[QUOTE=Fr3ddi3;51737679]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.[/QUOTE]
I won 2v4 expert AI with my friend in COH by turtling and then pushing forward.
Playing against expert AI in COH1 there is no option other than to turtle for the first 30-40 minutes because the AI cheats so bad that it's unbelievable.
I also remember playing AOE3 MP with no rush 50-60 minutes rules. In one game my team mate left, and i was left with a 2v1, and i managed to crush them. Pretty much the whole map was made up of long walls by the end.
Supreme Commander : Forged Alliance is still the best RTS I've ever played.
Too bad SupCom2 got nerfed in the turtling and unit diversity department to attract the Starcraft crowd.
[QUOTE=Adarrek;51747282]I won 2v4 expert AI with my friend in COH by turtling and then pushing forward.
Playing against expert AI in COH1 there is no option other than to turtle for the first 30-40 minutes because the AI cheats so bad that it's unbelievable.
I also remember playing AOE3 MP with no rush 50-60 minutes rules. In one game my team mate left, and i was left with a 2v1, and i managed to crush them. Pretty much the whole map was made up of long walls by the end.[/QUOTE]
CoH AI is really bad when it comes to things. The AI has one behavior set, and difficulty just gives them a higher resource multiplier, faster build speed, faster veterancy, and gives their units more health.
[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]For Age of Empires 2 turtling/purposefully lengthening matches can be of strategic value. Likewise ending a game early can also be of strategic value. It depends on how the player uses it related to many other conditions. (Do I have more map control and resources than my opponent? I can afford to play a longer game and starve my opponent of resources. Does my opponent have a weak early, strong late game civ while I have a strong early game weak late game civ? I can't afford to let this game go on for too long. I need to exploit my civs advantage now!) Age of Empires 2 allows for both short and long matches and, through its many other mechanics, players can influence the length of a match as part of their strategy. I really love how well crafted Age of Empires 2 is. Its disappointing the HD release runs so terribly.
I have played Empire Earth as well and enjoyed it a lot when I was younger. I don't think its nearly on the same caliber of AOE:2 for a variety of reasons, mainly resource scarcity. AOE2's resources are scarce and will run out making map control important mid to late game. Clever players can starve opponents of resources if they forsake map control. Empire Earths resources are nearly infinite making it nearly impossible to starve opponents of their resources. The game lacks this strategic mechanic almost entirely. Additionally resources are gathered much slower and have a cap of 6 gatherers in Empire Earth making early game map control (And thus early aggression) much more important and game deciding than AOE2. Aging up is also extremely expensive and extremely unrealistic in a typical higher level game. Execution of early aggression is far more important for higher level Empire Earth play than it is in Age of Empires 2. Empire Earth is a great game but I don't think its nearly as well crafted as AOE2. If you have not already you should try Empires: Dawn of the Modern World. Its the sequel to Empire Earth but isn't called Empire Earth 2 due to Goodman (The lead developer) not owning the Empire Earth IP. Unfortunately you would need to purchase a physical copy as steam removed it a few years ago.
[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).
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]
Playing terran in sc2 and defending is so fun . Do you know why? Because the opponent spends as many resources as possible to do damage while you try to establish a good position financially for the mid game with spending less on an army. Then you get the upper hand. RTS is all about harrasing,multitasking and outthinking the opponent. Don't cry about something you don't understand in a deeper level. I can't play chess and whine because I'm losing with 0 experience. You have to adapt. I mean when I started playing RTS online I was fascinated with how some opponents would harass my workers etc. RTS is not dying, it just had and will always have a smaller audience and it requires a lot of time to even master the fucking basics. Yes nice attack there buddy you did some damage but did you make workers or upgrades while you were microing these units? Have you decided on a hotkey pattern? Yes you know a build but do you know how to continue the game after it or if the plan fails? I see lots of opinions here but some have experience behind it. On a competitive level with RTS you can only blame yourself and improve because its 1v1. Once you go online not there is no such thing as turtling and chilling not in aoe2,Warcraft 1/2/3,StarCraft 1/2, aom, ra2 . there will always be harass and defending and rushes to gain advantage, this is the nature of fucking RTS and war in real life where you exploit weaknesses.
[QUOTE=MissZoey;51745039]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.[/QUOTE]
The ultimate apocalypse mod ramps that shit up to 11
Too bad it has awful optimization
[QUOTE=Citrus705;51749424]The ultimate apocalypse mod ramps that shit up to 11
Too bad it has awful optimization[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah I exclusively play with UA but I can't handle more than four players on hard AI or my PC fucking offs itself.
This is the biggest reason why I stopped playing multiplayer in RTS games. Even in Dawn of War, a game I absolutely love when it comes to base building. The MP is full of jackasses that will start off a round by just rushing their champion/leader/whatever unit over to an enemy base, and the enemy is helpless to try to get any resources together to fend them off. Then that's it, in a few minutes I lose because the other guy decided to put zero effort into getting a game of strategy going.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.