RTS games... who played it?

[Hishandmaiden]

Games like AOE, AOK, EE etc.

If you do, please....please teach me how not to lose.

I always lose unless I used cheat codes....

..........

 

[A Sheep]

If you can, turn down the speed of the game, to a slower-than-real-time speed. Use the keyboard short-cut keys/key combos. Also, play it slowly, be defensive, purchase things wisely, and try not to spread out too much for the first little while of each level. And cheat codes can be cool; Sim City!

 

[seebs]

I don't play 'em, because it's an oxymoron. Strategy is thought. Clicking is not. I'd play those games if you could pause, give orders, and resume... but you generally can't. So, if you want strategy, play turn-based games, where you *can* have some strategy.

 

[Hishandmaiden]

I know RTS games require you to be speedy with your fingers.
The problem is for AOE, I can still beat the easy level, but when it comes to Hard, well, they always advance at a faster speed than me.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by seebs
I don't play 'em, because it's an oxymoron. Strategy is thought. Clicking is not. I'd play those games if you could pause, give orders, and resume... but you generally can't. So, if you want strategy, play turn-based games, where you *can* have some strategy.

Long time, no chat, friend.

I know the feeling, seebs. Sometimes, at least to me, it seems like nothing but a moronic blasting away at the opposing force.

"Stockpile, Blast... Stockpile, Blast"

And to me, probably one of the most moronic things about RTSs is the limited capability to view "undiscovered" areas of the map. I mean, if you're honestly going to launch strategic attacks, you need to see the landscape. Having to send out "scouts" to bring more area into view is a waste of time, resources, and gameplay, IMHO. I'd much rather get to spend that time studying terrain and developing attack patterns and maneuvers. And I'm sure there may be some advantages to having "undiscovered" terrain, but I fail to see them.

Don't get me wrong. I like RTSs. I just wish there was more opportunity for actual strategy, as you say.

 

[Hishandmaiden]

EE allows you to set a citizen on exploration on his own. In that way, dosn't it well... sort of help to take away one of the "Barrier" of RTS?

 

[seebs]

Some, but the killer for me is that I refuse to play a "strategy game" where I can lose resources by missing something by three pixels with a mouse. That's no fun.

 

[Hishandmaiden]

So what strategy games do you play?
Risk?

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by seebs
Some, but the killer for me is that I refuse to play a "strategy game" where I can lose resources by missing something by three pixels with a mouse. That's no fun.

Oh definitely... There is no pinpoint accuracy in these games. The graphics are so small, and you're usually moving so fast, that strategy starts to not matter. Gameplay takes on a stoic, hit-and-miss feeling.

Another thing that kills me, is that if you're assigning multiple projects on distant areas of the map, it becomes very frustrating trying to keep them all in check. While you're defending your HQ, rebuilding your silos, and collecting ore, your armies could be getting slaughtered 50 miles away. That just doesn't seem like fair gameplay, to me.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by rpggal
So what strategy games do you play?
Risk?

Heroes of Might & Magic, Civilization, MOO2 (and probably MOO3 sometime soon), stuff like that. I seem to recall there was a game called "warlords" that I sort of liked, but I lose CD's sometimes, and haven't seen it for a while.

I've liked all of the HOMM series. 1 was fairly light-hearted; 2 is well balanced, 3 is excellent, 4 is excellent. 4 doesn't entirely replace 3; they're fairly different games.

I actually rather liked Baldur's Gate, which had some "strategy game" to it - if RTS games had an interface like BG's, where you could pause, give new orders, and resume, I'd play 'em more. If you have a GBA, it is hard to imagine a game cooler than Advance Wars. Zone of the Enders for GBA has some strategy to it. Also plenty of things like Vandal Hearts and Final Fantasy Tactics for the PSX.

 

[Hishandmaiden]

Well, I like Civilisation 2.
It was one of the first strategy game I ever played.

 

[l33tace]

Before RTS I played turned-base in the DOS and C-64 realm

My first favorite RTS game was Lords of the Realm 2, and I played that on-line against other people all the time. It was turned-based and RTS.

I then played command & conquer and Red Alert till I was blue in the face. You just gota love the tank rush tactic as your on-line opponent screamed and talked smack at you as his defenses crumbled. That was a fun game to play with friends.

AOE and AOK came next. Best tactic I found was to build up lots of walls in the forests and make a lot of archers and towers at the start. I hardly played it on-line much so I can’t give any good PvP tactics with this game. Lots of tactics to read on the net I’ve seen though.

I got tired of RTS and went to pure turn-base again. I like Civ3 a lot and look forward to picking up “C3lay the world” when I get around to it.
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">I say when I get around to it because I’m so addicted to Battle Field 1942 now. It’s a shooter but it has more to do with tactics than Q3 or unreal along the pure shooter line of games. It’s more like Ghost Recon or a lot like Counter-Strike where RL tactics and physics are more in play. I’m usually drawn more towards the games that play better with other people working as a unit and I get board playing against the computer real fast. MMORPG’s are like that too.

Peace

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I've had to distance myself in the last few years from strategy games. Mainly because they're so darned addicting!

I used to play a lot of AOE, Warcraft (and its sequel; haven't got WC3, though), Civ2 & Civ3, Command and Conquer, and probably some more I can't remember off the top of my head.

But yeah, sitting down in the evening to play one of those games for a "half hour" then suddenly realizing it's 3 a.m.... that got to be too much for me.

 

[Starscream]

Originally posted by seebs
I don't play 'em, because it's an oxymoron. Strategy is thought. Clicking is not. I'd play those games if you could pause, give orders, and resume... but you generally can't. So, if you want strategy, play turn-based games, where you *can* have some strategy.

You might want to give Freedom Force a try, it's simply the best game I've played yet this year (might change after I get Metroid Prime though).

Freedom Force isn't exactly turn-based per se, but you can pause and give orders (like Baldur's Gate), and the sense of humor is magnificant!

For those of you that like RTS games, you might want to check out Conquest:&nbsp; Frontier Wars.&nbsp; You should be able to find it for a low price at EB ($9.99 or less).

(I mention it because it's my first shipped game - yeah, a bit of a shameless plug - but man I put a lot of work into that game)

 

[seebs]

I played FF a bit, it's currently uninstalled to make room for Neverwinter Nights. I love NWN as a game, but I hate the henchmen; they're *EXACTLY* like real players.

 

[Çhàïn$]

BG is not a strategy game. it's a click fest like diablo and all their respective clones.

I own the first RTS (Dune II) for PC (even wrote a emu to port for linux [back to that nerd thread])

RTS does take some getting used to and there is more strategy than RPGs anyday. Sure you can take time but instantanious reflexes show what you can do. Though chess is a turn based strategy game, why is it my friend and I can take each other out in less than a minuite and a half flat, though we've played the game our whole lives? Meh.. sure we could go real slow like everyone else and STILL have the same outcome. It's all in the gray matter....