Tell me how you play Holla Forums. Do you turtle, gathering what resources you can and then steam roll over your opponents? Do you attack from the flanks and try to inflict as much damage as possible? Do you rush as soon as you can while funnelling everything from your economy into the attack?
I like to steamroll when possible but I'll nip at their heels and do damage while their distracted by an enemy.
Other urls found in this thread:
forums.revora.net
en.wikipedia.org
gog.com
store.steampowered.com
t3dstudio.ru
cncnet.org
gog.com
chomikuj.pl
rutracker.org
mediafire.com
sleipnirstuff.com
kevinburns.org
twitter.com
when will mental omega allow saving?
It was a good match though, I can't win as GLA but it's damn fun to find gaps in their defences and blow stuff up.
Not anytime soon I think.
If you start on 50 grand ingenerals I actually play Alexis aggressively. Commanches everywhere followed by dozers in chinooks building defence near oil derricks
I take control of the map or ensure as much map control as I can. It's always better to be in a position where you can afford to lose territory, it allows you to direct the flow of the battle a lot more. Quite often just having a handful of units round a key point is enough to deter any attack since your opponent will likely view it with suspicion. Essentially you need to show people who's in charge here.
You fags don't even know about Emperor: Battle For Dune, do you?
I knew I forgot a game in my "games to play" list, thank you user
...
GLA POSTAL SERVICE
Never tried contra mod, seems cool though.
I know it has a fucking badass soundtrack and was made by glorious Westwood, beyond that I don't know much such as where could I find and play it :^)
didn't the modders of this went full retard after 008 and there's now two forks of it or something?
...
Still doesn't beat what Dune Generations was shaping up to be.
What happened to aoe2 games?
My guess would be they fell apart in the scheduling stage.
dont know about that
Well technicaly speaking that is the movie, the games are simply called dune, dune 2000, etc.
It still hurts
I always go for the defense, build lots of towers, bases and walls, and i hate it when game doesn't allow me to.
...
Along with how accurate the depiction of the GLA turned out to be, I think Westwood were prophets.
But terrorists are Cuban in RA2.
I like to turtle. COH2 and wargame red dragon are my favorite for defensive tactics.
You can't stop the Messiah!
no, that was just when no one was afraid of depicting ragheads as outright bad guys.
Tэll me kommaиhder, why paшans so OP in rise of the reds mod?
...
Reminder that turtling doesn't work against humans (unless it's another turtle) as the aggressive player will have more map control, and thus more resources, and thus a faster growing economy, better technology, more and superior units, and so on, and will crush the turtle with ease.
This is what separates a scrub from a real player. You can't just hand over the map to the opponent.
I seriously think this is what chases people away from the genre
I did when I was 12 and only played singleplayer or against other retarded 12 year olds with no-rush settings in the lobby. I have sense grown out of that and learned to use every playstyle at once like an adult.
since*
Do RTS games reauire much skill? Or is it just based on speed and understanding of units?
it depends on the rts tbh
some would say speed/accuracy/quick decision making are skill
...
The biggest hurdle to get over regarding human opponents is that RTS's require the application of constant pressure, and never ever stopping. There is no sitting back and being comfy in an RTS. For early game, it's then it's a matter of learning the most efficient build order to maximize your economy for your strategy so you aren't trying to counter $3000 worth of units with just $2000.
What gets people trapped into poor strategy is that AI's typically cheat, so attacking ends up being useless as the AI recovers by the time you are ready to hit them again, unless you have enough units to keep steamrolling all the way through and finish the job. This means the safest thing against an AI is generally to be defensive and lose as little resources as possible.
RTS's basically have a built in way to train you how to play poorly against humans. Some mods try to "fix" this by making the AI end up omnipotent if you don't nip it in the bud.
...
I'm just gonna drop this one off here.
It sounds like a kid who is choking on some digger nicks.
Plus the only thing that seems to have anything interesting or unique going for it in that list is Syrian Warfare. Rest seem like shitty Asscraft II clones and Age of Empires clones, some are just fucking ASSFAGGOTS.
If your plan was to give me cancer then good job user, you've succeeded.
Sadly no really good titles all year.
Do you think that should be balanced? Or at least give the turtler a chance?
The Byzantines turtled for a 1000 years but then again, they did start with a massive treasury advantage.
Turtling can work but holy fuck it doesn't mean that you should be playing fucking city builder back at your starting location. Fortify key areas and key resources and deny them to your opponent. Shut down areas of the map to them. If you build defenses they should be around the middle of a map, not all circling your base.
I quit playing RTS games with my friends cause too many of them would just sit at base playing city builder
It's worth noting that for the first 800 years, the Byzantines actually went and expanded a few times. (Justinian, Basil, Kommenos) Establishing map control, if you will. It was only in the last 200 years (after the unfortunate Fourth Crusade) that they lost Anatolia and really stagnated into turtling behind Constantinople.
What are some good fantasy RTS'. I saw this thread and was wondering what to try after I beat spellforce and the expansions. I know warcraft is the obvious one.
...
Heroes of Annihilated Empires.
That's not a balance issue. Nobody's forced to play turtler. Bad playstyles being bad isn't a problem, there will always be retards who play poorly.
You're describing firebases, not turtling.
Warlords Battlecry 2 is fun if you can stomach the ancient graphics and super zoomed in camera.
gog.com
It hurts.
I actually have it installed on my computer still. It's a solid game, shame that the IP is dead.
Age of Mythology is pretty nice. My main criticism of the game is that it's a little slow and the sound effects are dull. The campaign is really good, though.
Someone post the RTS charts, my friend and me are planning a RTS binge gaming.
You know, your post reminded me of this game. I haven't seen anyone talk about it in the past threads. Also, I really forgot about it as I played it ages ago on my Dreamcast. I have it installed now and I will check it again later, maybe try and set some lan games if it is still fun as I remember it.
Fucking hell, I couldn't find the JPN version no matter where I looked.
I've never heard of this game. Looks interesting. Is it any good?
As I have said, I haven't played it since ages so my judgement is fuzzy. I remember that it was fun. It was released on the Dreamcast and PC. It was also made from Sega's Smilebit.
Go download it and check it out, it is a real shame that it is completely dead. Heck, even the last Japanese message board for it is dead. I really want Japan to create more RTSs.
This is probably the best you can find since I can't leave these trips unanswered.
...
Add to the fantasy genre.
Burn that heresy with fire!
I thought the recent patches fixed balance issues.
There was more wrong with Homeworld Remastered than just the balance issues. Such as choosing the less advanced HW2 engine over the far more advanced HW1 engine which completely fucked up the movement code and formations of HW1 and made small craft useless
And the fact when the devs patch it they literally break every mod out there
And they removed multiplayer completely from Homeworld 1, can't even play LAN
Be right back simmering with rage
I roleplay it up with my chosen faction even if im playing against other people which obviously doesnt allways work so well and has made me sort of hate the more 'modern' RTS-genre due to almost everyone being no fun allowed and just using that one tactic which has the highest changes of working.
