I realized this is why i don't like RTS games much anymore. I used to really enjoy taking my time in RTS games and just defending until i was ready, but that can't really be done now. They're all about build order, speed and who can rush to win the fastest now.
The article says it doesn't understand base building because they'd rather just defeat the opponent as fast as possible by just racing over to their base before they can do anything, but i don't understand [I]that[/I]. Where's the fun in using a cheap move to beat a game in the first few minutes just so you can say "i won!" as soon as possible rather than having an actual engaging game that relies on strategy?
It's also funny how he says he's "not a fan of base building" and doesn't understand why you'd want to make a "mighty stronghold"...and then goes on to say he really likes defending, as in, [I]base building. [/I]
I always turtle and get crushed because of it. :(
[QUOTE=nightlord;51732094]It's also funny how he says he's "not a fan of base building" and doesn't understand why you'd want to make a "mighty stronghold"...and then goes on to say he really likes defending, as in, [I]base building. [/I][/QUOTE]
"I'm not a big fan of the base-building side of [B]most real-time strategy games[/B]"
"But man, do I love it [B]when a strategy game lets me play defensively.[/B]"
I miss Bad Reading
[QUOTE=nightlord;51732094]I realized this is why i don't like RTS games much anymore. I used to really enjoy taking my time in RTS games and just defending until i was ready, but that can't really be done now. They're all about build order, speed and who can rush to win the fastest now.
The article says it doesn't understand base building because they'd rather just defeat the opponent as fast as possible by just racing over to their base before they can do anything, but i don't understand [I]that[/I]. Where's the fun in using a cheap move to beat a game in the first few minutes just so you can say "i won!" as soon as possible rather than having an actual engaging game that relies on strategy?
It's also funny how he says he's "not a fan of base building" and doesn't understand why you'd want to make a "mighty stronghold"...and then goes on to say he really likes defending, as in, [I]base building. [/I][/QUOTE]
They did this to CoH2 and it pissed me off.
[QUOTE=Kierany9;51732328]"I'm not a big fan of the base-building side of [B]most real-time strategy games[/B]"
"But man, do I love it [B]when a strategy game lets me play defensively.[/B]"
I miss Bad Reading[/QUOTE]
Nothing about what i said is "bad reading". He says he doesn't like base-building and making a "mighty stronghold" is something he doesn't understand in most games, and then goes on to say he likes playing defensively, which is part of the base building in most games and is making a "mighty stronghold". The only example he gives that has "playing defensively" done via something that isn't part of the base building gameplay is the Total War series.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;51732340]They did this to CoH2 and it pissed me off.[/QUOTE]
I enjoy CoH2, but certainly not as much as CoH1. I really miss being able to properly defend a side of the map. I managed to do it once in multiplayer, as well. I blocked off the entire side of the map and after about an hour of the enemy not being able to get past they quit.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/GpJ8ht0.jpg[/t]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/RUm6yYK.jpg[/t]
Pretty much every square there is a bunker.
I think the problem was they gave like every unit a way to clear people in cover. Also bullets were so non-lethal because your units just missed everything.
I've always wondered why the endgame units are even in the game if the meta is to rush so fast that your 'babby's first combat unit' is the unit that decides the game.
Dammit, you give me supercapitals with doomsday plasma cannons in the nose, you give me nukes, [i]and I'm going to do my damndest to use them[/i]. And that means turtling long enough to get them fielded.
When that's the case, maybe it's a design problem if your basic early-game units can reliably destroy a BUILDING if you have a swarm of them. If they were armed with anti-material explosives it'd be somewhat understandable, but I'm not so sure that the combined efforts of two dozen assault rifles would be enough to destroy a solid steel bunker.
A potential way to circumvent the problem of super-rushy RTS matches would probably be to have siege units be immensely better at attacking a base than a swarm of infantry, and have them require a key resource that your early-game units would need to go out and secure, before you can build the numbers you need to break the siege. A subtractive armour system, which reduces incoming damage by a flat amount, would be a suitable candidate, with most buildings having such high armour that a line of riflemen would deal plink damage at best, while siege weapons would deal so much damage that the building armour barely be able to reduce it. This way, you'd potentially be able to split a match into two phases: the first being pre-siege exploration and buildup, where you have ground troops and basic mechanized infantry (APCs, IFVs, battle-bikes, reconnaissance walkers, what have you) skirmishing out in the field and looking for that precious resource, and the proper siege phase where you've secured the Epic resource and you're able to start sending out tanks and artillery and other such fighting machines to finally break through the opponent's defences.
In theory, it'd drag out matches to just the right length, where turtle-style players have a fighting chance of reaching the phase where true superweapons come into play. And on the other side of the coin, rush-style players would be "tempered" somewhat, discouraged from going straight for the throat right away, yet also encouraged to explore the map for the resources needed to go for the throat. The threat of a rush-boy getting his siege units earlier would in turn incentivise turtle-boys to poke their head out and try to get some siege resources of their own, to buy them the time they need to get their superweapons up and running.
