RTS Style?

[Steezie]

RTS games generally provide for several different styles of play.

So Im curious, what style do you prefer?

I usually stick with a strong defense on an ample stretch of ground. With a well defended stretch of ground, I can put together a plan and enough steel to make it happen.

 

[Windmill]

Gah, I wish I had played enough to have a style. Because my PC sucks I never got one, instead stuck to console gaming. For a belated birthday present my friend got me Warcraft 3 which kicks cheese.

My "style" tends to be more of a defensive style as I still haven't gotten the hand micromanagement

 

[willard3]

Well, I played Starcraft rather seriously for a while, even "attending" Starcraft University (not sure if it still exists).

Good general tactics include preliminary scouting and two-pronged attacks. Never hunker down, because it gives the enemy time to counter that with something big (in Starcraft, Zerg Guardians could bomb auto-defenses while remaining safely out of range).

 

[Dust and Ashes]

I generally tend to dig in and build a good, solid base then start sending out raiding parties with a couple of villagers to dig in at a new location, repeat till I have the whole map. Of course that's for a general skirmish map. I'm not very good at RTSs but I do love them.

 

[Techservant]

I like to stay defensive while slowly reaching out and raiding and take and holding. It makes it challenging.

 

[peanutbutter12]

I use to love RTS games, however, over the past few years I've been very disappointed in the releases like Empire Earth 2 and Age of Empires 3... they just seem to lack the depth they once had. :\

 

[Chrome]

I usually hunker down, but at the same time, seding small raiding parties to the other side. Then, i finish it with a massive two-to-three wave two-pronged attack. If this 'final strike' happens to fail, i usually have enough resource nodes to build up resources fast and enough structures to defend and rebuild units.

This is usually my strategy in Warcraft III and Starcraft

 

[Nightson]

Layers upon layers of defense while building up a massive attack force to decimate my enemies.

 

[Lithium Hobo]

I typically, for lack of a better word, suck at RTS games, so my style is not one you should adopt, lol.

What I usually do is build up my base as far as a unit creator, an upgrade building, and several defenses on all the entrance ways to my base to try and bottle neck the advancing enemy.

I can build up a mean defense, but i usually get impatient and send out a weak attack just so I can get something going. That's why I usually fail. However, in the C&C 3 demo, each game I've played online I've done pretty darn well, surprisingly. They never seem to see an aerial attack coming and I just have 8 orcas bomb the base into the ground.

 

[Blackguard_]

Been a long while since I played a gather-build-conquer style RTS. I tend to stick to Myth/Total War/Close COmbat style RTS's. In those, I try to do the Stonewall Jackson thing of being on the offensive strategically and the defense tactically, i.e. setting up defensive positions that impel the enemy to attack them. A really forward defense basically. I tend to keep my forces together (pincer movements seem to turn into "divide and conquer") but will keep reserves and/or flankers nearby. I used to favor smaller armies of elite units basically winning using the attritiion of the last stand but lately have taken to using cheaper units to hold the enemy in place for more elite units to flank. If I'm feeling really bold, I'll try a Cannae manuever.

ANyone else take a shine to using historical formations? I've tried using Maurice of Nassaus's formations in Rome Total War, but archers aren;t strong enough for it to work well unless you're fighting a poorly armored opponent and slingers are too spread out.

 

[Psalms34]

Gather intel.
Establish choke points.
Tank rush.
Sometimes launch a few nukes as I move in or mop up.
Depends on the game.
I prefer Civ though, but RTS is still ok.

 

[Steezie]

The problem with classical formations is that the computer doesnt respond as a normal human commander would.

The CPU is nigh uppon stone stupid. Its NOT hard to trick it. Even on super hard modes in most games, even the most basic strategy can make for a pretty one-sided battle. Rome Total War is a good example, the CPU isnt exactly creative.

 

[Blackguard_]

The problem with classical formations is that the computer doesnt respond as a normal human commander would.

Yeah, RTW is absolutely horrible with phalanxes. They always split them up. The Mideival Total War AI was much more competent with it's units, it could actually retreat and re-position for one. RTW AI is too prone to reckless disjointed charges.

The CPU is nigh uppon stone stupid. Its NOT hard to trick it. Even on super hard modes in most games, even the most basic strategy can make for a pretty one-sided battle. Rome Total War is a good example, the CPU isnt exactly creative

Simply non-creative AI would have been great, but too often it's just insane. I gave up on RTW and went back to modded MTW. THe AI just can't handle phalanx warfare.