So to say it, i dont play much anymore as it just aint fun.
Surprised Arma isn't on this list. Especially considering CTI mode, it deserves to be on an RTS chart more so than most of the crap there
...
Ａ Ｔ Ｍ Ｏ Ｓ Ｐ Ｈ Ｅ Ｒ Ｅ
Homeworld 1 was absolute shit, but Homeworld 2 was at least bearable. Not sure why 2 is in purgatory instead of 1. The only thing Homeworld 1 had going for it was it being technically neat at the time of its release. You'd have to be blinded by nostalgia to think it's still a good game.
Version 2.0 never ever.
fix'd
mental omega
Someone should add this underrated gem.
Gr8 b8 m8, I r8 8/88.
IF YOU WANT SOMETHING DO IT YOUR SELF
Holy fuck I forgot that game existed, I loved that shit when I was younger.
While not RTS related, I bet you can answer this: Are there any good HoMM III like games?
I love playing through single player campaigns and skirmishes against the AI but don't play multiplayer much because I suck. Anyone else know this feel?
That's pretty much me. Usually get some custom campaigns and such.
And yet RTS still managed to be the most comfy genre somehow
King's Bounty, I suppose?
Makes me sad that fantasy real-time grand strategy is so rare, and that the few examples that exist (including through mods) have some big traits that put me off (CKII's focus on family over economy/politics, TW/CIV being turn-based, all the decent ones being Sci-Fi)
God damn I don't remember how you deal with this shit.
it doesn't work on anything above win7 but you need a patch for win7
Anyone /jayborino/ here?
Disciples games
I like to train and meticulously spend hours getting gud, then once I'm confident in my skill, play like an insane fucking terrorist. Steal kills, grief when you can get away with it, target specific shitters and frustrate them into quitting, and plead innocence when confronted for it.
Wait i didn't realize this was about RTS, I thought it was just multiplayer games in general
Turtling all day erry day
I kek'd
Great campaign on AoM. Probably because it has a bunch of scenarios that follow my fav formula.
mfw 4 monkeys make it to their bases and start wrecking commander after commander as chat fills with butthurt
Yes I turtle. I love building up my defenses and watch the enemy get crushed by them. My avarage C&C single player match took about 40 min, even thou I could probably finish in 15 if I wanted to. And fuck modern rts games for forcing playstyles on me, most of them now make you rush or you lose
But C&C is very rush friendly, even from the very first games. How can you blame modern games while playing something that encourages brutal rush tactics.
I didn't find the perfect RTS yet, all games are missing something to be perfect.
Red Alart 3 has a gay cartoonish art style that pisses me off, and I also hate how that big russian tank had it's anti air weapons removed.
I'm a big fan of the fake retreat, I set up a couple of lines of defense and retreat into the killzone baiting them to follow.
I HAVE THE FINAL SAY
Speaking of Rise of the Reds, althought 2.0 is still far in the future…Do you anons have any favourite general to play, or any one that is interesing in your opinion? I really want to try ECA Charles and use his Challengers tanks and his CAS A-10-like aircraft.
RA3 removed the Apocalypse Tank's anti-air capability?
Yes
Yeah, and I noticed it very late to be honest. I am overall not a big fan of RA3. I have a very hard time fighting aircrafts, I don't understand how the economy works and there is imo way to much micro management.
About the economy, you now have this ore mine instead of gold or whatever you called in RA2. Your collector drives into that building and is slowly filled with shit. Which means only one collector can collect at a time instead of as many as possible. I don't know about you guys, but I used to have several collectors.
EA was a mistake
What's the point even?
AI is good when you just want to fuck around and build loads of shit and slam it into the AI
Randoms aren't going to let you have any fun also
...
>tfw playing the new AOE2 expansion
Fuck me, i miss playing terran on big game hunters back in SC and picking zerg/toss for the enemy AI and turtling the fuck out of that base with a couple of supply depots and a bunker
Okay, so which heavy tank is the best, Holla Forums?
You can repeat the same build order 600 times faster than Fatal1ty can headshot fags from across the map, doesn't mean it's fun to do so or that it leads to "grand" battles.
Oh yes, there are skirmishes, but it's mostly low scale-low tech unless the game drags on or someone tech rushes something cheesy.
Its not always, but this user say truth. Games shouldnt be that short and/or low tech. People want to use the big guns, and do big battles. Rushing is shit tier
idk about other rts games, but in C&C early pressure on the enemy is very common. You get some rocket units, a fast tank and you move in to shit on them and then retreat.
I think the problem with turtling is super weapons and obviously the fact that the enemy takes all the extra buildings all over the map to gain even more shit. I guess it would help if we had maps in which you start with a pre build base + walls. That way you couldn't attack early on.
i like to build a STRONK frontline and slowly creep towards choking my enemy at chokepoints or completely encircle them
This seems pretty interesting store.steampowered.com
Respect for the devs that their had balls to pull this off
...
Why are OpenRA and CnCNet bad.
OpenRA went downhill after the devs started nerfing shit that was used to beat them in-game
I'm sure someone has the story about the user who got engineers nerfed because he stole a dev's base like 2 or 3 times in a single game
that was a pretty good RTS
Come on son, you know the answer
Aside from that story is that it.
I assume a lot of other devs do this too. Because there are a shitload of unjustified nerfs that make absolutely no sense, makes me start thinking that one of the devs probably got owned that way.
CnCNet suffers from terrible community but at least their devs try to stick to the goal of the project, which is to basically remove bugs from the original .exes and give them an online lobby. Has support for mods and now RA2+YR which did not have multiplayer after XWIS died.
OpenRA also suffers from terrible community and terrible devs, it does not use the original executables (despite needing them for the actual music and FMV files) and has plenty of bugs ontop of the shit balance changes, it can't be played on older systems and barely uses half of its features. Presumably more easily moddable than the original executable files, but nobody mods for it and the only worthwhile mods are for the original games. Does not have support for anything past Dune 2000.
Looks pale and nothing special. Also I imagine that it will have Muh Rapefugees and Assad evil Cluster bombs full of explosive toys propaganda.
Tell me how many realistic RTT do we have on the market?
If i recall correctly only wargame series and this game is made by a small russian studio so i imagine that they dont have that much budget
Why would it have? First of all this game is going for "realistic" approach as far as i can tell and i doubt that they will try to inject some kind of propaganda
Also note that this game is not being made in the west but in Russia
user DELIVERS
Why would you play crappy little gookclick games instead of SCFA, though?
SCFA is fucking boss, especially on Seton's, where you get a good mix of early skirmishing and intense fights for the mid, grand naval battles on either side, and the map is big and isolated enough that games usually last well into nukes and experimentals territory.
And I was about to invite you into the rts thread not realising we are already in here… This is what happens when you have several threads open lol.
