes or more to give orders and make decisions for city building. If the game was not turn based, it would be impossible to play on anything other than a small map.
I also play Transport Tycoon Deluxe. This chugs along at a slow pace. While it can be paused, it won't allow building while paused. The map is large and while I spend time in one area building routes, the computer players are busy building routes elsewhere and I can't interact with that unless I break off from the routes I am building. Fortunately, the game moves on at a slow speed and the computer player actions do not destroy my existing routes. If however the computer player actions were actually destroying my routes then I would not be able to compete.
In many RTS situations, a computer player can react instantly on many units and over a wide area of the map whereas I, being a limited human can only react to what I can see on the screen, which may be just a small portion of the map.
As I've said before. If I lose, I want it to be because I am not clever enough not because I am not fast enough.
Finally, I want a game that takes some/many hours to play and win. I think that's what Battlegoat are trying to develop.
I've played Civ2 games on a large map with hundreds of units. It might take 10 minutes or more to give orders and make decisions for city building. If the game was not turn based, it would be impossible to play on anything other than a small map.
I also play Transport Tycoon Deluxe. This chugs along at a slow pace. While it can be paused, it won't allow building while paused. The map is large and while I spend time in one area building routes, the computer players are busy building routes elsewhere and I can't interact with that unless I break off from the routes I am building. Fortunately, the game moves on at a slow speed and the computer player actions do not destroy my existing routes. If however the computer player actions were actually destroying my routes then I would not be able to compete.
In many RTS situations, a computer player can react instantly on many units and over a wide area of the map whereas I, being a limited human can only react to what I can see on the screen, which may be just a small portion of the map.
As I've said before. If I lose, I want it to be because I am not clever enough not because I am not fast enough.
Finally, I want a game that takes some/many hours to play and win. I think that's what Battlegoat are trying to develop.