What are all the RTS games worth playing?

[Cole]

Theres more to a game than just the melee styles.
Theres another thing which very few people have mentioned. When you say brute force then you nearly instantly leave out every starcraft:
Defense, Towers, Diplomacy, Civilizations, Duke & Kerrigan have sex, Kill me, Evolves, Golems, Rpg's, Open Rpg's, Rp's, Altered Sc, Hypercraft, and tons more. You fail to relize that these maps make up alot more population than melee.
Although one of the great things about sc is the fact that, it has 3 totally diffrent races that are yet evened out. AoE series have a ton of races but the basics are all the same.
Wc3 is NOT Brute Force, trust me on this. I mean seriously, if you have a bunch of shamans and you are using them to pump up all your guys, a human can steal those spells and use them on there own units.
Wc3 has alot of abilites that can easily alter the tide of war.

Now Wc3 Customs heavily expand everything. Wc3's UMS style maps can do anything a mod could do for most games. You can edit anything about a unit, from there shadow, to there look, to how fast they turn and accelearte, to how much gold u get per kill, to anything about there damage, splash damage, spells, abilites, health regeneration, when they can get health regeneration, what you can buy from them, there model, there attack model, backswing, and a shitload more. And the triggers are insane. This is WITHOUT mod. You can only imagine what maps have been made for this.

Tons of styles of maps that can have nothing to do with brute force.


Next time think before you say that Sc and Wc3 are brute force!

 

[dawdler]

Theres more to a game than just the melee styles.
Theres another thing which very few people have mentioned. When you say brute force then you nearly instantly leave out every starcraft:
Defense, Towers, Diplomacy, Civilizations, Duke & Kerrigan have sex, Kill me, Evolves, Golems, Rpg's, Open Rpg's, Rp's, Altered Sc, Hypercraft, and tons more.

Eeh... What? Last time I played Starcraft it was about 3 campaigns to smash the other races in a series of missions. A great story doesnt make more strategy (Starcraft is still one of the most immersive games around).

Next time think before you say that Sc and Wc3 are brute force!

Actually I said WC3 was brute force with a twist. They DO have additional rules (for example, cant engage air units, or spells, etc), but its still not enough to truly be strategic. I wouldnt really want WC3 to be more complex either.

Maybe we need a new term, Real Time Tactical game, lol...

Btw, Ceasar III isnt an RTS, its a city building/economy game. The little combat there is consists of clicking on your unit and clicking on the enemy when he appears. I admit defences need to be planned, but that's still just building. It would be wrong to call Sim City 4 an RTS, no?

 

[ShadowFox]

While I agree with everything you said.. you act as if Brute Force RTS games are bad. I'll add Stronghold to the brute force but a blast catagory.

I played Shogun.. it was fun for a while, but they got a little boring. Complexity isn't everything.

 

[Jackal hit]

ground control 2 is really sweet, i think. and the thing with the homeworld series, keeping your units across missions is because they want you to be like a civilization across time, in one continuous story line...it was always unrealistic to me, in other games to have to rebuild everything that you had built. my 2 cents

 

[HunterSeeker]

Another Real time strategy is Lords of Magic (turn based in the world real time in combat). It is kinda like HOMM with realtime combat, it is a lot about brute force but there are some strategys. Like swarm powerefull creatures becouse the more a creature is being hit the less it can attack.

 

[destrukt]

Any Westwood made Command & conquer game.

Total Annihilation & expansions.

 

[dawdler]

While I agree with everything you said.. you act as if Brute Force RTS games are bad. I'll add Stronghold to the brute force but a blast catagory.

Never said they where bad. WC3 is one of the best games there is for example, as is Starcraft (it blew me away first time I played it). I just keep saying there is a big difference between *S* and "S" in the RTS part

 

[JFry]

I'm gonna hafta disagree about starcraft being a brute force rts, and I'm sure most of Korea would too. The level of depth in that game is amazing. By your definition of brute force I should be able to kill anyone by sending mass zerglings at the enemy base and killing everything, but I'll make a list of some counters to that:
-Any air unit that can attack ground
-1 or 2 well-placed bunkers w/firebats
-siege tanks on higher ground
-iridiate
-lurkers
-plague
-dark templar
-psionic storm
And that is without even getting into unit combinations like zealot+dragoon which could also handle many zerglings easily. To have a chance against even an average player you will need a good mix of units. While brute force can work in some situations, it is just one of many strategies you can choose from while playing.