[QUOTE=nightlord;51732346]
I enjoy CoH2, but certainly not as much as CoH1. I really miss being able to properly defend a side of the map.[/QUOTE]
Motherfucking Vire River Valley.
[QUOTE=TestECull;51732974]I've always wondered why the endgame units are even in the game if the meta is to rush so fast that your 'babby's first combat unit' is the unit that decides the game.
Dammit, you give me supercapitals with doomsday plasma cannons in the nose, you give me nukes, [i]and I'm going to do my damndest to use them[/i]. And that means turtling long enough to get them fielded.[/QUOTE]
they're normally either 'rush to get these' or 'win more' units. carrier and thor in sc2 are perfect examples of this. There are strategies involving slight turtling/holding out with crap units while you rush techs to get those big units out, but also people like putting a few in endgame armies to spend excess minerals.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;51732386]I think the problem was they gave like every unit a way to clear people in cover. Also bullets were so non-lethal because your units just missed everything.[/QUOTE]
I think the problem with CoH2 for me in terms of defending is it all feel so temporary, like you're not actually [I]meant[/I] to be using those things to actually do anything beyond just slow the enemy down or add a bit of extra power to your units.
In that CoH1 game for example, my defenses stopped everything. They had to either use artillery, which there were too many bunkers to take out with, or massed amounts of vehicles to try to get past. If it were CoH2, either of those would easily take out the bunkers in a few hits, even infantry can do that without too much difficulty. In combination with the maps being extremely open it really isn't that viable.
Even as the British Forces the defenses feel pretty weak, they've lost their focus on defending; trenches are useless, no bunkers, no medic station, no bonuses for unit in range of others and no forward production bases unless you go for a certain commander.
There was a Facepunch Starcraft 2 tournament a long time ago where I turtled so well on my side of the map the tournmanent host basically declared it a draw in the finals because it would take too long to do a best of 5. :v:
[QUOTE=nightlord;51736043]I think the problem with CoH2 for me in terms of defending is it all feel so temporary, like you're not actually [I]meant[/I] to be using those things to actually do anything beyond just slow the enemy down or add a bit of extra power to your units.
In that CoH1 game for example, my defenses stopped everything. They had to either use artillery, which there were too many bunkers to take out with, or massed amounts of vehicles to try to get past. If it were CoH2, either of those would easily take out the bunkers in a few hits, even infantry can do that without too much difficulty. In combination with the maps being extremely open it really isn't that viable.
Even as the British Forces the defenses feel pretty weak, they've lost their focus on defending; trenches are useless, no bunkers, no medic station, no bonuses for unit in range of others and no forward production bases unless you go for a certain commander.[/QUOTE]
Don't get me wrong, i'd turtle the fuck up in CoH1 when skirmishing the AI in coop because it was great fun. But PvP was a different story, human opponents who understand the game would not give you the opportunity to build sim city, and neither would you want to tie your army down or spunk resources on bunkers. bridge maps not withstanding.
CoH2 is largely the same, you can still turtle against the AI but it's more effective at pushing back on your defenses, the Brits and OKW are kings of holding territory, but again you can't get away with it against human players who know what they're doing.
The Only caveat to that is when you're playing 3 v 3 / 4 v 4, but that's a wildly different game to 1 v 1 and 2 v 2. So much so that afaik it was never played seriously in competitive.
Supreme Commander was definitely THE best game to turtle in. Shield generators, turrets, artillery, point defenses, tactical anti-nuke missiles, it was the BEST.
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;51739922]Supreme Commander was definitely THE best game to turtle in. Shield generators, turrets, artillery, point defenses, tactical anti-nuke missiles, it was the BEST.[/QUOTE]
Everyone rushing for those nukes while you got the cheapass nuke defence systems up and twice the amount anyway.
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;51739922]Supreme Commander was definitely THE best game to turtle in. Shield generators, turrets, artillery, point defenses, tactical anti-nuke missiles, it was the BEST.[/QUOTE]i've tried that, but no base holds against an onslaught of 20 Monkeylords and several Megaliths on top of that
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;51739922]Supreme Commander was definitely THE best game to turtle in. Shield generators, turrets, artillery, point defenses, tactical anti-nuke missiles, it was the BEST.[/QUOTE]
One game that has even more stuff is Warzone 2100. Not only did it have its own customizable unit designer where you chose a propulsion method, chasis and weapon, but it had a massive amount of different defense buildings: [url]https://betaguide.wz2100.net/structure.php[/url]
Would be great to see some sort of spiritual successor to it, it's one of the more unique RTS games.
I'm not a fan of RTS/Turn based but removing turtling sounds like a fuck nuttery of stupidity
like the entire point of most RTS games, as well as Turn based, is that you have to out think, and out maneuver your opponent
if it becomes a race to the main-base and that's it, [B]what fuck is the point[/B]. The entire game becomes "get the end game gun and bam lol win"
on the flip side too much would probably turn it into "lets lightly poke eachother in the anus for 18 hours and then oh... he quit"
I remember as a kid I just played this one map in CaC: tiberium wars and just spawned snipers and commandos and tried to send them on missions and shit to the enemy side of the map, was fun as fuck. Entertained me for hours lmao
The GOGOGO fast game attitude is one of the things that killed the RTS. It stopped being about strategy and planning, and being all about who can rush things out the fastest. Every RTS these days is small scale and targets game length at less then 30 minutes (and in many cases, 15 minutes now).
