5 ms·

The new AOE never hooked me. I desperately wanted it to. Feels like there is no RTS salvation possible anymore. I don’t know what it is about the older titles,

The new AOE never hooked me. I desperately wanted it to. Feels like there is no RTS salvation possible anymore. I don’t know what it is about the older titles, but I can still play supcom (as FAF now) all day and enjoy the hell out of it. I also played the shit out of BFME2 until the servers got taken down. Sometimes I get an itch for StarCraft 2, but it’s a hard game to play competently. Requires a certain… sweatiness.

smolder 4y ago
Re: StarCraft 2, I think it's a shame that playing at lower speeds never really caught on. Both SC1 and SC2 have (or at least had?) options like "normal", faster, and fastest speed, but the community normalized on the highest speed as the standard, where mechanical skill is much more important to winning, and you don't get much time to plan anything.
- guenthert 4y ago
  You plan ahead of time. Of course, no plan survives contact with the opponent and then you improvise. There is, as you correctly observed, no time for conscious thinking then. It's all 'muscle memory' so to speak. Hence you won't be competitive until you have played thousands of games. The match-making algorithm ensures that you win ~50% of the times, unless you're at either extreme of the skill level. Every so often (or quite often) you're matched with a vastly superior opponent and blasted to pieces, but it's already much better than SC1 w/o such match-making, where beginners never saw the light. Also Blizzard has a good handle on cheating in SC2 (unlike SC1).
- trinovantes 4y ago
  The early game on normal speed is insanely boring but mid/late game on fastest can be overwhelming I think it's a bit of a shame Archon mode (2v2 but 2 players control a single "player") never took off and eventually got cancelled
  - WJW 4y ago
    Archon mode still exists though, for example Harstem (SC2 pro/streamer) posted a video of a 3vs3 with some of the best players in the world just 2 days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eThKoRNB6Wc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eThKoRNB6Wc You're right that the archon ladder is a shadow of the 1v1 ladder though.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  Optimal play doesn't really involve much novel planning unless you're an absolute god at the game. Until then you're likely to see more improvement just improving your execution... which sucks
  - WJW 4y ago
    That is how most sports are. There's not all that much strategy involved in amateur league tennis or football either, execution rules supreme. I don't think you can separate out execution from strategy unless you explicitly separate out the time pressure, such as in (non-bullet/blitz) chess. But RTS without the RT part is a very different game.
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      Yeah, it's not that it's unique or anything. But the S is supposed to be the value prop of the RTS genre. Most people are fine with the focus being on execution for sports and FPS and what not.
      - d1sxeyes 4y ago
        Well compare and contrast with turn-based strategy games like Civilisation - I don't think the S is the value proposition per se. I think the combination of RT + S is what drives people to the genre. There are plenty of excellent turn-based strategy games where time pressure is effectively removed, and only the planning component is important. I'd recommend turn-based strategy for anyone who is not particularly interested in the execution part.
    - Blozvez 4y ago
      [dead]
    - Regardozz 4y ago
      Well, that's for the amateur sports, but I can tell you that if we're talking about professional sports where players are way more skilled, the strategy there plays a huge role. I didn't understand that before I started keeping track of the sports with http://www.televisionet.tv/ http://www.televisionet.tv/ , but at the same time, it's pretty obvious that execution rules supreme anyway, there's no doubt
_the_inflator 4y ago
Same here. Age of Empires II is still the cash cow. Neither AoE III or Age of Myth hooked me. AoE II is the best RTS in my opinion. Timing, game play, balance, fun with others. I even - GOG - reinstalled Warcraft 2 lately and enjoyed its simplicity. ;)
- dragontamer 4y ago
