RE: RTS thoughts (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Reiryc -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/3/2005 4:16:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bossy573

quote:

The only RTS game to do this well is HTTR.


What is HTTR?

I glanced at Act of War a few times. Maybe I should take a closer look.


httr=highway to the reich... a matrix game.



Zap -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/3/2005 1:51:41 PM)

quote:

There are times when I'm in the mood to just "blow stuff up" in purty lookin' games and at that those times


Yes, I agree with you. But I also believe that it must work the same with strictly RTS players. Most younger than myself, for sure!
They get tired of shoot em,up bang bang. [sm=00000106.gif] And feel the call of something more challenging to the mind? Where they can learn about battle tactics on the grand scale or tactical level.

I found this aspect intriging when I first began. I've never served in the military but playing the turn based game I sure learned a lot about artillery placement , types of weapons, battle tactics, world history. ect.

Playing a good turn based wargame will leave you more intelectually satisfied. And gives you a sense of history/battle while having played an enjoyable game.
I think the command rooms (at least what I saw in war movies) had maps and little pieces to identify troops/ships ect. They were/are moved around to show the development of the war.
I guess what I'm looking for most times in a game is Intellectual satisfaction/fun as opposed an emotionalhigh/fun.

Rts games(as described by many above) it seems to me are trying to get you to experiece the emotional feeling a soldier has on the battlefield. That to me will always fail.
You can not capture the emotions a soldier feels out there in battle with friends he has been with for two or more years. Whereas you can experience the battle on an intellectual level more easily with more personal satisfaction.
Well,these are some of my thoughts on this matter. Maybe not yet so developed. But some of us like to dabble in the philosophy of things.

It is a good thread, though! I agree with Wodin, there are many who come into these Forums ( only playing Rts games) who would like to hear what others think about the turn based game. And from here actually give one a try.

Just bought HTTr have to see what the game system feel is that you have been talking about. I'm open minded




wodin -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/3/2005 6:53:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DamoclesX

Try Act of War

A lot of people like to crap on it cause it plays like generals, but its 10 times better.

Most of the people crying about rushes in that game consist of morons fighting morons who dont know anything else to do.

My buddy and I played online for a long time and we tryed out all those "rush" tactics, and using the us army I was ALWAYS able to stop an overwelming tank rush with proper armor tactics.

I would use a line of m1a2's flanked by bradlys and backed up with paladins and mrls for ground combat, I also had snipers and infantry mixed in there for support in addition to backing up that division with apaches in the air and f15s and a10s on call.

He could send 3x the number of units at me and Id bust him up every time just because of the coverage of fire, also, I would have repair choppers on call, and medi helocopters taking away the wounded and flying in new recruits, it was just like a real war, hell in the city part of the map I had a black hawk down(literly) loaded with delta force!! rather expensive infantry, what started with 5 guys trying to get to cover and be rescued ended up in a10 strikes, more blackhawks comming in with backup, f15s flying over head and eventually b2s and a damn nuclear strike before it was all sorted out!.

I love the game, its so much fun, I think it does the most relistic urban combat ever!, that army, while kicking ass in the open, can be taken apart piece of piece in urban combat, you have shield units running down allys hitting you and fleeing befor your turrents come around, you have infantry in the buildins sniping you every damn block, its intense!!

And, you can call in b2s to level the white house, I mean come on! what more do you want lol.

Not to mention, unlike generals, there is no super uber anything, everything from infantry to nuclear missiles has a counter.


Whats the LOS like in the game?

Also are weapon loads/trajectory/ armour penetration modelled reasonably well?

Are Infantry cannon fodder or can a squad of men survive awhile and actually do some damage or are they supermen?

Can you gve ordes to squads i.e set up ambush similar to the way you could with CC and CM?

Is there loads of micro management?

Is each soldier or even squads morale modelled?

DO men recover in the same way as in say Blitz and Sudden Striek or are they either wounded or dead similar to CC?

I presume the Nuclear Strike ended the game due to the scale of it?

I'm not trying to knock it as I haven't played it but these issues and other similar ones I have real problems with in most RTS games.

I imagine the game is fun and a good blast if you are good at the RTS mechanics. Apart from CC I'm useless at them. I'm OK at very small scenarios but after that I find them a chore.

Great to watch though.



Bossy573 -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/3/2005 7:00:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap
Rts games(as described by many above) it seems to me are trying to get you to experiece the emotional feeling a soldier has on the battlefield. That to me will always fail.


True, but then again (thankfully) no one's life is on the line. Its all for fun.

RTS games do have one advantage and that is they simulate events as they happen. Men on the battlefield don't have a "pause" option and as such, a well done RTS can offer a very different (and just as satisfying) intellectual challange from an operational and strategic level turn based game.