Anyway, I had that shit happen to me to a lot but in Red Alert 2. I would have to load the game up again because I am not sure how exactly they did it, but what ever I did nothing worked. First they steal my mvc or whatever that main building is called. So next game I build a wall around it, but then they just steal my money building (or whatever that shit is called) and I end up having no cash to build shit. So next game I just get a bunch of dogs, but he kills them and takes my buildings again. I got butthurt so hard I avoided multiplayer for ages.
Drogoth rush.
Anyone feel like playing Mars Wars? I can host.
whats that?
I can play in 5 min
Ok i unpacked it, wat nou?
Run it and play. Make energy(you can have up to 6) and use that to do research and make units.
It would be nice to get a 2v2 going. That's the max number of players the game supports.
Ok maybe make a server we can play quick 1v1 while i learn
73.8.99.251:10800
We have 3 players now. Someone should get in so we have balanced teams.
Go back to your 2hu threads Riz
You can always play vanilla where you can exploit OP strategies all you want.
They're dead.
GGs i guess.
To that dude who wanted to play MO, i won't be able to play until tomorrow.
I've never gotten to internet match, mostly because I fucking suck at the economy handling. The only thing that I have worth is my tactics and even then it's lame compared to anything else seen on the internet. Best moments are usually with my buddy, who isn't much of tactician but handles the economy well beyond than I ever do.
>all my attacks are repelled and I don't have good intel plus we got that shrouding on, so we lose map view slowly, start up second base, put up temple
apparently, the first nuke i dropped in hit sweet spot, eliminating his refineries and silos, and the team I sent afterwards took out the silos that contained tiberium second fucked up his forces somehow
No problem
What time a day you will play tomorrow?
Kind of a reason I don't play online as well. Take AoE 2 for example, Out of my 4 friends, A buddy and I are usually on top, me rushing elephants and him hiding behind walls with his longbowmen.
Friend brings another friend in one evening and he and I ally against the three of them, he dominates by building 100 villagers while my mate and I usually only build 50 - 70. It was scary seeing him clear out sections of forests and his map control.
Can anyone explain me what silos do? I never understood that to be honest. I build more when the game tells me to but I have no idea what they are supposed to do.
I am honestly not fast enough, I always need ages to place a building down and I can't remember all the shortcuts.
Around the same time as the matches we had just now, since it's convenient.
Wonder if anyone will try to make a RTS in DotA 2's custom game engine. It already has Fog of war, building destruction, construction can be added easily, it's as modable as wc3 probably even more so, you can macro a ton of units and bind groups of them to keys. All the tools are there it seems.
In C&C games, you are limited in the amount of tiberium you can hold at one time, meaning a lack of constant production (or sufficient production if your economy is way too strong to spend on things) leads to wasted resources without silos. Silos increase the amount of tiberium, and thus credits that you can hold at one time, effectively increasing the threshold before you start losing money due to inaction or lack of production.
Normally, you never need to build silos since building more refineries does the same exact thing in the long run, in earlier titles (Dune 2, C&C95) they were needed since refineries could only hold 1000 credits worth of tiberium which meant you couldn't expand your eco unless you went double refinery instead of refinery>warfactory, unlike in Red Alert and foward where every refinery could hold 2000 credits worth of tiberium.
The whole concept of storage just leads to players dumping their money faster anyway. Why would you build a structure that does nothing but lose you money if it's destroyed when you could have units instead?
In C&C specifically, I mean. In slower games with more of an econ focus it makes more sense.
Westwood had funny ideas about what they were useful for outside of a really cheap and disposable building used to expand your base without moving your MCV. In any case, they removed silos and the need for them in RA2 by making you have unlimited storage of resources.
Didn't Mental Omega want to reintroduce Silo Logic of all things? What a fucking retarded decisioN.
But they didnt, it was only a showcase of ARES capabilities
Good. Fuck that noise.
Are there any good PvP rts' that aren't dead? Is starcraft 2 dogshit?
...
The "exploit" in question was using engineers as they were intended, which is to capture buildings. The rush could have entirely been stopped if 1 or 2 $100 riflemen or a $400 fire tower was guarding the base which is extremedly cheap, nevermind that you need 3 or 4 engineers to capture a building in RA.
The devs nerfed engineers to the point they are now 100% useless since you can still sell buildings while the retarded timer to "enter" the building is happening. Remember engineers are expensive ($500) units that already died to 2 simple bursts of rifleman and jeep fire, are slow and have no weapons.
OP strategy my ass, go play gookcraft if you think that's unbalanced.
user, at the point where he sent in the engies, he had to have a naval yard or war factory up to build the transports, meaning the other guy had plenty of time to build up some kind of defense against unarmed infantry in lightly-armored transports.
With just a couple tanks and riflemen those engies would have died and the guy would have been dead weight instead of the hero his team needed but didn't deserve.
On a related note, anyone know how to free the older C&C games from origin?
It's throwing a bitchfit whenever I try to start any C&C from before Generals thanks to old directx.
I like to build that one unit that counters your whole army regardless of resources or numbers. Fuck man Starcraft 2 is so fucking bad.
Funny, I prefer to spam so much infantry that even with counters you're still going to have a bad time.
Helps that most games with a distinct "infantry" unit class have infantry units that can deal with just about everything else.
There's nothing quite like an army marching into someone's base.
...
i was being sarcastic, sc2 is so bad. Hard counters everywhere, it's more like a tactical RPG than an RTS.
I like the co-op for the same reason I liked the campaign and Warlords Battlecry 3,
The persistent upgrades really got me invested. Any other strategy games that do this? Co-op preferred, but not necessary.
...
cncnet allows you to play those games cracked without origin? I do own all CnC games on Origin, if I want to install those on a friends computer can I just use origin and then cncnet so he can play it without origin?
Withdraw then return.
Fuck the guild, space war now.
I want you to search through the link i gave on my previous post.
I want you to think really hard on why i posted it.
And thirdly i want you to stop using glorified DRM+Spyware on your computer, although i know you'll still use it because you don't know better. No, the old excuse "but i want to pay to the devs" doesn't work here, it's EA we're talking about, none of westwood will ever see your shekels.
mate, it's sometimes just easier to buy games then to pirate them.
Maybe if you are mentally challenged
I pirated games at the age of 10
Yes
Mate, I am german, my brother and my father don't speak a single word english. Go and try to find these games in german out there. It's way easier to just pay 5€ and get all CnC games then trying to find each of them online in both english and german.
its annoying that you can not add a password to the aoe2 lobbies so randoms always joined. I don't know if its scheduling. if you said you were putting up a game I'd join
oh..
Im so sorry
But anyway the one who taught me to pirate was my father, he even showed me torrent sites in my native language and taught me to always pirate.
I can pirate games, I am registered to several privat trackers. If something exists, I am able to find it. I also got access to all kind of cracks, like dlc unlockers that let you use dlc you didn't buy on your steam games, I got steamwork cracks that allow you to play your pirated games online through steam, but you must keep in mind that not every game is available for piracy.
