next »

[drChengele]

Or you can take the Total Annihilation path and just make intelligent units. People occasionally give it shit for being the RTS that plays itself but it does really help in being allowed to play the big picture when you can pretty much just point your troops in the right direction and just worry about logistics and broad strokes.

TA was great, but even it provided ample rewards for the twitch clicker. Supreme Commander had a lot of fancy strategic bells and whistles (radars and jammers, "coordinated attack" command, limitless zoom, etc.) but somehow I ended up having to learn how to dodge incoming artillery if I wanted to be competitive.

And yes, I've seen people say "it's RTS that plays by itself", but that logic is quickly exposed for a flawed one because in such strategy games, units MUST, by DEFINITION exert a degree of autonomy. I might as well say that every unit should have manual fire only. As in, you must click the unit and repeatedly click its target for the unit to shoot. Also you must input the path when ever you want the unit to move otherwise it runs into walls. What, you want units to fire automatically and pathfind on their own? But we can't have the game play itself for you, now can we?

[magnum_opus]

Majesty works more or less the same way, since you can't command units directly. But the RNG plays a very large role compared to most strategy games.

I loved Majesty but it's a weird game, I never really felt like I was playing an RTS. I think it might have been the generally low number of units fielded that made me feel like I was playing SimDiablo (which now that I say that, sounds like a brilliant idea).

Or you can take the Total Annihilation path and just make intelligent units. People occasionally give it shit for being the RTS that plays itself but it does really help in being allowed to play the big picture when you can pretty much just point your troops in the right direction and just worry about logistics and broad strokes.

TA was great, but even it provided ample rewards for the twitch clicker.

It definitely did especially if you were playing it competitively, but units were definitely smart enough to cut out the majority of micromanaging when playing at a casual level

And yes, I've seen people say "it's RTS that plays by itself", but that logic is quickly exposed for a flawed one because in such strategy games, units MUST, by DEFINITION exert a degree of autonomy. I might as well say that every unit should have manual fire only. As in, you must click the unit and repeatedly click its target for the unit to shoot. Also you must input the path when ever you want the unit to move otherwise it runs into walls. What, you want units to fire automatically and pathfind on their own? But we can't have the game play itself for you, now can we?

The annoying thing is watching people bitch and moan about brain dead companion AI in basically everything ever, and then having them turn around and in the same breath slag off TA or Dungeon Siege because the units/NPCs are actually useful.

[Mikademus]

Don't forget that the vanilla RTS genre is the most competitive of them all, and this affects people's priorities. A good AI will make for a funnier game but a worse competition because it is manual direction that lies at the very core of competitive gaming.

Then again, I haven't played RTS games for consoles, where I suppose units MUST be more self-reliant or the games simply wouldn't work at all.

[gimymblert]

Isn't the rts pacemaker fails because it was exactly that?

It's seems that player NEED their CPS to feel like in control.

[drChengele]

Don't forget that the vanilla RTS genre is the most competitive of them all, and this affects people's priorities. A good AI will make for a funnier game but a worse competition because it is manual direction that lies at the very core of competitive gaming.

You hit the nail square on the head, in that the "pro" gamers are always in favour of micromanagement-heavy approach.

To make an RTS game not reliant on micromanagement would not be "worse" competition, it would just bring a different skillset to the fore. The new required quality would be the ability to think ahead and strategize (I doubt that's a real word by the way), identify fronts and lay traps. It would make for a more cerebral sort of game while still requiring a fair share of concentration, rapid response, and quick grasp of situation. I understand what you mean, though, that the CURRENT competitive scene would probably scoff at the fact that their ability to click their mouse inhumanly fast doesn't confer significant advantages any more.

I guess what I'm trying to say is (and I hope this will help OP), RTSs that don't rely on micromanagement would be much, much more STRATEGIC in nature, and I think this is the way RTSs should permanently migrate towards, or at least try visiting the general area sometime.

Isn't the rts pacemaker fails because it was exactly that?

It's seems that player NEED their CPS to feel like in control.

If we are talking about Peacemaker by ImpactGames, that game wasn't really comparable to the usual RTS conventions in many, many ways, so I wouldn't single out lack of micromanagement as the decisive flaw.

[Pishtaco]

Micromanagement in RTSs takes many form (micromanaging locations, targets, special abilities etc. ) but the major culprit here is clicking to specifically ensure your units take the exact location (and/or facing) you wish them to take. This includes issuing rapid small-scale commands so as to evade enemy fire, or avoid getting short range attacks or stuff like that. This is incredibly detrimental to the "strategic" aspect of strategy games for reasons too numerous and too obvious to state here. An ideal strategy game should be as far away from these elements as possible. I think it is perfectly possible to make such an RTS, with judicious use of preset stances and a more relaxed flow of game. However, words are not getting us anywhere and I intend to prove my views very soon (hint hint), which is the reason this topic strikes so true to my heart.

I mentioned such a game above; the Airborne Assault series by Panther Games.

[drChengele]

I mentioned such a game above; the Airborne Assault series by Panther Games.

I haven't played it but it sure sounds like something I should have. Thanks for the heads up!

[Mikademus]

To make an RTS game not reliant on micromanagement would not be "worse" competition, it would just bring a different skillset to the fore. The new required quality would be the ability to think ahead and strategize (I doubt that's a real word by the way), identify fronts and lay traps. It would make for a more cerebral sort of game while still requiring a fair share of concentration, rapid response, and quick grasp of situation. I understand what you mean, though, that the CURRENT competitive scene would probably scoff at the fact that their ability to click their mouse inhumanly fast doesn't confer significant advantages any more.

Well, while APM is currently used as an indicator of skill of a competitive RTS player, it is of course about more than just fast clicking. One reason that less micro would actually make for a worse competitive scene, as opposed to "just" promote a different skill sets, is because the frontiers being pushed by the pros right now is about overloading the multi-tasking capabilities of his opponent. Personally, I find those games boring to play, but they are cool to watch. So off-loading micro would probably lead to "worse" games, unfortunately.

[drChengele]

One reason that less micro would actually make for a worse competitive scene, as opposed to "just" promote a different skill sets, is because the frontiers being pushed by the pros right now is about overloading the multi-tasking capabilities of his opponent. ... So off-loading micro would probably lead to "worse" games, unfortunately.

You use the term 'worse' twice but I don't think there can be better or worse in this context, no more than, say, soccer can be worse than chess. Unless I am missing something.

What the pros do they will keep on doing and there will always be plenty of games out there continuing to clone old practices. I am not rooting for a redefinition of the RTS genre. Let them click to their heart's content. I would simply like to see some actual strategy at least vaguely reminiscent of actual battles in the genre once in a while, because I think there are people who will prefer that approach (Total War series springs to mind).

[jpgray]

Have any of you played Sid Meier's Gettysburg?  Has a bit of what you are looking for in RTS, since there is no true micromanagement of units and the pace of orders and movement requires more planning than twitching.  X-COM: Apocalypse also tackles real-time tactics in a satisfying way, though a big part of winning in the tactical mode depends on decisions made in the strategic mode.

[Mikademus]

I would simply like to see some actual strategy at least vaguely reminiscent of actual battles in the genre once in a while, because I think there are people who will prefer that approach (Total War series springs to mind).

Check out the real-time tactics genre. Total War games (the battle parts of them) are specimens.

Have any of you played Sid Meier's Gettysburg? 

It is one of the earlier RTT games, and a really good one. There were several games made with this engine, Gettysburg!, Antietam! and Napoleon's Last Stand. All of them are very good games.