For me, it all depends what kind of mood I'm in, what kind of time I have and whether I'm just dog-tired from a day at work or wide awake and sharp. Both forms have their merits and both can be fun as hell.

One thing is plain to me. Wargames - strategy games are going through a type of Renaissance which is very welcome indeed.



DamoclesX -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/3/2005 9:04:21 PM)


quote:



Whats the LOS like in the game?

Also are weapon loads/trajectory/ armour penetration modelled reasonably well?

Are Infantry cannon fodder or can a squad of men survive awhile and actually do some damage or are they supermen?

Can you gve ordes to squads i.e set up ambush similar to the way you could with CC and CM?

Is there loads of micro management?

Is each soldier or even squads morale modelled?

DO men recover in the same way as in say Blitz and Sudden Striek or are they either wounded or dead similar to CC?

I presume the Nuclear Strike ended the game due to the scale of it?

I'm not trying to knock it as I haven't played it but these issues and other similar ones I have real problems with in most RTS games.

I imagine the game is fun and a good blast if you are good at the RTS mechanics. Apart from CC I'm useless at them. I'm OK at very small scenarios but after that I find them a chore.

Great to watch though.


Line of site seems to work decently, you can see around buildings and stuff unless you have somebody there.

Weapons seem right, infantry cant damage tanks with their guns, bigger guns like the m1a2 will chew through lightly skinned units.

Infantry is VERY deadly and very usefull in this game, pretty much the first rts they are in, in the urban enviros, they can shread an armor coloum if you setup an ambush right, same with any regions with cover, in the flat open with no cover they are fodder.

Ya you can ambush, you can tell them to hide in bushs and trees and what not and they will got into ambush mode

Not really much micro managment, you get many through oil rigs, banks in the cities, or capturing prisoners(who you can torcher for information lol)

No moral I can tell of

They are wounded or dead, its different, wounded soldiers can be healed on the stop by medical choppers, or flown back to base to be healed there at the hostpital if iits to hostial, but it works differently for each faction, task force talon has nano suits that can heal them in the field.

When they are in a battle, they can eaither be killed, or injured to the point where they cant move, if thats the case they can be taken prisoner.

The nuclear strike is like a low yield tactical nuke, it takes out a city block or so, really low yeild, now, if it dropped into the middle of the base then ya, end of game lol.

You can build as many as you want, but its not like a true 50 kiloton strike that would clean the map.



Basically think cc except the infantry is good, more options for tactics, units that blow up instantly and combined arms that really work.

For example units will move in formation and all at the same speed and such.

Its not perfect, but its a lot better then generals.





wodin -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/4/2005 2:14:11 AM)

Thanks.

I find the only RTS game Ive played where the infantry works well is Close Combat2 - 5.



Sarge -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/4/2005 2:56:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Thanks.

I find the only RTS game Ive played where the infantry works well is Close Combat2 - 5.



I totally agree

This maybe due to the development of the game prior to the RTS cookie cutter boom. And to boot the developer set out making tactics at the tactical level as realistic as they could.



Rooster -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/5/2005 6:23:20 AM)

I also concur - I had very high hopes for EYSA, but it gets to be too difficult to follow the action, give orders, AND manage the 3D camera all in real-time. It really is a ground breaking game, but its obvious that the game exceeds the capabilities of many potential fans. This hasn't gone un-noticed, I think. The demo I recently downloaded let you automatically insert pauses at predetermined intervals (e.g. 60 sec.) to let you get your bearings, check LOS, and give orders. I believe there is also a button that let's you switch to the old CC overhead 2-D view, which was manageable under almost all conditions.



ravinhood -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/6/2005 6:46:39 AM)

I think the only game I played of strategy that gives somewhat some emotional ties to the units within the game was the X-COM series. It just broke my heart when I lost that highly experienced commander to them darn aliens who just threw plasma grenades like they were candy. heh The fact that you could "name" all your soldiers also gave it some sentimental value, I would add my friends, and enemies names (these were my point peoples lol) and see who would survive.



Arckon -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/6/2005 10:10:40 AM)

I will maybe once, twice a year, play a multi game with friends (lan) of RTS. Its fun, just a good enjoyable time, kind of like watching Independance Day rather than Tora Tora Tora.

Personally prefer TB.

Game I am most looking forward to though is the WEGO 'Combined Arms: World War II (formerly Battlefields!)(CAWW2)'. There have been other WEGO games before I know Combat Mission (CM), can not explain why but just could not get into this. War In The Pacific (WITP) which I think is an absolutely brilliant game but have hardly played as this one takes humungous time factor, looking forward to playing seriously in the future when I can make proper time for it.