 

[Steezie]

Yeah, RTW is absolutely horrible with phalanxes. They always split them up. The Mideival Total War AI was much more competent with it's units, it could actually retreat and re-position for one. RTW AI is too prone to reckless charges.

Actually my phalanxes held rather well. One tactic I found to be brutally effective was on the defending side of a siege. You plug up the alleyways around your central square with phalanxes. I always shoot for atleast three squads deep. You inflict huge casualties with very few losses. Even weak phalanx units can hold off a good sized army. The only real problem is with thrown spears. Phalanx units have thier shileds up so even a good number of spear volleys wont take too many casualties but it has a bad impact on morale.

If your unit breaks, consider it dead. Itt'l get caught between the phalanx behind it and the enemy in front and is virtually guaranteed to be slaughtered.

Simply non-creative AI would have been great, but too often it's just insane. I gave up on RTW and went back to modded MTW. THe Ai just can't handle phalanx warfare.

The AI is just too easy to out-wit. A good example is with cavalry. If Im facing an army with cavalry, I advance at a walk then a run. Then I divide my forces in half, one half goes to the left, one to the right. The computer usually makes a poor show of trying to respond (Usually by un-evenly splitting thier own army) and they get cavalry on both flanks. That usually doenst last long as they break and run with my cavalry chasing them down as they flee

 

[A2597]

I like multiple methods...

I tech up really fast, while maintaining a small defencive force. Then I put up lots of defences while building my main weapons, all the max tech stuff. I usually also make a plan B...Nuclear Attack Sub. MUUAHAHAHA!!!


Ahem...(This is Supreme Commander BTW)


I've also been known to Rush my opponents.

 

[Blackguard_]

Actually my phalanxes held rather well.

As did mine, I was referring to the AI not being able to handle them, such as instead of using solid lines of them, just having them spread out and and often attacking your lines piecmal. Very easy to flank them and/or rush the gaps in their "lines".

One tactic I found to be brutally effective was on the defending side of a siege. You plug up the alleyways around your central square with phalanxes.

I would just form a pike square in the central courtyard. BUt that does sound like a good idea, a good phalanx in the streets is almost unbeatable.

I always shoot for atleast three squads deep. You inflict huge casualties with very few losses. Even weak phalanx units can hold off a good sized army. The only real problem is with thrown spears. Phalanx units have thier shileds up so even a good number of spear volleys wont take too many casualties but it has a bad impact on morale.

Yep, phalanxes can be awesome.

If your unit breaks, consider it dead. Itt'l get caught between the phalanx behind it and the enemy in front and is virtually guaranteed to be slaughtered.

Yeah, you simply can't let the breaking unit reatreat safely without opening a gap in your lines.

The AI is just too easy to out-wit.

well, yeah, although I think it being crazy and reckless is more of a problem at this point. The AI should be acting sensibly before we start worrying about it not being witty.

 

[Steezie]

As did mine, I was referring to the AI not being able to handle them, such as instead of using solid lines of them, just having them spread out and and often attacking your lines piecmal. Very easy to flank them and/or rush the gaps in their "lines".

True, and they tend to break the phalanx rather readily.

I would just form a pike square in the central courtyard. BUt that does sound like a good idea, a good phalanx in the streets is almost unbeatable.

A phalanx in a street cannot be flanked and presents its strongest side to the enemy. The only counter I've found to it is elephants

Yeah, you simply can't let the breaking unit reatreat safely without opening a gap in your lines.

I usually let them get slaughtered if they start to run. Better a few of them than my entire army

well, yeah, although I think it being crazy and reckless is more of a problem at this point. The AI should be acting sensibly before we start worrying about it not being witty.

Even basic strategy is beyond it. One of the things I like to do is to create a small village filled with nothing but villagers. Then turn on Arcade mode, sit outside the village and pummel it with archers. The AI would probably win the battle if it simply rushed out with all the civillians. They generally send a few units out (Which are predictably slaughtered) then retreat.

 

[JacobHall86]

Im an American, so I build a large Army and destory the enemy while building a large nation.

 

[Lithium Hobo]

Im an American, so I build a large Army and destory the enemy while building a large nation.

Dunno what your nationality has anything to do with your play style, but alright.

 

[vonPrutz]

The best strategy is to not have one. If you do you become predictable and easily defeated. The best plan is to advance with separate armies and out maneuver your enemy bring the maximum of your force to bear on his minimum to bring about a crushing defeat. If you ever have to fight more then one battle you made a big mistake