Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: The Problem with RTS

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member Senior Member Dhepee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,314

    Default

    I just reloaded Cossacks on my computer. It was a game that I've had for awhile but never really gotten into; probably because I bought the Gold Edition the week after MTW. This is all just my two cents.

    Don't get me wrong Cossacks is a fun game and I love having access to so many different nations and units, however I have a few general problems with the game itself and the RTS genre as a whole.

    There is no accurate proportion between building/unit size and the amount of space that they take up on a map. Ever notice that you are playing a game set in Europe and if you look at the map the Town Hall is so out of scale to it that it takes up as much room on it as France does on a map of Europe? The size of units/buildings in regards to the whole map is so skewed. That's the beauty of the campaign map in MTW or the Civ map, the population centers actually take up as much space on a map as they should.

    This lack of map size relative to the buildings makes your area of operations very limited. You build armies that can physically take up large chunks of the map and fight battles over the same few terrain features over and over again. Again the use of battlefields that you go into in MTW eliminates this. It is a real weakness for a long game. Sometimes I have gotten so tired of fighting over the same gold mine that I just quit. There is not as much pleasure for me in drawing a game out.

    The actual fighting of battles is also much more mob oriented than formation oriented. If you build a large army with a whole bunch of artillery then you can just march it around with no real sense of order. Although some games have formations there seems to be little incentive to use them if you can just develop a large enough army. For instance in MTW some pikemen can hold up an entire army for a good while, even though they are grossly outnumbered, but in Cossacks a 36 man formation of built up musketeers can't hold off a 72 man formation of less powerful troops for more than 45 seconds, even if it does outflank the 72 man formation. This happens to a lesser extent in AOE and Empire Earth, where there seems to be a little bit more balance, however it still seems in those games that mass trumps flank/formation more often than it should.

    The other big issue that Cossacks has, the others thankfully don't, is pathfinding. That game will drive you nuts the way soldiers and peasents alike just wander off or even worse get stuck behind something.

    I'm not all gripes. The reason I keep playing RTS like Cossacks is I love the resource systems. The use of peasents and the limitations on population are an area where a game like MTW is flawed. I don't like that in MTW you can raise countless armies and only have to pay upkeep, there is no size limit and there is no economic penalty. It seems like in a game set in the Medieval period, in the year after the Black Plague, you should not be able to have 10 full stack armies in one province. It also seems like if you maintain huge armies your agriculture should suffer, because those soldiers have to eat. This is an area where Cossacks really gets it right with the food cost per unit plus the firing cost for going into action. The TW series need a system wherein you are limited by the size of your population your economic output. That would give you more incentive to build up economies and populations.

    I also like the ability to raid resources. It is fun to make exploratory probes that take down the periphary of the AI's economy and it is fun to be able to take over whole towns. This is an area where the out of proportion maps, and not using the battle map system, is good. It allows you to attack the enemy's economy or infrastructure without going after the enemy's main cities/provinces. The ideal game, imo, is one that balances the raiding capacity of a RTS, a RTS resource/population system with a TW campaign/battle map, and tactical system.
    Run Right at them and board them in the smoke Captain Lucky Jack Aubrey of the HMS Surprise

  2. #2
    Member Member Phatose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    591

    Default

    Gah, I've given up entirely on classical RTSs. If I wanted an economic sim, I'd buy capitalism or something. Those games always end up being about economics instead of strategy. And I never cared much for the peasant walk to mine walk to town and back repeatedly deal at all.

  3. #3
    karoshi Senior Member solypsist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    New York New York
    Posts
    9,020

    Default

    nope. no RTSs for me. it's all about hwo has more stuff, and figuring out the little trick on each map by trial and error.

    after one, they're all the same. once you've played the original command and conquer, you've played them all.




  4. #4
    Isn't she pretty in pink? Member Rosacrux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    RTW sucks big time!
    Posts
    1,348

    Default

    Actually, the only RTS I've spend some considerable time with, was the first RTS, Dune II.

    From then on, as Soly points out, it's just repetitive... ammass resources, create units, send them to the enemy camp... finito. And all that, with a rather annoying pattern of who clicks faster wins...

    Nothing challenging there, except if you want to try out the speed of of your fingers
    CHIEF HISTORIAN

  5. #5
    Throwing stones from afar Member Cazbol's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Iceland
    Posts
    944

    Default

    There have been 3 RTS games that I liked:
    Warcraft II
    Starcraft
    Dune 2000

    I've tried demos of some other RTSs but found them absolutely horrible. I remember one called Warrior Kings where it took less time to create a unit than it took to kill it. Hence, it felt pretty pointless, but surpisingly enough the game was well received.

    I was always more into turn based strategy but then STW and later MTW came along and now MTW is the unchallenged king.




  6. #6
    Sheriff Member FesterShinetop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    If it ain't Dutch it ain't much
    Posts
    1,270

    Default

    Yes, in the classicc RTS it's mostly about getting to know the trick... though that is true for most games I guess...

    I did enjoy building up a huge modern army in Empire Earth and then stampeding over some lesser civilizations... MUHAHAHAHAAAAAA


    "You have the insanity... of a manatee."

  7. #7
    Member Member Knight_Yellow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    3,261

    Default

    top 3 classic non tw rts.

    Starcraft
    Age of empires 2
    c&c generals

    top 3 RTS non tw im looking forward too...

    Dawn of war.
    Dawn of war.
    Dawn of war.



    No silly mining, no bloody peasants getting snipered.... just pure capturing objectives and getting reinforcements...

    British Army: be the best

  8. #8

    Default

    You could give Rise of Nations a try. It plays a bit like real-time Civilization, but isn't as deep.