I miss games like Supreme Commander, TA, and classic C&C. Where you could play in many different ways and still be effective. Base defenses were meaningful and did something. A couple turrets could hold back most rushes, so you had to actually plan on dealing with them. To take out a well defended base, you'd have to start pumping out game enders and building a varied force.
Playing some more recent RTS of the last 5 years, defenses are practically worthless, and the only way to play is to constantly be moving out trying to take over the map, there is no turtling or going slowly.
Make RTS great again, bring back slow games, turtling, and the ability to play in more ways.
[QUOTE=Naught;51733318]they're normally either 'rush to get these' or 'win more' units. carrier and thor in sc2 are perfect examples of this. There are strategies involving slight turtling/holding out with crap units while you rush techs to get those big units out, but also people like putting a few in endgame armies to spend excess minerals.[/QUOTE]
yah I just want to blot out the camera with battlecruisers, attack-move across the map, and throw yamato shots at anything that looks at me funny. Truthfully it's part of why I don't really play them with other humans in the first place, and usually abuse the shit out of cheat codes in single player.
[QUOTE=Gunner th;51742363]The GOGOGO fast game attitude is one of the things that killed the RTS. It stopped being about strategy and planning, and being all about who can rush things out the fastest. Every RTS these days is small scale and targets game length at less then 30 minutes (and in many cases, 15 minutes now).[/QUOTE]
Dawn of fucking War 2. It's awful compared to Dawn of War 1 because there's so much micromanagement and SMALL, ELITE SQUADS. Fuck that. People want big ass squads and watching 3000 of your little dudes killing 3000 of the enemy's little dudes.
Funny thing is that faced pace RTS games like World In Conflict, where it is zero base building and styled completely into aggressive playstyles, are basically flat out ignored. While games which have base building, and thus have the option to be slower paced, have competitively turned into a game of 'who can finish their build order first.'
I don't fucking understand any of this and it's probably why, since world in conflict, I have never enjoyed a competitive multiplayer RTS that isn't also a 4X game.
Well I think the complaint is on games having base building, but it being somewhat trivial since bases aren't defensible. Games like Total War, WiC and Wargame: Red rrerr have no base building at all, which again changes the dynamics of the game. But DoW2, SC2 and CoH2 having base building that doesn't matter is what is being criticized.
I'm here. I think we'll executed rushes with perfect micro to squeeze out a fast victory through keeping alive so many units with such low health is cool.
I also think end game deathball armies are pretty sick too
An rts should have room for both players. Sc2 WoL had a pretty solid balance with attack timings and the such that it was pretty good.
[editline]29th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=nightlord;51732094]I realized this is why i don't like RTS games much anymore. I used to really enjoy taking my time in RTS games and just defending until i was ready, but that can't really be done now. They're all about build order, speed and who can rush to win the fastest now.
The article says it doesn't understand base building because they'd rather just defeat the opponent as fast as possible by just racing over to their base before they can do anything, but i don't understand [I]that[/I]. Where's the fun in using a cheap move to beat a game in the first few minutes just so you can say "i won!" as soon as possible rather than having an actual engaging game that relies on strategy?
It's also funny how he says he's "not a fan of base building" and doesn't understand why you'd want to make a "mighty stronghold"...and then goes on to say he really likes defending, as in, [I]base building. [/I][/QUOTE]
I do want to point out build orders are just maximizing efficiency with your time, they're important at the start of any RTS. I've been playing a lot of Age of Empires 2 and there's still build orders and most games I have in that are long as hell (some rushers but they aren't that hard to deal with)
Also the fun in the cheap move is pretty simple: ladder points in competitive modes.
[QUOTE=Riller;51745749]Well I think the complaint is on games having base building, but it being somewhat trivial since bases aren't defensible. Games like Total War, WiC and Wargame: Red rrerr have no base building at all, which again changes the dynamics of the game. But DoW2, SC2 and CoH2 having base building that doesn't matter is what is being criticized.[/QUOTE]
dow 2 doesnt even have base building at all :v:
Almost all RTS games are made for competitive play now. I miss age of empires/empire earth, in which a game round would last like 2 hours instead of 20 minutes. Atleast the new installments of civ retain classic gameplay.
[QUOTE=cheezey;51746198]Almost all RTS games are made for competitive play now. I miss age of empires/empire earth, in which a game round would last like 2 hours instead of 20 minutes. Atleast the new installments of civ retain classic gameplay.[/QUOTE]
age of empires was 'made' for competitive play as well, it still has a massive competitive fanbase. but yes, peoples attention span has died down over the years, and rts is a pretty niche genre in general, and people see brood wars success and want to make it their success.
I like turtling in RA2 because it gives me time to build a ridiculous huge military while the enemy wastes theirs attacking grand cannons, and anti-everything emplacements
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.