  AOE2 is wonky, but that's what makes it good. Villagers collide with each other, forcing you to find new tree-lines (compared to Starcraft/Starcraft2 SCVs/workers which "stack" on each other for maximum mineral collecting at all times). Units in AOE2 move terribly, minimizing what you can do with micro (sure, micro is still possible, but this ain't no "magic box Psi Storm", nor a 11-muta harass here). AOE2 "micro" is largely delegated to patrol-shennanigans and "zvzvzvz" (staggered formation / flank-formation) for dodging magonel shots. ------- SC2 had units deathball too easily with perfect flocking behavior. The 90s-style crappy flocking behavior / collisions (aka: idiotic Dragoons from SC:Brood War or AOE2 pathing issues) somehow balances the game for the better. Once units "deathball" too easily, you end up with well... deathball-style combat. By making units get less-efficient the bigger the group (ie: Dragoons going the wrong direction or getting stuck in paths, or AOE2 units running around not understanding how to attack the damn enemy cause the group is too big), it forces the players into controling smaller groups and more strategically using them. Which seems like more fun? Its annoying because the "units don't do what you want them to do" (and SC2 units really "do what you want them to do"). But... somehow its less balanced with the SC2 approach. ------- The key to a good strategy game is to accept and recognize the duality of Lanchester's Linear Law (ie: Risk rules), and Lanchester's Quadratic Law (ie: Axis and Allies). If you overly focus on the Quadratic law, you end up with death-balls. If you overly focus on the linear law, it feels like additional units don't support each other and the game feels very flat (ie: Risk-like). But if you have a rich continuum between the two laws, you end up with great gameplay (Starcraft: Brood War, AOE2, and Hearts of Iron 3). Let units get quadratically stronger as they flock together... but only to a point. (IE; the size of the front in Hearts of Iron 3. Or until the "Magic Box size" in Starcraft:Brood War). Once the units grow beyond that, they need to be hampered and grow more linearly, encouraging a more diverse set of combat situations.
javajosh 4y ago
Dark Reign was a sleek, fun RTS that never got the attention is should have. It's balance was awful - but you can solve that with a gentleman's agreement. Total Annihilation was still played as of ~8 years ago.
- melolife 4y ago
  https://www.beyondallreason.info/ https://www.beyondallreason.info/
degenerate 4y ago
Keep an eye out for Stormgate: https://youtu.be/0UqxgaWuYss https://youtu.be/0UqxgaWuYss A handful of the original devs for Starcraft 2 got together and created Frost Giant Studios. I'm hoping it jumpstarts the RTS genre again
jonbaer 4y ago
I still feel like 0AD (https://play0ad.com https://play0ad.com) moves at just the right speed and isn't as chaotic as everything else. With the source open, soundtrack/art/etc, it's really a more relaxing play, especially when you find the right opening play/map/options.
29athrowaway 4y ago
In SC II, you can switch to the grid layout. That helps with the keyboard side of things.
bigDinosaur 4y ago
FAF is good. A shame the gigantic maps are impossible to really enjoy though, there's a sweet spot with supcom between too big and too small where it works really well, but outside of that it falls apart. I find the late game incredibly boring because of how slow it can be, but the mid-game to the first cheaper experimentals is super fun. Also, balancing air. It seems to be impossible to make it fun or balanced at the final tier.
denkmoon 4y ago
Did you play AoE2:DE? It is the classic, but with quality of life improvements and regular balance updates.
_carbyau_ 4y ago
FAF is great but a journey in development: - Supreme Commander - Forged Alliance extra - Forever community and the fantastic extra MAPS, Units, extension of capabilities. That is a LOT of development time. Other features I like: - It will scale up as computing power gets better. - If one player has a computer struggling to keep up, it doesn't desync or drop them, it slows down. Sometimes to an unplayable point but one nuke can remove enough units to make it better again.
drunkenmagician 4y ago
Ah, Battle for Middle Earth 2 (BFME2)! Now that brings back fond memories (and countless wasted hours defending Helms Deep / Minus Tirith from 2 other players!). Perhaps not an iconic example of an RTS, but certainly a fun one for any LoTR fans
chucky123 4y ago
There's nothing literally close to supcom(faf). I reckon faf, and maybe cnc3/ra3 will be the only viable rts games for casual players in the next 5 years.
- PetahNZ 4y ago
  Beyond All Reason gets pretty close
adammarples 4y ago
+1 for FAF, really the only game I've been playing for years. And most of that has been camped out on Seton's Rock playing the same build order and yet it is still deeply satisfying watching a 2 hour game unfold

smolder 4y ago

Re: StarCraft 2, I think it's a shame that playing at lower speeds never really caught on. Both SC1 and SC2 have (or at least had?) options like "normal", faster, and fastest speed, but the community normalized on the highest speed as the standard, where mechanical skill is much more important to winning, and you don't get much time to plan anything.