 

[-=jt=-]

"Earth 2150" nothing like most rts's ive played

 

[-JeZ-]

The XCOM series! I love those games! One of the first games I played on the PC after growing out of consoles (I still play on the XBOX from time to time but the PC has taken over). I wish they'd remake the original, UFO : Enemy Unknown. The recent remake (can't remeber the name of the game now!) just wasn't the same. Couldn't go inside buildings.

 

[Venmoch]

If we can include Psudo-RTS's I'd go with UFO:Aftermath.

Its cool but very very hard.

 

[oldagerocker]

Command and Conquer Generals (plus the Zero Hour expansion).

wow, that has got to be the most balanced command and conquer i've ever played.... and i love it. CHINA PWNS YOU FOR FREE!!!!

I've never pwnd anyone as China lol, The Auora bombers pwn all... far too cheap

 

[ShadowFox]

I'm gonna hafta disagree about starcraft being a brute force rts, and I'm sure most of Korea would too. The level of depth in that game is amazing. By your definition of brute force I should be able to kill anyone by sending mass zerglings at the enemy base and killing everything, but I'll make a list of some counters to that:
-Any air unit that can attack ground
-1 or 2 well-placed bunkers w/firebats
-siege tanks on higher ground
-iridiate
-lurkers
-plague
-dark templar
-psionic storm
And that is without even getting into unit combinations like zealot+dragoon which could also handle many zerglings easily. To have a chance against even an average player you will need a good mix of units. While brute force can work in some situations, it is just one of many strategies you can choose from while playing.

Every RTS game has stuff like this. Starcraft is a brute force RTS, even with it's absurd unit limits.

 

[JFry]

Every RTS game has stuff like this. Starcraft is a brute force RTS, even with it's absurd unit limits.

I fail to see how you can classify it as such when using overwhelming numbers can clearly be countered so easily. Even massed capital ships is easily countered. If you have any reasoning behind your statement I'd like to hear it.

 

[ShadowFox]

I fail to see how you can classify it as such when using overwhelming numbers can clearly be countered so easily. Even massed capital ships is easily countered. If you have any reasoning behind your statement I'd like to hear it.

Yes, and in Total Annihilation I can destroy a 100 unit enemy force using a single nuke. Sure there are ways to counter it, but TA is very much a brute force RTS. Starcraft is the same.

 

[CrazyHarij]

I strongly recommend Tiberian Sun.

The missions are fantastic, especially the GDI missions and the story with the cutscenes is like being part of a sci-fi movie.

The game is strongly influenced by apocalyptic futuristic movies and books, and I simply love it. Having a couple of lone soldiers running through a huge empty city to the tunes of Ion Storm or Heroism creates an atmosphere I never thought could be in a "simple" RTS game.
The skill system works great too, soldiers that stay alive longer in battle become significantly better and having a group of very high ranked soldiers and grenade troops often prove to be more effective than having a big army of tanks and hovercrafts. They are amazingly good at hit 'n' run missions and infiltrating a big enemy base, letting the rifle soldiers taking care of enemy troops while you use the heavy artillery soldiers to blow up power plants and other military buildings.
As your soldiers become more and more experienced, they can even do feats as dodging enemy vehicles and grenades much more effectively, and a single soldier can often cause alot of havoc on his own in an enemy base.

I like the defense part of the game as much as the offense part.

The building part is very simple and effective, and there's so many variations of building your base and designing it for a certain purpose.
For instance, a very effective way of playing at the start of a mission/skirmish match is to quickly build the basics of the buildings at the starting location, then send out units as scouts to find areas of Tiberium or strategically important areas as bridge crossings or hills, then sending the MCV (mobile construction unit, the big bad thing you don't want to lose) to that area and construct a second base, thus doubling the speed of tiberium income or stopping the enemy from advancing to that location.

As you probably can see, I'm very hyped up for the sequel of this game.
And if there's anyone here who agrees or disagrees with me on the games "greatness", please let me hear about your opinions.