For example this one gog.com
And in the case of CnC I would have to pirate several games in several languages. We got Tiberiam Sun and Firestorm, Red Alert 2 + Yuris Revenge, then we got Tiberium Wars + Kane's Wrath, we got Red Alert 3 + Uprising. I don't have time for that shit, much easier to just pay them 5€ and be done with it.
Like a city builder.
fuckoff shill
how does that place work? It asks me for my phone number if I click download.
you need to buy transfer to download pirated games from there
welcome to poland where you still pay for bootlegs in 2017
That sounds crappy, and how exactly is paying them better than paying gog?
Anyway, I was only able to find the english version of that game online rutracker.org
Hey /rts/, please help me. I used to play an RTS back in the day. 3d graphics about WC3 level I'd say.
It was about medieval wars, and had no outright magic. I think your priests could heal with the power of god, and there were skeletons in one of the campaign missions, but generally it had none.
The gimmick was that you have two bases - castle and village, with different sets of buildings available. With castle, you could build your walls in any way you liked. And to make your tower shoot, you had to actually place a trebuchet/ballista/troops on it.
I also remember that buildings could catch on fire, and had to be put out.
In return, I'll dump a bit from my architecture and landscapes folder. Maybe armor folder, if you want me to.
The only 3 games that sport the WC3 artstyle that I know of are Rise of Legends, Majesty 2 and Spellforce 2
No, no, I do not mean exactly like WC3, I mean it was kinda as low-poly. It was much more into realism, and the game looked kinda way too much white, grey and blue.
I just had a flashback of an old RTS game i played as a kid.
It was called No Man's Land
Shit was pretty cash
It had Indians, colonization and shit
What are standalone mods or free RTS games, already downloaded Mars Wars.
0AD
All of them
Now that we are talking about older games, is there any rts games that allows you to build a huge ass base? That Tzar game I posted earlier kind of allows it, but the game itself is trash. E.g. walls get destroyed very fast and towers have shit range.
Because most rts games I played either have population limit or don't allow you to build walls. Or even worse, both. Age of Empire 3 for example has population limit of like 200. But that game is imo generally trash, your walls are basically paper thing, people can just shot arrows through it. Another game I recently bought is Kingdom Wars 2, but that one is trash as well. It allows you to build huge bases, but you can't build your own walls.
Red Alert 2 and 3 allow walls, but no gates to close your shit base. Someone should add rts elements into a city builder game.
Tiberian Sun had gates
This
This is what i always felt that is lacking in city builder games, combat
I always thought the gates in Tiberium Sun were such a novel concept. (Even if ultimately useless. But the gates itself lent itself to some pretty cool scripted sequence ingame). I wished more RTS gave that option.
If you get the unofficial 1.5 patch for EE2 you get some city builder elements and it increases population limits and map limits by quite a lot
Stronghold series allows you to build proper walls. Stronghold 2 I think was a good game, might want to give that a go.
In age of mythology during the campaign you get to siege Troy. As for huge bases, Rise of Nations isn't bad. Each city is sorta independent then you build buildings around it to grow the city, kinda like Civilisation I guess.
Battle for Middle Earth series has you recreating battles and the like. Can build buildings inside the walls of Minas Tirith and Helm's Deep.
Ah, Galactic Battlegrouds is a spin off RTS on the AoE 2 engine. Can build a huge base like in AoE 2 and the walls can be likewise shielded to stop damage from siege engines.
That's about all I can remember for now.
Eeeeeeh. Stronghold 2 was okay, but I'll never call it a good game per se. There was a lot of irritating pathfinding issues, and the fact that SH series never had unit collisions were even more obvious here. Seeing shit like an entire horde of axemen just storming up that ONE ladder you miss and massacre your archers is just immersion breaking to say the least. At least the city build aspects were mostly intact, if a little streamlined.
Well yes, I am aware of that, that's where I got the entire idea from. I dislike how they removed those in future c&c games.
I just love the destruction. I for example love how in Bad Company 2 you can shot down entire buildings and shit. Cities: Skylines added a natural disasters dlc, but the destruction is basically non existing. Damaged buildings just disappear instead of falling apart.
I just want to move into those big ass cities with tanks and Kirovs and destroy them.
I may pirate it one day, in previous rts games people called the series bad.
Hence why I kinda like playing on peaceful and get a nice kingdom up and running. But it has been awhile since I played it. Battle for Middle Earth does have proper siege as well with the Uruk-hais having access to ladders and catapults.
Company of Heroes had a wonderful destruction psychic, you could bulldozed whole building
Castle Strike allows you to build walls which are actually useful. I don't know how big population limit is though. There's also a shitton of various siege engines which you can build.
Drushes are rarely worth their while. Trushes can be effective, but once the first tower's up, you're aware of it and can bring as many villagers as needed to bare against his forward vills. I'd say both favor the defender, though trushes are usually quite effective when your target is a complete noob/dumbass. The more serious raiding starts in feudal with archers/scouts and then castle with knights, but a skilled defender can still mitigate this by pulling his vills and garrisoning appropriately. AoE2 raiding is very balanced and skill-dependent, you're a fucking retard for trying to say it's on the same level of rush bullshit as Starcraft. Shit, I watch TheViper survive 9.5/10 earlier actions against him in AoE2, and the one SC2 video I watch is him (a relative scrub in SC2) counter-rushing one of the top ranking players in the world and winning.
Path finding is a little wonky but the ascetics are pretty great, build my own wild west town like that,
How do I git gud at RTS without going full gookclick?
Do you have this game on your pc?
Could you possibly upload it somewhere?
Downloaded it from here I think.
mediafire.com
pw is www.khangames.net if it needs it.
Runs fine on my Win7 x64 bit.
I've got two friends I go up against in a few RTS. One follows what you do. He builds lots of defense, doesn't tend to go out of his base and he does build up some forces but since I've gone out of my base, I've got more map control and thus more resources. A few bomb truck deliveries to his defence line distract him while I use the tunnel system to get in some bomb trucks behind him in his power. Power goes down, then I can just run amock. Even if my attack fails, he's probably panicking and won't be able to plug up all the holes I made in his defence.
My other friend though, he's very much an economy player but won't attack unless he's sure he can hurt me. Usually goes Chinese to get hackers and then an endless source of money. Which in turn gives him access to a crazy amount of resources, which in turn he uses for troops. The only way to go up against him is to match his economy and/or sabotage him. He usually leaves his hackers out in the open, so I snuck in some bomb trucks and reenacted Marseille with them. If you break his economy, he will still have spare resources to use, that's why you take out his buildings as quick as possible.