guenthert 4y ago
You plan ahead of time. Of course, no plan survives contact with the opponent and then you improvise. There is, as you correctly observed, no time for conscious thinking then. It's all 'muscle memory' so to speak. Hence you won't be competitive until you have played thousands of games. The match-making algorithm ensures that you win ~50% of the times, unless you're at either extreme of the skill level. Every so often (or quite often) you're matched with a vastly superior opponent and blasted to pieces, but it's already much better than SC1 w/o such match-making, where beginners never saw the light. Also Blizzard has a good handle on cheating in SC2 (unlike SC1).
trinovantes 4y ago
The early game on normal speed is insanely boring but mid/late game on fastest can be overwhelming I think it's a bit of a shame Archon mode (2v2 but 2 players control a single "player") never took off and eventually got cancelled
- WJW 4y ago
  Archon mode still exists though, for example Harstem (SC2 pro/streamer) posted a video of a 3vs3 with some of the best players in the world just 2 days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eThKoRNB6Wc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eThKoRNB6Wc You're right that the archon ladder is a shadow of the 1v1 ladder though.
spywaregorilla 4y ago
Optimal play doesn't really involve much novel planning unless you're an absolute god at the game. Until then you're likely to see more improvement just improving your execution... which sucks
- WJW 4y ago
  That is how most sports are. There's not all that much strategy involved in amateur league tennis or football either, execution rules supreme. I don't think you can separate out execution from strategy unless you explicitly separate out the time pressure, such as in (non-bullet/blitz) chess. But RTS without the RT part is a very different game.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    Yeah, it's not that it's unique or anything. But the S is supposed to be the value prop of the RTS genre. Most people are fine with the focus being on execution for sports and FPS and what not.
    - d1sxeyes 4y ago
      Well compare and contrast with turn-based strategy games like Civilisation - I don't think the S is the value proposition per se. I think the combination of RT + S is what drives people to the genre. There are plenty of excellent turn-based strategy games where time pressure is effectively removed, and only the planning component is important. I'd recommend turn-based strategy for anyone who is not particularly interested in the execution part.
  - Blozvez 4y ago
    [dead]
  - Regardozz 4y ago
    Well, that's for the amateur sports, but I can tell you that if we're talking about professional sports where players are way more skilled, the strategy there plays a huge role. I didn't understand that before I started keeping track of the sports with http://www.televisionet.tv/ http://www.televisionet.tv/ , but at the same time, it's pretty obvious that execution rules supreme anyway, there's no doubt

_the_inflator 4y ago

Same here. Age of Empires II is still the cash cow. Neither AoE III or Age of Myth hooked me. AoE II is the best RTS in my opinion. Timing, game play, balance, fun with others. I even - GOG - reinstalled Warcraft 2 lately and enjoyed its simplicity. ;)

