Star Craft?

[Ivan2006]

I don't know where it fits, but Settlers: Heritage of Kings did a pretty good job at balancing stuff and preventing spam. (yes, I know it's an old medieval-stlye game)
>You have a limited (although upgradable) number of maximum units. Included in those units are civilians, which are required for resource gathering, research, etc. They also pay taxes and wre thus the main source of money.

>There are 6 different resources, including money, and depending on how you play, you may end up with an excess of some resources and a lack of others. It will be far quicker to build up an army with units that use the resources you have. (e.g. if you lack any wood, you might not want to equip your army with polearms but instead opt for swords, as spearmen require wood to train while swordsmen require iron)

>Your armies want to be paid. Payment happens simultaniously with taxes. You also need additional money when recruiting your troops, so having a positive income might be a good idea, especially considering that any research requires money as well.

In general, you can't win by spamming one type of unit. Instead, you'll have to use actual strategy and a fairly balanced army to defeat your enemies, as once a battle starts, it's unlikely you'll be able to spam counter before the battle is over. To ensure the game is not instantly over after the first battle, there are some pretty strong defenses that, as I have experienced, can easily defeat small or weakened armies and generally help to turn the favour of the battle to the defender (you can't spam structures close to the enemy, as you'd need civilian units for that, which have very little health and the construction time is quite long, plus it requires an upgrade to turn from an observation post to an actual defensive structure capable of shooting, preventing their offensive use)

[Error]

I feel Settlers was more 4X empire management than pure RTS, but we'll roll with that.

Also, Ground Control II managed to pull it off naturally. Aircraft will wreck tanks, as tanks can't aim high enouh to even shoot back. However, rocket trucks will shred aircraft easily, as you'd kinda expect. In turn, these were targets for infantry and tanks. Though if you place them right, infantry can tear almost anything except aircraft apart. Unless you switch your tanks to anti I fantry, but then those will get cut up by other tanks even more.

I feel like GC had a rather unique system - all units had 2 modes. Primary, in which they go about their business in a standard way, and secondary, which let them counter a completely different enemy than normal. Take the rocket trucks. Primary? Antiair and somewhat antivehicle. Secondary? Deploy a shield that will stop light missiles and grenades, and will reduce artillery damage. Medium tanks went from antivehicle to anti infantry, and infantry could swap from anti infantry to antivehicle. Stuff like that.

[Iv121]

The adv of ww2 strategies is that air is not as existent as in modern or futuristic strategies making terrain vital, there is no magical unit that can ignore it, this in turn means static entrenchments play a greater role. It seems that modern set strategies loose depth due to the loss of terrain and reduction of the importance of ground control. Its possible to balance it out with other kind of component but I haven’t seen a modern RTS that quite pulled it off yet (and no, more rock-paper-scissors wont work, see its an already existing component, it doesn’t add any depth to add it again, it needs a new mechanic to compensate or the loss of another mechanic)

[Chairman_Tiel]

I feel Settlers was more 4X empire management than pure RTS, but we'll roll with that.

Also, Ground Control II managed to pull it off naturally. Aircraft will wreck tanks, as tanks can't aim high enouh to even shoot back. However, rocket trucks will shred aircraft easily, as you'd kinda expect. In turn, these were targets for infantry and tanks. Though if you place them right, infantry can tear almost anything except aircraft apart. Unless you switch your tanks to anti I fantry, but then those will get cut up by other tanks even more.

I feel like GC had a rather unique system - all units had 2 modes. Primary, in which they go about their business in a standard way, and secondary, which let them counter a completely different enemy than normal. Take the rocket trucks. Primary? Antiair and somewhat antivehicle. Secondary? Deploy a shield that will stop light missiles and grenades, and will reduce artillery damage. Medium tanks went from antivehicle to anti infantry, and infantry could swap from anti infantry to antivehicle. Stuff like that.

Sierra is really good about it in their games, I agree. WiC and GC were masterpieces.

Well yes but the Q is how far you go with this system, SC dumbs it down to unbearable proportions, the CoH equation of the rock-paper-scissors is superior to it, so much depth and so many possibilities to attack or counter, and not only that but terrain, AoS, map control, unit placement and many other things factor in your strategy in addition to the rock-paper-scissors, in SC by comparison so many of those factors are either dumbed down to unbearable proportions or removed entirely.

Because depth as you describe it doesn't always equate maximum enjoyment. Games like Men At War go so far as to keep track of each individual's ammo - would you find that fun? The difference between Starcraft and Company of Heroes is that the former is designed to be lightweight and competitive...the tradeoff is, as you say, a simplification of elements that are more exaggerated in the latter. The resulting game also has a much lower learning curve, which is why it's more popular.

really overrated in my opinion.