The last guy was a rusher on a frozen Generals map. He came at me within two minutes and almost got my by surprise. Luckily I had some Laser Crusaders along with Libra Cannons to push him back. Rushers are the worst because they put everything in their starting economy into attack, even foregoing upgrading just to make you panic and build more units earlier instead of climbing the tech tree. How I countered was having a large enough force to counter while still having enough to try and build up. I was taking loses but moving the tanks around made for a better defence than any emplacement did. Once I got some laser copters out, he was finished.
But it's basically like that. If you encounter someone with defence, look for weakpoints. Air, water or use artillery.to make a gap you can exploit. If you come across an economy player, do what you can to slow them down while building up, targeting their buildings even sometimes at the cost of your units can make a difference. If you come across a rusher, build up a large mobile force, then take a chance and go on the offence.
Granted, these might not always work but when playing an RTS you really do need to be ready for anything.
Another thing about exploiting defense. Was playing Galactic Battleground against defense friend on a black forest map and the front of his base has a solid defence, Fortresses, AA-turrets. Shield generators. If I bust through, i'd pay a heavy price.
So I'd be cheap, load up my 120 units into air transports and then go around through the forest. He had a few defence fighters but my ones engaged and distracted them while I landed my troops on his villagers gathering wood. Took out his town centre then proceeded out.
So yeah, just be smart about it really.
thank you
thread is on page 1 again? I thought threads that pass page 13 get bumplocked?
CAN'T BUILD THAT THERE M'LORD!
CAN'T BUILD THAT THERE M'LORD!
OUR GRANARY STOCKS ARE GROWING, SIRE!
CAN'T BUILD THAT THERE M'LORD!
CAN'T BUILD THAT THERE M'LORD!
NEED MORE WOOD
...
You gotta remenber user, that most games don't scale very well with large numbers. The bigger your army and towns gets, the harder it is to control and the more time you spend or details you must pay attention to.
Some games keep this in mind and try to come up with solutions to this but often they end up being quite half assed and don't really solve the problem or only ever help so much.
For instance, in Rise of Nations you have an option to make your citizens automatically look for work nearby they can do. So you can send 5 peasants nearby a village and if there are slots in a mine or forest, they'll automatically start working there.
The problem is that you don't have a "citizen/jobs" counter in every city to know how many slots are open, how many are taken and the citizens only search in an area around them, they don't go to another town if there's a slot there and they can't find anything here.
So you can end up with this awkward situation in that you have idle citizens in a town, open slots in another that are not being worked and no indication of any of this except for Idle Villager button that might as well be those workers you sent somewhere else. And even if you find the workers, now you'll have to manually scan every village for empty spots for them.
In the same game, you can also garrison your troops inside their respective production building for some healing. But they don't do this automatically and they don't come out when the building is under attack either. For smaller troops, maybe you'll bother with it but with a large army, it's faster to just send them to do some damage and make a new one in your base.
If you want a bigger RTS in the sense that you get several hundreds of units and huge bases, you seriously need a way better control scheme than what's currently available.
Didnt someone upload Generals and Zero hour to the share thread at some point? I cant seem to find it and I thought it was there.
What's wrong with the way Red Alert 2 handled it? I remember having huge armies there, especially on the russian side with that clone machine thing.
Also this reminds me, there should be a general, idk what you call it, "attack this direction" command. E.g. if you face a enemy army, tell your units to attack the enemy army instead of sending all after one.
Also what the fuck is up with the bad acting in Red Alert 3 cutscenes? Watch 9:40-9:50, it looks like someone behind the camera told her something and she got confused by it.
I dare you to try and keep a straight face while your tits are flopping around in a latex slutsuit and some goofy bastard with a fake Russian accent is shouting about "thrusting hard into the Motherland's nether regions."
If anything, they were telling her to show more chest.
bad acting is staple of C&C
Come on
Pre 2002 Westwood cutscenes were superior to anything we got even today
They had characted and a charm
That's called attack-move, it's been a staple of just about every RTS since around wc3 or so, if not earlier.
What I want is an easier way to order all your units to match their speed so that your tanks don't charge into the enemy's rocket troops while all your infantry are still strolling out the gate.
...
I think some RTS games from 1999 had that? Submarine Titans and I think Warzone 2100 if I recall.
Most RTS games have an alt move that matches unit speed to the slowest unit as well.
are you retarded? I pirated tzar months ago just fine, all because I lost the original my uncle gave me some 15 years ago
You might be interested in the Warrior Kings games. Your main structure is a manor surrounded by wooden walls, and the majority of military buildings need to be built around it. New walls are automatically added for free, though you can build walls anywhere for a cost. Melee troops do very little damage to buildings, but archers and some special units can set fire to flammable buildings. Your walls and manor can be upgraded to be resistant and eventually impervious to fire attacks. Ranged attacks actually have hitboxes and will be stopped by buildings, so low angle weapons like arquebuses can't fire over walls.
Be warned that the original Warrior Kings has an odd bug that makes it impossible to play two of the campaigns on modern systems. Battles seems to work fine on Windows 7, but the campaign is a lot simpler.
Considering Trump takes office on the 20th, what RTS games involve building a lot of walls and making countries great again?
Tzar was fucking insane, I loved that game.
I remember trying to do a Lord of the Rings campaign.
R.U.S.E. scales up well enough, probably a benefit of its focus on abstracting elements to simplify shit for console players.
I just got this on your recommendation and played the first two levels before I realized that there were multiple tabs for buildings. Pretty dank.
Anyone hype for SS4?
...
I play super aggressively, usually. Other times I will turtle.
When I attack, I try to make it from as many flanks as possible. I'll sometimes time my attacks, sending a smaller force to be a diversion so my larger one can penetrate his defenses and wreck him.
I hope it turns out better than Blitzkrieg 3.
This is why you play as French in RoN - the garrison heal mechanic is shit. On the other hand it does have auto match speed move for
It also solves the scale issue with the CTW campaigns, making the skirmishes deliberately small.
Anyone tried pic related? It looks good but the reviews seem mixed.
Cautiously optimistic about them. Still won't be able to play it beacuse my PC is toaster.
I stand corrected, by satan no less
I tried that game. Fun mechanics but it's not very deep and hardly an RTS in the traditional sense.
You don't produce units to engage in warfare, you just produce things for the colony as all your competition does.
The fun comes from all the shenaningans you pull and it's quite fun to screw people including the colony for massive profit but if you're not a jew, it's probably not gonna be as fun as you think.
It also has a small problem that the "endgame", that is the phase where you finish and mop up is just about massing a fuck load of money so you can spend it really fucking fast and win instantly. It's no slow treck, slowly buying stock to own your oponent, rather you store up enough cash to buy everything left in one swoop, so it's kinda anti-climatic.
There's also some weird concepts that are not very confortable for many people, like the fact that you're supposed to be indebted pretty much all the game and even scolded for not owing money because it's a waste of capital.
It requires a very specific and unique mindset to play and enjoy.
Gay niggas.
inb4 RTT.
I haven't played Red Alert 2 but it looks quite similar to Dune 2000 so I'll go with that until I actually try it.