dragontamer 4y ago
AOE2 is wonky, but that's what makes it good. Villagers collide with each other, forcing you to find new tree-lines (compared to Starcraft/Starcraft2 SCVs/workers which "stack" on each other for maximum mineral collecting at all times). Units in AOE2 move terribly, minimizing what you can do with micro (sure, micro is still possible, but this ain't no "magic box Psi Storm", nor a 11-muta harass here). AOE2 "micro" is largely delegated to patrol-shennanigans and "zvzvzvz" (staggered formation / flank-formation) for dodging magonel shots. ------- SC2 had units deathball too easily with perfect flocking behavior. The 90s-style crappy flocking behavior / collisions (aka: idiotic Dragoons from SC:Brood War or AOE2 pathing issues) somehow balances the game for the better. Once units "deathball" too easily, you end up with well... deathball-style combat. By making units get less-efficient the bigger the group (ie: Dragoons going the wrong direction or getting stuck in paths, or AOE2 units running around not understanding how to attack the damn enemy cause the group is too big), it forces the players into controling smaller groups and more strategically using them. Which seems like more fun? Its annoying because the "units don't do what you want them to do" (and SC2 units really "do what you want them to do"). But... somehow its less balanced with the SC2 approach. ------- The key to a good strategy game is to accept and recognize the duality of Lanchester's Linear Law (ie: Risk rules), and Lanchester's Quadratic Law (ie: Axis and Allies). If you overly focus on the Quadratic law, you end up with death-balls. If you overly focus on the linear law, it feels like additional units don't support each other and the game feels very flat (ie: Risk-like). But if you have a rich continuum between the two laws, you end up with great gameplay (Starcraft: Brood War, AOE2, and Hearts of Iron 3). Let units get quadratically stronger as they flock together... but only to a point. (IE; the size of the front in Hearts of Iron 3. Or until the "Magic Box size" in Starcraft:Brood War). Once the units grow beyond that, they need to be hampered and grow more linearly, encouraging a more diverse set of combat situations.

javajosh 4y ago

Dark Reign was a sleek, fun RTS that never got the attention is should have. It's balance was awful - but you can solve that with a gentleman's agreement. Total Annihilation was still played as of ~8 years ago.

melolife 4y ago
https://www.beyondallreason.info/ https://www.beyondallreason.info/

degenerate 4y ago

Keep an eye out for Stormgate: https://youtu.be/0UqxgaWuYss https://youtu.be/0UqxgaWuYss A handful of the original devs for Starcraft 2 got together and created Frost Giant Studios. I'm hoping it jumpstarts the RTS genre again

jonbaer 4y ago

I still feel like 0AD (https://play0ad.com https://play0ad.com) moves at just the right speed and isn't as chaotic as everything else. With the source open, soundtrack/art/etc, it's really a more relaxing play, especially when you find the right opening play/map/options.

29athrowaway 4y ago

In SC II, you can switch to the grid layout. That helps with the keyboard side of things.

bigDinosaur 4y ago

FAF is good. A shame the gigantic maps are impossible to really enjoy though, there's a sweet spot with supcom between too big and too small where it works really well, but outside of that it falls apart. I find the late game incredibly boring because of how slow it can be, but the mid-game to the first cheaper experimentals is super fun. Also, balancing air. It seems to be impossible to make it fun or balanced at the final tier.

denkmoon 4y ago

Did you play AoE2:DE? It is the classic, but with quality of life improvements and regular balance updates.

_carbyau_ 4y ago

FAF is great but a journey in development: - Supreme Commander - Forged Alliance extra - Forever community and the fantastic extra MAPS, Units, extension of capabilities. That is a LOT of development time. Other features I like: - It will scale up as computing power gets better. - If one player has a computer struggling to keep up, it doesn't desync or drop them, it slows down. Sometimes to an unplayable point but one nuke can remove enough units to make it better again.

drunkenmagician 4y ago

Ah, Battle for Middle Earth 2 (BFME2)! Now that brings back fond memories (and countless wasted hours defending Helms Deep / Minus Tirith from 2 other players!). Perhaps not an iconic example of an RTS, but certainly a fun one for any LoTR fans

chucky123 4y ago

There's nothing literally close to supcom(faf). I reckon faf, and maybe cnc3/ra3 will be the only viable rts games for casual players in the next 5 years.

PetahNZ 4y ago
Beyond All Reason gets pretty close

adammarples 4y ago

+1 for FAF, really the only game I've been playing for years. And most of that has been camped out on Seton's Rock playing the same build order and yet it is still deeply satisfying watching a 2 hour game unfold