Seems like you're going

more than anything here.

[Iv121]

Well there is a limit to what you can do in SC, it has actually too low of a learning curve, its true CoH has a lot of mechanics to learn but believe me with all that depth it is actually relatively easy to pick and gives you an actual room to truly grow. You can say that I flame a game I hate (Im actually indifferent towards it, if I don’t like it I won't play it) yet you know well my points are valid, that is why this game is overrated. Really you can easily add depth to a game without making it too hard to learn, if you really like that kind of gameplay SC is there for you, although I did enjoy some aspects of it it gave me no challenge or excitement.

Although eventually you will face opponents of your "skill" and probably have a hard time advancing further, the games will simply feel rigged - either in your favor or your opponent's , no control over the results of the battle whatsoever although theoretically you do have. The main difference between the tiers is how fast the players react, you won't be able to feel the appeal of a genius tactic or trick played on you or by you ... in other words it feels too bare. Yes there are tactics and tricks, play with aggro and micro-management but its not the tactics that appeal to me, they are barely the abuse of the technical limitations of the AI.

I also mentioned that Sc didn’t make me excited and thrilled during the gameplay. Although CoH seems that sort of a heavy thinking slow paced game it is actually surprisingly fast paced, not only this but I can promise you that there is no dull moment during your match (which can BTW take anywhere from 40 minutes to 4 hours, even that aspect is unpredictable). From the very moment you deploy your troops and start capturing territory you will immediately encounter enemy troops and from that moment on you will constantly clash with the enemy.

CoH also has micro-management in it but unlike SC its not about abusing AI limitations, moving your troops to cover, outmanoeuvring slower tanks, circumventing a poorly placed HMG, those are moments where you take personal command of your troops, you will often find that instead of leading swarms of identical soldiers you control a single or a few single units, allowing you to both use mass and in the same time micro-manage each unit to be the most efficient in battle. When all of this is pulled out correctly it gives an immense satisfaction as you know those are all the fruits of your hard work.

[Chairman_Tiel]

Well there is a limit to what you can do in SC

No more than in Company of Heroes.

it has actually too low of a learning curve,

Entirely subjective. I'd love to see you take on some of the Diamond level players if what you're trying to say is that it's too easy.

its true CoH has a lot of mechanics to learn but believe me with all that depth it is actually relatively easy to pick and gives you an actual room to truly grow.

Not really. Move guy here, capture resource point there, maintain map control. It's hardly difficult, it just exaggerates things that Starcraft doesn't bother with - ie, armor penetration. A tank can be sitting there with 5% health but until the dice says you damage it with that bazooka, the damn thing is going to still hold sway in the match.

You can say that I flame a game I hate (Im actually indifferent towards it, if I don’t like it I won't play it)

I'm saying that 'overrated' is the wrong word there when you're just saying it doesn't cater to your tastes.

yet you know well my points are valid, that is why this game is overrated.

Hardly. I really hate how you have this mentality that requires you to state "you know I'm right!" in the midst of what would otherwise be nice little discussions, but I digress. I've yet to see you say anything that remotely supports your argument that Starcraft is 'overrated' when the nucleus of everything you've said is that you don't personally like the less complicated nature of its gameplay.

Really you can easily add depth to a game without making it too hard to learn

Naturally. My point is criticizing a game for willfully not embracing that level of depth for the sake of simplicity, and by extension, a more competitive scene, is completely asinine.

Although eventually you will face opponents of your "skill" and probably have a hard time advancing further, the games will simply feel rigged - either in your favor or your opponent's , no control over the results of the battle whatsoever although theoretically you do have.

I cannot say I've ever seen any game unfold like this in all of the matches I've watched on Youtube or played myself. Individual ability and the strategy employed is what's going to determine the eventual outcome. Some of either are more effective than others, yes, but that's an issue you're going to run into no matter where you look.

The main difference between the tiers is how fast the players react, you won't be able to feel the appeal of a genius tactic or trick played on you or by you ... in other words it feels too bare. Yes there are tactics and tricks, play with aggro and micro-management but its not the tactics that appeal to me, they are barely the abuse of the technical limitations of the AI.

And you're saying CoH is any different. Its equivalent to SC's micro-management is moving troops to areas arbitrarily designated as 'more safe' and hoping to god the RNG doesn't decide to off too many of them before you can force the opposition to withdraw.

I also mentioned that Sc didn’t make me excited and thrilled during the gameplay. Although CoH seems that sort of a heavy thinking slow paced game it is actually surprisingly fast paced, not only this but I can promise you that there is no dull moment during your match (which can BTW take anywhere from 40 minutes to 4 hours, even that aspect is unpredictable). From the very moment you deploy your troops and start capturing territory you will immediately encounter enemy troops and from that moment on you will constantly clash with the enemy.