The problem is that you have a specific control scheme to command a single unit that's applied to every other unit, but this doesn't make any sense unless you want them all doing the same thing.
You can instead do individual commands for each unit, but this means the more you have the slower you are at commanding them.
So in other words, the bigger your army is, the less agile it's command will be due to the control scheme being done for a small squad of troops, not for hundreds of different and unique ones.
Well, yeah. Console RTS needs a control scheme and focus that allows even a controller to work quite well. I've head Halo Wars does a nice job too, for instance.
Which defeats the purpose of the idea of having large battles with vast armies, so it's a band-aid, not a solution.
I also though the default strategy for an RTS was The Expanding Economical Turtle.
The idea that you should expand as fast as you can, focusing on economy and keeping only enough troops as you need to defend yourself, so that your economy can keep fortifying both your defenses and your army, and as soon as you've expanded as much as you can, you can switch all your efforts into agression with a very strong force to do so.
For instance, in Rise of Legends, I never much care about going for the oponent's cities or even harassing\scouting him. I prefer to go for neutral sites first until they are all taken, fortifying every city as possible as well as every other off-site. At most I'll make some barracks to produce a few troops, but that's it.
Once every city is taken, I'll defend until I have a decent economy going, get a few more buildigns to produce troops and then shift into full invasion force.
The way I see it, when that moment comes, if I have more and better cities than my oponent, I'll always be able to outproduce his army, garanteeing a victory for me, even if I'm nost as good at micro.
Another example would be Age of Mythology, where I'll never engage the oponent until I'm 3rd or 4rd age, have all the town centers I can and at least 10-15 villagers on each resource.
I'll get a few barracks\etc ready and start making a small defense force, but I won't be spamming expensive units or probably even doing upgrades until I can't expand anymore, just fortify and hold the most of the map I can.
Daily reminder.
DH > HoI4 > Dogshit > *
Isn't that superfluous, why the fuck wouldn't you expand you economy while turtling, how do you know if the guy won't rush you so of course you're going to need to amass big bucks to be properly and effectively fortified for staving off an attack.
There is no point in turtling that long. If you turtle, you give your opponent all of the same benefits as you, minus the need to fortify.
True but wrong thread
Shit
I mean in the sense that turtlefags don't actually try to expand that much, just keep a few nodes\territory near their main base and heavily fortify it, sending more of their resources on static defense than in military.
But this never works as you're yeilding the map to your oponent.
Instead, minimum defense and offense with agressive expansion, shifting to turtling only once you control the majority of the map and shifting to offense only when you out-tech your oponent seems like the slowest but sure way to win every game.
Oh hey guys.
Tried out the stealth general last night. He's pretty troll worthy with just how many units he can stealth.
The problem most turtles have is that they're slow at the part of the game where the lines of battle get drawn, generally leading to a disadvantage later on when you try to move those lines since they have less space to work with.
You seem to have graduated past drawing the line on your doorstep, so congratulations on your competence in RTS.
Original mod maker stopped developing and communicating with team. Then A schizim happened and some people with the source code continued to develop it.
But yea, I have tried 009 and they removed a lot of fun stuff in order to make it more "realistic" and streamlined. However they also fixed several bugs and added in their own rather crappy unit models.
Have faith, he's a one man team.
GLA Demo/Stealth hybrid general sounds fun. Toxin general making a comback might be interesting if the mod maker lets go of his grudge against GLA players.
EA is the terminal cancer that killed RTS by hopping on the E-sports bandwagon.
Way too C&C oriented thread
Lost 4 more tanks protecting that tiger. I didn't know flamethrower kits could do that to larger tanks.
Tank Rush Forever!
there are other strategies besides this?
I like the big guns.
Yes, like early harassment
Turtling is inherently flawed tactic.
Because no only you voluntarily put enemy preasure on yourself you also limit yourself to static defenses with are inferior to mobile force.
Also you denide yourself map control
There are seriously no upsides when you turtle, its just shit straegy for babies
SCFA handled it fine. You had all sorts of automation and templating available to make sure large numbers of units were being useful.
Throw on flow field pathfinding (only thing the sequel did right) and you'd be good to go.
Get a load of this guy.
Dis-fucking-carded.
man don't watch these sjw faggots. They are the wankers that push the whole "gamers are toxic" bullshit and ask devs to ban users. Dota 2 and Overwatch are games that have chat bans in game because of them. You may say you don't play those games, I don't play those either, but these "features" will spread to other games.
WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF AIR INTERNET LADS
Guys why in all fantasy RTS necromancers are the bad ones?
I dont thing that they deserve the bad reputation
This. I wish I had that picture of the good necromancer and the stupid heroes story.
It's not an RTS but in one of the campaigns in Wesnoth has you being a Necromancer and using the dead to defeat a local orc invasion. Naturally you get shunned for raising someone's deceased relatives.
why
Webm that shit.
YOU CAN'T FOOL ME
...
I hope you enjoy the old ones because you're paying the company that made sure we'll never get a new one
How about you actually play something other than Starcraft before you go around spouting retarded bullshit.
Extra History is the only reason I'm still subscribed to them.
Most games will punish you for it. From C&C, wargame red dragon, warcraft to suppcom.
Have you ever played any c&c game on multiplayer?
If you dont scout, control map and harass you gonna get rolled over pretty quickly
Assuming you're going the evil path and frankly why wouldn't you the Necromancers here are more or less on the right side.
Granted it isn't an RTS though then again Might and Magic was originally.
I played Generals multiplayer ONCE where I decided to turtle as if my opponent was an AI.
When I was finally destroyed, the whole map was revealed and I observed with great shock that he had made hundreds of units that were spread across the entire map - in that same time I had made static defenses that were focused and destroyed almost instantly with maybe 5 mobile units created total. It absolutely blew my mind how much he created, and with such speed.
that match over ten years ago still remains the only time ever tried RTS multiplayer because I am a scrub that instinctively turtles and can't into multitasking and resource efficiency
my instinct tells me "why make a scavenging/harrassing force of a couple of units when they will eventually be destroyed lol?" even though reading this thread shows me such tactics are leagues ahead than babby tier turtles
Because it brings the attention away from you and forces enemy to react, puts pressure on them.
Yeah the units will be eventually destroyed but you bought yourself some time and resources to tech up/build bigger army
When you turtle you put pressure on yourself and limit your resources, for what purpose?
Probably strong eco and few factories/barracks to produce simultaneously
FOR THE FATHERLAND!
Turtling is flawed, being defensive is not. RTS is largely map control (and thus resource control) and turtling gives your opponent the entire map's resources at no cost to him.
It's all relative cost. Pretend for the sake of argument that both you and your opponent gather 20 gold a minute. If your force costs, say, 100 gold and forces your opponent to delay gathering for 5 minutes and spend 50 gold on defensive buildings you've made a net gain of 50 gold over him and put psychological pressure on him to think of himself as the defending player (not to mention gained valuable intelligence on his location and intent). Those turrets he built are 50 gold wasted reacting to you. You've also secured map control during those 5 minutes letting you expand out without worrying about/spending cash on defending yourself.