From reading the CAWW2 forums I think this is going to be superb. The Operational TB type game I love eg: (Battles in Normandy (BIN), Anglo-German War 39'-45' (AGW)on order, or in the old days Panzer General (PG), but with planning your attacks and both side carring out plans at the same time in WEGO system.
This game I think (and as not out yet I may be wrong) will be the most accessable WEGO type game so far, and may be a good middle ground for the RTS crowd to experience and learn what the TB fans enjoy so much, while taking TB system slightly towards realtime in terms of battles being resolved at same time.

Take a look at the Forum on this site under the coming soon and in development section, this could end up being a real little gem of a game.



*Lava* -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/6/2005 1:34:00 PM)

Hi!

I think the problem here is definition of terms. It would seem for most, RTS = Command and Conquer or Age of Empires type games.

Personally, I do not consider such games RTS wargames.

I think such a definition results in posters making the following weird comments:

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlexT

they are like a virus and soon Matrix will sell also Ego Shooters and Flightsims ...
hope Matrix will not ruin their name with action strategygames.
There are so many distributors who sell RTS games, I want at least on last who bring us "roundbased games" (Doesn't matter which genre)

So maybe I of the enemy could also have a "roundbased" option ?

Anyway even I will not buy it if it is one that &%&$&% RTS games, wish you luck.
(Okay the only useful RTS games are from Paradox )


Actually, there are very few RTS wargames.

The Civil War: Bull Run is an outstanding RTS wargame which cannot be paused to give orders and is continuous time. Winning in CWBR relies on the use of good tactics and sound strategy.

I for one would love to see a lot more games in real time, but only if they are true to their subject matter and are actually wargames, and not production games.

Ray (alias Lava)



ravinhood -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/6/2005 4:12:59 PM)

The definition of RTS is a big problem for them also. Some games like CWBR actually use a correct real time system dedicated to "thinkers" and not "clickers". Sid Meiers Gettysburg also, Seven Kingdoms. But, the kiddie clickfest RTS games are just that, they play in a "extremely accellerated real time" not in any world I know of real time that things happen within seconds and the speed of light.

If more of the kiddie clickfests would tone down the time to the speed more like in CWBR and Sid Meiers Gettysburg and even the early Total War games, they would be much more enjoyable for those of us that are pretty die-hard turn based or wego gamers.

As soon as I see I have to play faster than I want to think, that game finds it's way to ebay or the trash can.

It's funny how some of the more strategic designers of slow rts or turn based have moved to the fast pace of rts games (RTW) and while increasing their fanbase one way, they deminish it another way.

As far as Paradox games, since it has such a slowwwwww setting, I don't have any difficulty playing EU 2 or HOI (origional). Neither do I feel rushed. They have the right idea for marrying rts to turn based, now, if they can just get their chit straight and release better games out of the box instead of requiring umpteen jillion patches. And quit making 2's of the same damn game just for more milk mony. (HOI 2). ;)



*Lava* -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/7/2005 2:21:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

If more of the kiddie clickfests would tone down the time to the speed more like in CWBR and Sid Meiers Gettysburg and even the early Total War games, they would be much more enjoyable for those of us that are pretty die-hard turn based or wego gamers.


Hi!

I totally agree. Some of these RTS games have even gone to point of allowing you to make formations (Cossacks I believe), but if it all boils down to who can produce the most the fastest, what's the point?

Ray (alias Lava)



Arjuna -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/7/2005 2:52:48 AM)

What's in a name?

Well quite a lot going on the reactions in this thread. Anyone would think RTS = 666. With few exceptions RTS titles claiming to be "wargames" have left a bad taste in most wargamers mouths. Why? Because they are not anywhere near realistic simulations. However to dismiss all "real time" games as therefore being "useless" is like saying the wargamers I know love Civil War games therefore all wargamers must love Civil War games. With no offence to lovers of Civil War games this is patently ( and maybe unfortunately ) not the case. Similarly, there are "realistic" wargames using real time. Our Highway to the Reich ( HTTR ) being a classic example.

The initial bias against HTTR from many wargamers becasue it was a real time engine was so palpable we coined the term Pausable Continuous Time ( PCT ) to try and differentiate it from what most people associated with the term RTS. This has helped a little but I still receive emails and posts are still being made all the time on the HTTR forum from wargamers who have only just now bought HTTR saying that this is the best wargame they have ever played and that they're kicking themselves for waiting so long before buying it. It's a slow process but I do believe that eventually most wargamers will come to realise the true benfits that a real time game engine can provide.

It doesn't have to be a "click fest" or "unrealistic". Far from it. In fact, a real time wargame can provide a far more realistic simulation of warfare than a turn based system. Primarily because of the fidelity of time being modeled. A real time system can increment events and hence processing into very fine intervals. HTTR does this in 1 minute intervals. This allows for differentiations that a turn based system cannot achieve.