 

[Cole]

SC is must brute force but there are still stratigies that can alter that perspective. But it's overall impossible to win in the end without brute force. So yeah Sc is more of a combination of a small amount of spells and startigy combined with a good amount of bruce force.

 

[JFry]

You could easily win without using "brute force". For example, if you catch your opponent without detection units you can easily win with a single dark templar. I'm sorry but you guys aren't really proving your points very well.

 

[ShadowFox]

The point is SC isn't any more complicated than other RTS games like it.

If you can't tell the difference between SC and Total War, then you are hopeless.

 

[Ames]

Ground Control 2 is wicked IMO.

You can download the full game of the original Ground Control at Fileplanet.

http://www.fileplanet.com/files/140000/142439.shtml

 

[dawdler]

The point is SC isn't any more complicated than other RTS games like it.

If you can't tell the difference between SC and Total War, then you are hopeless.

And in came someone that understands!!!
Here's a further explanation on the most important factor in knowing the difference of "complex" RTS and "brute" RTS:

Unit dependancy.
Build two units in your arbitrary game, say... Starcraft. Two marines with their neat machineguns. What do you have? First you had one marine with 50hp and 10 damage (just any kind of numbers, I dont know what they have). Then you have another unit with 50hp and 10 damage. In total you have 100hp and 20 damage, effectivly you have doubled your offensive power by building two units instead of 1.

Now do the same in Total War, say two archer units. What do you have now? You have twice as many men (ie "hitpoints"), but will they do twice as much damage? Hardly, it all depends on the armor of the enemy, or if its cavalry. The only thing they really give is increased offense by an undefined figure YOU need to find, and they are also each others flanking unit, gaining a morale boost from each other, possibly able to stay longer and thus do more damage.

The first is brute force and the only "strategy" it involves is getting the two units to target a single enemy, thus cause twice the damage. In the "complex" variant you never really know what your units are up to, how much damage they can cause... But as I've said, some games have a "twist", with area affecting units, thus unit dependancy (WC3 heroes for example).

Ah, I really need to stop this. In the end, WC3, Starcraft, Rome Total War are ALL must haves for any RTS fan

 

[JFry]

The point is SC isn't any more complicated than other RTS games like it.

If you can't tell the difference between SC and Total War, then you are hopeless.

I never even mentioned Total War. The point I am arguing is that starcraft is not a brute force rts. If you don't want to debate it that is fine by me, but hey that makes me the winner by default hehe. So far all you have stated is your opinion. If you want to make a statement like "starcraft is a brute force rts", be prepared to back it up with some facts.

 

[JFry]

And in came someone that understands!!!
Here's a further explanation on the most important factor in knowing the difference of "complex" RTS and "brute" RTS:

Unit dependancy.
Build two units in your arbitrary game, say... Starcraft. Two marines with their neat machineguns. What do you have? First you had one marine with 50hp and 10 damage (just any kind of numbers, I dont know what they have). Then you have another unit with 50hp and 10 damage. In total you have 100hp and 20 damage, effectivly you have doubled your offensive power by building two units instead of 1.

Now do the same in Total War, say two archer units. What do you have now? You have twice as many men (ie "hitpoints"), but will they do twice as much damage? Hardly, it all depends on the armor of the enemy, or if its cavalry. The only thing they really give is increased offense by an undefined figure YOU need to find, and they are also each others flanking unit, gaining a morale boost from each other, possibly able to stay longer and thus do more damage.

The first is brute force and the only "strategy" it involves is getting the two units to target a single enemy, thus cause twice the damage. In the "complex" variant you never really know what your units are up to, how much damage they can cause... But as I've said, some games have a "twist", with area affecting units, thus unit dependancy (WC3 heroes for example).

Ah, I really need to stop this. In the end, WC3, Starcraft, Rome Total War are ALL must haves for any RTS fan

It is hardly that simple in starcraft. First of all there are armor types, a firebat won't do as much damage to a tank as it will a zergling. Not to mention armor/weapon upgrades, flying units, cloaked units, burrowed units, etc. And that is without even getting into the complexity macromanaging your base and resource collecting. As far as I know Total War doesn't have these, tho I could be wrong about that as I've only played the demo.

We could sit here all day and make lists of features and I'm sure I could match you or even surpass on each one. However comparing the two is really a flawed argument as it is like comparing apples to oranges, they are two different genres. I can appreciate that you are mature enough to concede that they are all good games, and I will agree on that. All I'm saying is that starcraft is in no way simple or brute force.