Map control matters extra in Generals because your starting source of supplies is small and will run out fairly quickly. Also if super weapons are on you can hide yours at the back of the map and assuming you control all the space in-between it is unkillable. Even if your opponent plays the USA and uses auroras to kill it it always costs him more to do so than it cost you to build the weapon (assuming you kill every aurora on the return flight).
Hate 88s just for how effective they are. Had a sherman sneaking around my tanks the other day and my mate's emplacement hit the side armour and blew it in one shot. Anything less than a sherman they'll kill usually in one shot and what they don't they'll usually pierce the armour and damage.
In that situation though, I'd be busting out the 105mm and Calliopes, then send in a Pershing or two accompanied by Rangers and a sniper.
Boy do I hate those things. The line is holding just fine when all of a sudden I hear the hiss of rockets and everything I hold dear just disappears.
Thanks for your post. I've always played Generals as a timekill, so I have never really looked at it competetively; I always saw units as different versions of the same thing, offense or defense, regardless of cost. You putting comparative numbers to which units reacting to what is an element I have not once considered in the decade plus I have spent playing that game against AI only.
And I only have ever thought it to be about amassing the biggest force then launching it.
Thank you and for your input, reinstalling Generals now. I can't wait to try this completely new approach to the game.
Humvee + 2 rocket troops to the enemy supply depot to harass them, airstrikes on workers and buildings that are being build.
Try it, its fun
It's worse in Blitzkrieg. Calliope have two fire modes, short barrage is the normal one, 30 rockets, 180 cooldown or so. Can devastate a large area. For more munitions though you can fire the full 60 rocket barrage that not only screws up what's there, they won't be able to go back for awhile. 60 rockets at about one a second and you can't pause the barrage either. Cooldown is about 6 minutes or so.
But using that barrage in the middle of a base screws over everything inside.
My point being that a defensive player must be aggressive early on then bunker down. In an RTS with identical (balanced) factions/essentially identical factions any time you control less than 50% of the map you are going to lose against an equally skilled player if you defend, assuming you've not already crushed their economy, because they will inevitably have more units on the field than you. In an RTS with factions designed for defensive play (say one which automatically wins/becomes impossible to beat in a battle if it gets to the end of the tech tree) then you can get by on less of the map but you should still secure as much as you can early on.
Tanks can hide out of range of static defences and engage them 1-2 v 5 repeatedly. Assuming equal ability 1 turret has to 'win' 5 times you to succeed, each tank only has to 'win' once for your opponent to succeed. Your turret has to be more than five times as powerful as a single enemy tank to win this fight.
In RTS games static defences alone are only a deterrent or a way of forcing the enemy to invest heavily in artillery before attacking (which traditionally is useless against tanks). Assume again that a single turret costs 20 gold and sufficient artillery to kill it quickly costs 60 gold. You've forced your enemy to spend 60 gold on a slow-moving, limited use unit and if you've done this early on cost him the opportunity to spend that gold on a stronger economy or better tech. But note that this happens no matter how many turrets you build, 1 or 5, so build 1 turret then build either a counter to artillery or a unit not effected by artillery.
The other part of winning in an RTS and indeed in real warfare is forcing your opponent to react to you. If you find yourself reacting to the enemy you will lose if you can't break out of the pattern.
Fights are always about trading comparative value, any time a battle costs you less than the enemy you have won. On paper anyway, opportunity cost and map control complicate this calculation, it might be worth losing more than the enemy to take a key resource point.
Speaking of cost when building units you must consider the cost of the production building. The cost of the first tank you put out is the cost of that unit + the cost of the building it comes out of. This is extremely important for aircraft in a game like Generals because you can only get 4 to an airfield. The balance is always in favour of the ground player because one war factory can build unlimited AA units but one airfield can only build 4 planes before you have to pay another lump sum. AA units are also cheaper than planes and more targets = better.
To add to this: once your raiding force has paid off its cost losing it is irrelevant. Hit the right building or worker and you can pay off the cost immediately. It doesn't matter that you'll lose a 1000 cost plane on the way back if it does 1500 in damage though again factor in the cost of that airfield and similarly it isn't worth killing 500 worth to lose a 1000 cost plane again unless that 500 worth thing must die for whatever reason.
You must play RTS games like a jew, not a spartan.
I can't emphasize enough how you've given me a new perspective on approacing this genre. It's as if I've been playing walking simulator RPGs as FPSs, then someone tells me it is possible to downplay the combat and instead focus on making a well-realized character in the world for more fun and satisfaction.
the humvee+rocket point is noted and I will make use of it. have any other gold nuggets of strategy to reveal? i prefer to play china
That's not an excuse since 'Extra History' is a bunch of hogwash.
Especially about crusades.
I only play Dawn of War, I rush to get artillery with the Imperial Guard and then steam roll with casakin squads and tanks.
Lately my nazi friends have been getting me to play Supreme Commander. And I do not understand anything.
Man I wanted to fucking kill someone when my coding teacher put that on in free time during one of my classes.
You'd have to ask that other user, I don't play a huge amount of Generals in PvP nowadays and was never that much into it. The advice is pretty universal though, any RTS (not RTTs like Men of War) will have the same dynamics. I'll warn you now that you're going to lose your first 10 or so games badly but don't get demoralised; download the replays and watch what the other players do to learn the meta. You can probably find some recorded games on youtube of people playing as China too, look them up. Another key element of RTS games is playing the psychological game and guessing what the other player is going to do. Knowing the common tactics for all factions rather than just your preferred faction will help with this.
thanks
Actually good RTS players (i.e. not me) don't regard the games in the same way most players do.
A battle for them isn't a battle, it's an equation. Their official name is "trade" because they basically trade units with one another and the one that kept the biggest value afterwards is the one that won that battle.
For instance, this is how the discussion in SC2 about Banelings vs Marines or Zerglings vs Marinse goes.
You can basically make 2 Zerglings for the same price of a Marine, but the Marine will kill them both and survive.
But if you turn them into Banelings, they can take down far more Marines due to AoE. You're still losing 50 Minerals every time they die but if it cost more than that to your oponent, it's a good trade.
This is also why Campaigns are often terrible to prepare players for multiplayer, they have their own rules for the sake of the story and while they introduce every unit with a thematic map that clearly explains how to use them, they never go about these details that truly matter for multiplayer.
I used to play Age of Mythology\Empires by just making a single building of each type and 5 workers for each resource only. My idea was that extra workers reduced the size of the army I could have and extra buildings were a waste of resources.
Then I met an actual good player that showed me it's not so.
That having 10-15 workers for each resource gives you a really good economy that can actually supply 3 barracks producing troops at the same time.