  9. #9
    Protecting the border fort Member Chimpyang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    England
    Posts
    784

    Default

    Rise of Nations is a fun way of using up a hour or so but doesnt keep me for much longer, however on STW I felt I absaloutly HAD to carry on playing to carry out my devious plan, but by then I would have come with with a equally devious plan and would have to carry on etc....

  10. #10

    Default

    It isn't really an RTS at all but for anyone wanting a game should look at Evil Genius for PC. It comes out in September I think and looks awesome. You play as an evil genius in a cartoony 60s world. You can send henchmen to do evil deeds for you but that will make that country mad with you. Commando's and Navy SEALS will try to invade your base but you can use traps such as flaming pits or buzzsaws to take care of them. When you get a country mad enough at you they will send their super agent named John Steele (or something like that) after you. He'll evade most traps etc. and try to kill you before you can release your doomsday weapon on the world.

    It's basically a parody of James Bond but looks super fun. Pretty good graphics too.
    “A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship But it is not this day, an hour of wolves and shattered shields when the age of men comes crashing down, but it is not this day This day we fight” – Aragorn, King of Gondor

    -=Allies & Axis Total War=-

  11. #11
    Tovenaar Senior Member The Wizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,348

    Default

    The only RTSes that ever managed to capture my imagination gameplay-wise were WarCraft III and Ground Control.

    WCIII because it focused on micro-management and unit control far more than the counterfest that is the Age of series and its likelinesses, such as Empires. With WCIII it was far more important to have a great ability to micro your units, rather, than pumping out huge volumes of the right counter to your enemy's units. Instead of winning by the right counter unit (for instance, example being Age of Mythology: your enemy is a player going Loki. You are Egyptian, namely Seth. He, naturally, starts off with mass axethrower, and you go mass slinger, since these beat ranged units. Rock, paper, scissors ), it was more important to know what to center on at what moment, for instance the enemy's hero, where your hero's skills could be enough to kill him, after which the enemy's units were useless. Although the right counter mattered, it was not as important as in AoE/AoM. The right attack plan, such as (with the race orc, notorious for tower rushers) harassing -> teching -> grunt/catapult -> towerrush -> GG.
    If all was done well, your rush would beat even an army of the right counters to the gruntapult, since if your harass was hard enough your enemy would never be able to challenge you, since he would be trapped in his base. Great

    Grount Control because it threw out all those annoying build-up phases (another thing WarCraft did not concentrate on, the action could start right after you got your hero), and went right to the battle. Then it depended on your tactical thinking, and your selection at the beginning, rather than having the good counter and the perfect economy. Great



    ~Wiz
    "It ain't where you're from / it's where you're at."

    Eric B. & Rakim, I Know You Got Soul

  12. #12
    Unpatched Member hrvojej's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    It depends...
    Posts
    2,070

    Default

    The only classic RTS games I played for a long time were Warcaft 2 and AOE2. WC2 because it was a first game on a PC for me, so everything was new, and AOE2, who knows, it was just good and you could issue orders under pause. But it's true that all other RTS games feel completely the same. I've tried a few over the years at my friend's place, him being a RTS afficionado, but it's just boring rinse-and-repeat thing. I don't like having to click too fast, I don't like rushes, and I don't like the feeling that I get of how pointless it all is since there is no bigger picture involved. I like to build up, take my time, and think while I play, all of which classic RTS are in fact geared against (and those without building up often even more so). For example, in most RTS games you can learn the tricks pretty quickly, and after you know those there's nothing else to try out, and since they are mission-based, there is no bigger strategy involved whatsoever. Most don't even let you build up any more, and still don't involve thinking.

    Other sort-of RTS games I liked were Stronghold and Myth series. In Stronghold, the emphasis was on building, so that was cool, and Myth was very well done, the units carried over, and the story was well told (and you could pause for orders again).

    In my opinion, the big advantage TW games have is the strategy map (and the ability to pause ). It gives meaning to what you're doing, and the sense of accomplishment goes beyond exterminating every last peasant on the map just so you could do it all over again from the start.
    Some people get by with a little understanding
    Some people get by with a whole lot more - A. Eldritch

  13. #13
    Member Member Komutan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Posts
    154

    Default

    I think classic rts games are the best strategy games for playing multiplayer.But in single player they tend to be repetitive.




  14. #14
    Senior Member Senior Member gaelic cowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    mayo
    Posts
    4,833

    Default

    That new Warhammer 4000 game looks cool could be okay
    They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
    a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.

    Internet is a bad place for info Gaelic Cowboy

  15. #15
    Sovereign of Soy Member Lehesu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,829

    Default

    Is Rise of Nations any good? Probably the wrong thread to ask, but I don't feel like starting a new one. The reviews give it thumbs up and the screenies do look impressive but the demo wasn't really all that entertaining. Is that all there is, or does it get better?
    Innovative Soy Solutions (TM) for a dynamically changing business environment.

  16. #16
    Member Member Komutan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Posts
    154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] (Lehesu @ May 09 2004,20:46)]Is Rise of Nations any good? Probably the wrong thread to ask, but I don't feel like starting a new one. The reviews give it thumbs up and the screenies do look impressive but the demo wasn't really all that entertaining. Is that all there is, or does it get better?
    I think Rise of Nations is a super game.But I must warn:Unlike most of the forumers, I like classis RTS games.
    What I like most about RON is some of the new concepts it has brought to the genre:Civilization borders, city assimilations etc.
    It also has a better single player mod than other classic RTS games.I play Age of Mythology, C&C:Generals and Warcraft3.But after completing the campaigns I played these games only in multiplayer.I don't like their skirmish mods.But I still play RON both as singleplayer and multiplayer.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO