Spring RTS Engine

Tribulex wrote:You forgot XTA, 1998



What about Supreme Commander? I think its comparable. At the very least, its better than starcraft or AOE gameplay wise, but thats just IMO.

every post i see from you makes me dislike you more

i don't even like starcraft but it's 100x more engaging tha supreme commander

and it's insulting to compare aoe

Tribulex wrote:What about Supreme Commander? I think its comparable. At the very least, its better than starcraft or AOE gameplay wise, but thats just IMO.

nemppu wrote: also warcraft III is teh awesomeness, i lolled @ the that guy on first page of this topic ranting about wc3 taking all the new innovative features of wcIII and saying its the worst becuz of them:D:D:D:D:D:D the innovation of bringing the heroes and making the hero experience sort of out of the box new resource and disencouradging turtling & shit with upkeep, good stuff. graet sp, great mp.

Look i don├óÔé¼Ôäót like the hero thing, but I can see how some people might, I├óÔé¼Ôäóm not a big rpg fan, and putting something like that in a rts undermines the hole army/strategy thing. if somebody├óÔé¼Ôäós a higher level and Isn├óÔé¼Ôäót a retard. You lose. basically makes the game a big race to see who can kill boars quicker to get to the next level. and the tactics are replaced with skill of clicking the right spell at the right time├óÔé¼Ôäós . Guess it would really appeal to people who get a kick out of WoW. if it would have beensome thing new like war craft rpg or something I don├óÔé¼Ôäót think I would mind it as much. But for me it killed a series I loved and that got me into rts in the first place.

On the other hand, the upkeep is fucking stupid, and your stupid if you don├óÔé¼Ôäót think so. Just because blizzard makes good things doesn├óÔé¼Ôäót mean everything blizzard makes is good. Mine's are a limited resource, if your miners just got 3 gold instead ,of getting 10 gold pocketing 7 and giving you 3 it would be better, as It is, it fucks you over for having the audacity for trying to build an army in a fucking WAR GAME. instead you run around with you 20ft hero and 15 of his little bitches.
----------------------------
I haven├óÔé¼Ôäót played red alert 3 yet, so I don├óÔé¼Ôäót think its fare for me to say it├óÔé¼Ôäós a bad game. I├óÔé¼Ôäóm going to try it, if just for old time├óÔé¼Ôäós sake. hell maybe the stupid new Japan faction will end up being cool, and not way to powerful( Screen, Yuri, yeah I doubt that├óÔé¼Ôäós going to happen) maybe the quick as shit base building and units dieing before you even know your under attack will turn out strategic and fun somehow. But it wouldn├óÔé¼Ôäót excuse it for completely changing how the game works.

I don├óÔé¼Ôäót understand why they do that. If you├óÔé¼Ôäóre making a brand new game, experiment, do something new, see how it works out. You might break the mold and make something great.
But if you├óÔé¼Ôäóre making a sequel to a tremendous successes. Don├óÔé¼Ôäót fucking change it. Just add more, and make it look better. C&C's new series [generals] feels a hell of a lot more like the old C&C games than the new C&C3, in C&C 3 the stupid build menus are the same, but that├óÔé¼Ôäós it. The pace and scale, and what little strategy it had have been completely changed or removed. I blame them trying to develop the thing for consoles and pc's. Fuck consoles. If you want to play rts's, get a fucking computer.
-----------------
I forgot rise of nations, thats a really good one. now my whole new games suck argument is mute.
-----------------
Praising supcom on the spring forum
=
Praising Mohammad in a jewish church

The upkeep makes perfect sense as a way to give the player with less army some kind of advantage to try and balance it out. About heroes, what's an army without a leader?

It's nice to have some variety in games, not every game has to be about spamming econ and then mass producing units at the right time.

It's about fighting AIs, then when you're ready you verse the other dude.

Zpock wrote:The upkeep makes perfect sense as a way to give the player with less army some kind of advantage to try and balance it out. About heroes, what's an army without a leader?

It's nice to have some variety in games, not every game has to be about spamming econ and then mass producing units at the right time.

you right not every game dose. but the games that are, should still stay that way. theres never going to be a good old war craft game were you build an actual army ever again. and that makes me sad.

Bartosh wrote: On the other hand, the upkeep is fucking stupid, and your stupid if you don├óÔé¼Ôäót think so. Just because blizzard makes good things doesn├óÔé¼Ôäót mean everything blizzard makes is good. Mine's are a limited resource, if your miners just got 3 gold instead ,of getting 10 gold pocketing 7 and giving you 3 it would be better, as It is, it fucks you over for having the audacity for trying to build an army in a fucking WAR GAME. instead you run around with you 20ft hero and 15 of his little bitches.

Thank you for sharing your gameplay experience of 5 games against easy AI to all of us.

Bartosh, ever played cossacks, check it out, you'll prolly like it.

Starcraft is still the best RTS made in the last 20 years. Everyone is trying to copy starcraft for the most part, and doing a piss poor job of it.

Supcom is probably one of the only exceptions... but it failed for other reasons.

We need to find new ways of adapting RTS gameplay that don't infringe on the territory starcraft has already covered, you really can't build a game in the same genera as starcraft and succeed in matching the blizzard studio. The commercial industry won't succeed because they won't try anything high risk until a proof of concept is established.

I'm not a big fan of Starcraft due to my inability to play it well at this point in my life, but I agree with Swift's conclusions nonetheless.

Starcraft isn't just about it's gameplay but where the players took it also. The players have made the game to what it is during the years just as much as blizzard.

Bartosh wrote: instead you run around with you 20ft hero and 15 of his little bitches.

WIN.

Missing from the list:

Rome:TW and Medieval 2:TW

I liked these games as tactics are a serious concern. Out-flank, protect your general, charge or hold, ambush, intimidate, spread out, tire your enemies, harass, take the high ground, retreat and regroup. It's one of a very limited number of games where you can take on an army many times as powerful and still win through superior tactics. It's also less twitchy than most titles, in fact microing your units in the heat of battle often seems to piss them off more than it helps.

Most RTS strategies are basically porc and spam. You can try sneak attacks and synchronised maneuvers and such but the excessive micro involved often puts you at a disadvantage in the econ race.

I have a lot of respect for TA but it's somewhat limited in depth. It's fundamentally more of a resource management simulator than a combat game.

Very much looking forward to Empire:TW next year.

Yeah I'm hoping that TW empire will turn around the trend of TW getting worse gameplaywise for each iteration. The naval stuff seems really cool.

Indeed Rome: Total war is really awesome. I would say the secret for their sucess was to separate economy from the actual combat... like in Master of Orion for example :)

Starcraft is alright.

Quickest spammer wins. If not, patient turtle wins. You can usually call the outcome of the game at two points, and walk off knowing who's going to win.

Rome:TW and Medieval 2:TW

Yes!
One major reason why I love the TW series is the limitations under which you fight. No/limited reinforcements, deadly ambushes, and an emphasis on large scale maneuvers. Suddenly I remember Ground Control.

Ahhh, i'm going to stop looking at these forums, not good for the old ticker.

El Idiot wrote:

Rome:TW and Medieval 2:TW

Yes!
One major reason why I love the TW series is the limitations under which you fight. No/limited reinforcements, deadly ambushes, and an emphasis on large scale maneuvers. Suddenly I remember Ground Control.

Indeed winhout a constant supply of troops on either side you dont need to waste time managing new troops and instead just coordinate the lot you brought, making up a lot more interesting battles :)

Rome total war was a damn good game, but it├óÔé¼Ôäós not on the list because it├óÔé¼Ôäós not a traditional rts.

Same reason I didn├óÔé¼Ôäót include: close combat, sudden strike, ground control, and world in conflict ext

A traditional rts has base building and resource managing on the Battlefield. Non-traditional don├óÔé¼Ôäót.

Non-traditional always have a one-up on strategy over traditional because units are not expendable. And because it├óÔé¼Ôäós normally a fair fight because each side gets a fixed army or resources in multiplayer.

But it├óÔé¼Ôäós ok, because there different types of fun, if I want to show how much smarter I am than someone, I vs. them at a Non-traditional. But If I want to race to build a base and then see a million little bastards go marching and lying waste to anything in there path I play a traditional.

As different ,I feel ,as chess and checkers

Also Unlike traditional rts├óÔé¼Ôäós, Non-traditional rts├óÔé¼Ôäós have been doing very good over the past 8 years.

Rome Total War was awful compared to Shogun Total War in almost every aspect other then graphics.

If they want to take the total war series anywhere, they need to make the campaign map real time, IMO.