Eg. take orders delay for example. In your typical turn based operational wargame you have a one or two hourly turn interval. To impose orders delay, then all units must apply at least one full turns worth - ie 1 hour say. This is then going to be applied to every company regardless of commander efficiency or staff quality etc. That would be unrealistic. In HTTR we can apply a whole range of delay periods and vary these according to a range of factors to realistic simulate the differences between poor units and good ones.

There are a whole host of other areas in which a well designed real time system exceeds by a quantum measure that which a turn based engine can achieve. Just to name a few - momentum, surprise, combat resolution, reaction and many more.

It's time we wargamers started exercising a little more discrimination in examining this issue and resist the temptation to jump to the wrong conclusions. Just because a few well known RTS titles erroneously call themselves "wargames" doesn't mean that all real time wargames are &%&$&%.

Personnally I believe that real time wargames are the future. I have been designing wargames since 1983. Initially I started out with turn based games ( Trial of Strength and Fire-Brigade ) but after much analysis I realised in 1995 that only a real-time system could provide the realism I wanted to achieve in a wargame. It was a long gestation period before our first real time title - Red Devils Over Arnhem ( RDOA ) - was finally published in 2001. There were many issues to address and there are many more to come. Wargame development is an evolutionary process and we will continue to refine and develop our engine.

For our up and coming release - Conquest of the Aegean ( COTA ) - we will be incorporating two new BIG features, mixed mode movement and the most realistic resupply system yet seen in a commercial wargame, plus a whole swag of minor features and enhancements. COTA will IMHO be the best operational wargame on the market. It derserves a better tag than "another &%&$&% RTS" title.



Fred98 -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/7/2005 5:38:59 AM)

HTTR is fabulous!

It is not a "RTS" and its not a click fest.

Some players prefer to add up all the attack factors and add up all the defense factors and then calculate a result.

But I am not one of 'em. I reckon we must take advantage of computers to make wargaming better.









dbt1949_slith -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/7/2005 9:31:23 PM)

Altho I kind of enjoy RTSs I'm lousey at them. The click fest of things like Starcraft are just too much for ths olde man.
I can handle things like HOI2 as they can be slowed way down and even stopped to issue orders but I've decided that from now on any non turn based games are going to be far and few between.



wodin -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/7/2005 10:15:38 PM)

HTTR works a treat but even though it has the most realistic feel I still prefer turn based. More structered gameplay. Go at own pace.

Maybe its the scale of HTTR. I might prefer it at squad level.



Sarge -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/8/2005 3:59:42 AM)

HTTR is the exception and by no means the rule.


The wargame community did not turn RTS into a four letter word. On the contrary,developers looking to make a quick buck did.



*Lava* -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/8/2005 4:05:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

HTTR is the exception and by no means the rule.


The wargame community did not turn RTS into a four letter word. On the contrary,developers looking to make a quick buck did.



[sm=00000436.gif]

Ray (alias Lava)



ravinhood -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/8/2005 5:35:26 PM)

quote:

The wargame community did not turn RTS into a four letter word. On the contrary,developers looking to make a quick buck did.


Amen Sarge. ;)



Riun T -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/9/2005 3:39:03 AM)

Hey SARGE using a reply to u to sortta shake RAT RACE"S head and ask him what game company planning committee he thinks he's on spouting off like this, second I have seen real combat and can state pro's and conn's to all the hypathetical solutions of time that any game of any genre has come up with. I have only found that the old codemasters Operation Flashpoint came closest to what I've personally been involved with in real life, But I think another day that I might see what it feels like to be in the BIG generals chair and play SPWAW or Combat Mission and get the headache of micromanageing all the aspects of a combined force that during my real service days I had neither the rank or experience to deal with even thou I was in one of them then. I've Had real life worries about Artty delay and dangerclose missions were MY butt was on the razors edge and now that I'm enjoying civie life Its truely good to hear ALL these posts,play these games and live in a country that don't shoot us outspoken pillars of wisdom, no matter what our points of view. RT



Zap -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/9/2005 9:43:31 AM)

quote:

It derserves a better tag than "another &%&$&% RTS" title.


From what I've seen in these posts, most gamers would welcome a quality game with some real time play if it fit their personal likes. I purchased HTTR and hope to get some time to play test it.

If it seems we are generalizing, we're not, I bought a game RTS "Call of Duty" I played it a few times. It now sits in my stack of non-play games. Its these kind of experiences that set ones mind to the negative.It gave me a headache and a soar wrist.

I'm probably of the same mindset as Wodin I like, as a preference, turn based but have been known to play real time games.

If the game meets a reasonable standard of realism and interests me I will play it. I am open.

There are sometimes when I just want to waste time and not think about anything so I play a RTS clicker.



ravinhood -> RE: RTS thoughts (4/10/2005 3:46:29 AM)

quote:

I just want to waste time and not think about anything so I play a RTS clicker.


There you go, you summed up rts well in the bold statement. ;)



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625