And while I never have a huge army at once, I'll keep making more and more in the back, reinforcing faster than the oponent AND reacting faster to his composition.
I still fucking hate how units are so fucking expendable in RTS
IG in DoW feels like easy mode, you've got so many big guns and your infantry are nice and cheap. Still a blast to play, though. I prefer to play orks, though I've found that if I don't win fast enough, it becomes almost impossible to survive.
I used to play Space Marines, treatment of troops felt really weird in comparison, I couldn't stand to lose squads but they're not all that precious.
I can understand why they included space marines, what with them being the poster children and all, but they don't really suit the RTS playstyle, what with them being super valuable and their preferred method of warfare being lightning strikes.
Space Marines still feel underpowered in DoW, makes sense for balance reasons but I don't like bolters acting like they're 9mm.
Bahaha, ya uumies are rilly pavvertic. Ya can't customiz yer weapons, ya ab dull cuttaz an yer tanks arn't red. At least weeb make dim Orky wen weeb nick dim
They gotsa gud balanz but datz it rilly. Kan git krumped wif sworms o' boyz or treads o' lotza tanks. 'Ope ya enjoy yer chapta master'z 'ed at da end o' meeb boss pole.
kevinburns.org
Fun stuff.
Meeb kan noez why they includeded space marinz, wot wif dim bein' da posta childrun an awl, but they donz rilly suit da RTS playstyle, wot wif dim bein' supa valuabul an their per-ferred mevvod o' warfare bein' lightnin' strikz.
Space Marines would probably be better implemented if they were super units for the IG. You pick a chapter (either in game or in lobby) and lategame you can order some drop pods to bring Space Marines that bring a quick end to the fight.
hate hate hate hate
Please stop being stupid, not every RTS is like starcraft or command and conquer. Turtling is a strategy just like any other designed for specific situations against specific threats, and using it in a wrong situation will cause you to have a bad time. You guys say you are giving up resources and map control to the enemy, but what if those things don't matter because you generate your own resources or have infinite resources? What about other situations like facing a relentless and/or overwhelming force, defending for a set time period, or facing a non-replenishing force? There are plenty of other strategies that aren't good in those situations, but that doesn't make them inherently flawed. The whole point of strategy is to analyze the situation and come up with an effective solution, not blindly decide on rock, paper, or scissors and hope for the best.
In multiplayer?
Ever played irl chess?
"Turtling" never was and never will be viable strategy
What I've said applies to every RTS I've ever played. It can vary a little more if you're playing for specific objectives but in such gametypes map control is often even more important.
Turtling as classically defined would be hiding in/near your base right from the start. If it's possible to reliably win by doing that the game is poorly balanced since the only way you other players could win is through your mistakes. I'll agree playing defensively can be valid but that still requires playing aggressively at the start to take the land you need and isn't the same as turtling.
If you can generate as many resources over an entire game turtling as another player can with full map control the game is broken.
We're talking about multiplayer user.
Did you miss the part about forcing the enemy to react to your choices?
...
Orks/T1 spammer, wonder victory, crippled opponent, also some games have multiplayer scenarios. Although I never specified human or AI opponent as it really doesn't matter. AI is an opponent just the same as any other and is a factor to consider when planning your strategy. You could be fighting literal turtles for all I know, but if the strategy works then it works.
Of course turtling doesn't work in chess, you can't take out your opponents pieces without taking offensive actions on your turn. A strategy being impossible in one game does not make the strategy flawed overall.
If its possible for anyone to reliably win with the same strategy every game against every opponent then yes the game is poorly balanced and likely a shit game in general. A good RTS would give you more options than your brain can comprehend that all will work in at least one situation, and fail magnificently in most others.
I don't recall Total Annihilation or Supreme Commander being broken. It isn't easy, but it is entirely possible to become completely self sustaining through the use of fabricators or playing as the faggots with the Paragon. Reclaiming wreckage also helps build up to that point.
And at this point I must concede that my definition of turtling might not be how it's used now. I've been out of playing RTS multiplayer since after Yuri's Revenge, but in my time up to that point I had always seen it used as, and used myself as, meaning playing extremely defensively most of the game until you can wipe out your opponent with overpowering force, superweapons, kirov spam, or tower walking and the like. Not being 100% sit in your starting box with your dick out. I mean, not even a turtle will just sit in its shell doing nothing until it dies. Turtles are some of the meanest and most brutal fuckers on this rock. There used to be a snapping turtle in a lake near where I live that would charge down anyone that got near it and try to rip their shit for fishing in its territory. So I guess all my points are moot since I'm not talking about what you guys are talking about.
I haven't played TA or SC, but even in badly balanced RA3 maps turtling is bad. I will get into this later, let's first talk about playing defensive.
Because I played a bunch of rts games, like almost all the c&c games, age of empire and a few others. And in most game you have buildings all over the map that you can capture that help you beat the enemy. It either helps you earn more money, meaning your economy is going way better than your enemies, or you get other nice bonuses like free troops or upgraded units.
If the enemy makes 3 times as much cash as you do, how you going to beat him? Also in Nod in c&c games and their stealth is pretty strong, if you leave them alone long enough they can just set up a new hidden base they will know where yours is but you wont know where their base is.
Now back to red alert 3, there are some maps with no buildings all over the map, there is nothing to capture on the those. But as a defensive player you still have a hard time because you can not cover your entire base in turrets. If you build defenses all around your map you will have medicore defense all over the place, if you put them all in one place you will have weak spots for the enemy to attack and retreat.
If you can name a strategy game in which turtling is a legitimate pro level strategy I'd take it back. But the only version of turtling that works is an defense that creeps forward into the enemy and takes map control.
Age of Empires 2. I'm not good enough to pull it off or describe it in detail, but I've seen "pro" players build elaborate bases full of traps to win by wonder. It happens in Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander sometimes as well. If we are talking about all RTS then there is also AI War and Creeper World where it is absolutely required to have as much shit defending at all times as possible, as well as even more replacements queued up for when all of that inevitably isn't enough. I'll also shill for Particle Fleet even though it is a tactics game, still plays similarly to Creeper World.
That doesn't really go counter to my point. I'm saying that turtling isn't an inherently flawed strategy and that it does have uses, not that its 100% viable in every game against every opponent in every situation. But apparently I was wrong about what people consider turtling now and agree that sitting in your base doing nothing while expecting to win is completely retarded. You have to try at least a little bit.
Does turtling have a different meaning too? I only ever head of it being used to describe being passive. For example in fighting games like street fighter turtling also means sitting, not doing anything and waiting for your enemies mistake to go in.
AoE2 has wall offs, but people build aggressive forward bases the vast majority of game. They do second main building in newer areas and grab as many resources as they can.
In suppcom it's rare. It's a very aggressive game at higher levels of play.
Age of Empires 2 doesn't reward full turtling, but turtling through Feudal to hit Castle faster by walling with palisades and buildings is a fairly common strategy.