 

[dawdler]

It is hardly that simple in starcraft. First of all there are armor types, a firebat won't do as much damage to a tank as it will a zergling. Not to mention armor/weapon upgrades, flying units, cloaked units, burrowed units, etc. And that is without even getting into the complexity macromanaging your base and resource collecting. As far as I know Total War doesn't have these, tho I could be wrong about that as I've only played the demo.

That wasnt really my point, my point was that if you have one unit and build another, you double your offensive or defensive strength, no argument. This is not the case in TW, as there are much more variables controlling the unit behaviour than damage and hitpoints.

 

[JFry]

That wasnt really my point, my point was that if you have one unit and build another, you double your offensive or defensive strength, no argument. This is not the case in TW, as there are much more variables controlling the unit behaviour than damage and hitpoints.

I don't see how the fact that 2 marines is better than 1 is relevant. That just seems logical to me. Anyways, I'll make a list of the variables tagged onto each unit in starcraft:
HP, dmg(formula), armor(formula), armor type, shields, speed, attack rate, attack range, unit size, location(low ground/high ground/air), sight range, cloaked/visible, supply cost, resource cost(2 kinds), build time, and there is probably a few I've missed.

 

[dawdler]

I don't see how the fact that 2 marines is better than 1 is relevant. That just seems logical to me. Anyways, I'll make a list of the variables tagged onto each unit in starcraft:
HP, dmg(formula), armor(formula), armor type, shields, speed, attack rate, attack range, unit size, location(low ground/high ground/air), sight range, cloaked/visible, supply cost, resource cost(2 kinds), build time, and there is probably a few I've missed.

I didnt know Starcraft used armor types or that unit size mattered...
Secondly damage and attack rate is the same, it all comes down to damage/s (or minute, or whatever).

But anyway, yes those things matter. But you still know EXACTLY what each unit can offer in combat... Which shows with the fact you can list the things. If you got one marine, you know exactly what another marine will get you: Twice the firepower.

I can not list all the things in TW, there are no hitpoints or damage, even speed and armor varies for the same unit due to doubletime/formation, as does support cost since you might need to reman the unit.

 

[JFry]

I didnt know Starcraft used armor types or that unit size mattered...
Secondly damage and attack rate is the same, it all comes down to damage/s (or minute, or whatever).

But anyway, yes those things matter. But you still know EXACTLY what each unit can offer in combat... Which shows with the fact you can list the things. If you got one marine, you know exactly what another marine will get you: Twice the firepower.

I can not list all the things in TW, there are no hitpoints or damage, even speed and armor varies for the same unit due to doubletime/formation, as does support cost since you might need to reman the unit.

Yes there are armor types (a tank has a different one than a biological unit). Unit size comes into play in terms of how many melee units can attack it at once. Only a few zerglings can attack a zealot at once but several can attack dragoon at once. Damage and attack rate are different altogether. You can upgrade one or the other, and it comes into play when you have to consider how quickly you can destroy a base.

The only reason I know those things are because I have wasted 2 years of my life playing it. I have the strategy guide and have visited several websites. Are you really gonna try to tell me TW is more complex just because it has obscure formulas which you don't know? How exactly do you form strategy then? It should be called a real-time-get lucky and win.

 

[dawdler]

Are you really gonna try to tell me TW is more complex just because it has obscure formulas which you don't know? How exactly do you form strategy then? It should be called a real-time-get lucky and win.

Its not obscure formulas you dont know... Secondly I wouldnt call the ability to win over an army 10x your size "getting lucky"... Its all about formations and flanking, knowing when to attack and when to fall back, with what unit. Winning or loosing a fight, not to mention the entire battle, is only half the strategy. In starcraft, winning or loosing is really not any option. Only winning matters (which of course is good, only way to advance ).

But I wont argue anymore, we just soak up forum space :cheese:

 

[Gunner]

I don't if anyone mentioned Dawn Of War, but the beta is available to practically everyone and it's very entertaining

 

[JFry]

But I wont argue anymore, we just soak up forum space :cheese:

Fine by me, I can certainly agree to disagree. No hard feelings I hope.