I won't lie, I've loved Relic's approach at area control since Dawn of War, but aside from the early resource-gathering-and-potential-rush phase Starcraft can be just as active, if we're measuring that by how much the enemy is fought. If anything, more action is encouraged in SC due to it not having the veterancy system in Company of Heroes that makes you want to preserve individual units.

CoH also has micro-management in it but unlike SC its not about abusing AI limitations, moving your troops to cover, outmanoeuvring slower tanks, circumventing a poorly placed HMG

1. Just moving soldiers out of combat. Nothing too special.
2. This is present in almost every strategy game to date. It's called kiting.
3. This is called flanking, and is also in pretty much every RTS I can name off the top of my head, including SC.

those are moments where you take personal command of your troops, you will often find that instead of leading swarms of identical soldiers you control a single or a few single units, allowing you to both use mass and in the same time micro-manage each unit to be the most efficient in battle. When all of this is pulled out correctly it gives an immense satisfaction as you know those are all the fruits of your hard work.

You just said Starcraft II had micro-management earlier, so I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this. Do you mean to say it's different somehow because of the units controlled, or something?

Anyway, I didn't come to compare Starcraft II with CoH as they both appeal to different niches of gamers, so consider this my last post regarding that matchup. The point I've been trying to reinforce is that producing units that will be good against your opponent's army composition is something inherent within RTS as a genre. I think we've established that as a mechanic it's more prevalent/blurred by other variables in some titles than others, but it's always going to be there nonetheless. Unless you want to dispute that I really don't see any reason to continue this line of discussion (I know it may come as a surprise but these days I get really nervous arguing).

[Iv121]

You can keep trying to say otherwise but really SC and CoH are on different levels, the mere fact I can spend some ammo points on blowing up a bush giving me access to a whole new area of a map avoiding all your entrenchments (AKA to turn the battle around) is already enough to prove it, the tides of battle can easily turn against you in a whim even if you loose quite badly, sometimes I even let my opponents to take the control points bringing me down from 500 to almost 100 just in order to cut them off from the side and besiege them. You can lock out your opponent entirely out of the center if you did your early game well, just for the enemy to rush out a tank before you build your ATs, smashing your defences or accumulating enough ammo for an arty strike. The fact you can turn around battles that drastically serves as a proof that it has great tactical depth, can you share some great SC tactics on the other hand ?

BTW if you manage to find an actual proper tactic I will reward you with a shortened tale of my epic 4v4 4 hour battle which will be enough to illustrate all the depth there is to this game. See its easy to dismiss that all RTSs are the same but the devil is in the details, just like I told ACH when we talked about clichés in storytelling, yea they are all the same , they are all RTSs, that’s where the similarities end.


Also you think I’m not right ? You think you can prove that SC has more tactical depth ? I challenge you to try, yes I saw you feel "nervous" about arguing though it seems for me that you just want to have the last word, as you know me well enough you know that I wont let you have the last word, prob you won't give me to have it either, yes its pointless unless one side submits and I don't really expect much on that front from you, even if Ill bring you 1,000 games like that 4v4 of mine, even if by definition SC will never have the depth of CoH (Its simply too short, its impossible to look 30 second ahead of the game lasts 20 ...) you will not agree with me.

^ BTW that is also a little argument inside an argument prove me I was wrong about you, I know Im stubborn but Im not ignorant, Im ready to admit when the argument is really lost, but lost arguments I usually avoid which is why you will see that happening rarely, though it does happen, guess Im not as undefeatable as I was hoping :P .

[Error]

StarCraft and Company of Heroes are equal games. Whether or not they're good is completely and totally subjective.

SC has quick gameplay, simple but enagaging tactics and strategy, basic but important economy, and relatively little micromanagement.

CoH has a lot of depth while maintaining relatively fast gameplay, more detailed tactics than SC, more micromanagement, and AFAIK not much more to economy, plus a veterancy system.

Both cater to different markets, repeat different markets, so a direct comparison is pointless.

[Vinyl]

relatively little micromanagement.

Micro is a major part of competitive gameplay, saying there isn't is plain ignorance.

[Error]

relatively little micromanagement.

Micro is a major part of competitive gameplay, saying there isn't is plain ignorance.

So you missed the word "relatively", I see.

You move units around. In CoH, as I understand, you manage movement, ammo, and a couple other things.

[Iv121]

No, ammo is just resources you spend on upgrades and sometimes arty barrages, fuel is the other important resource that determines your progression through the tech tree and ability to produce armored vehicles, usually in shortage. There is also manpower which depends on the size of your territory. Actually it all circles around ground control in CoH, to identify and hold off key points or to outmanoeuvre them and cut the enemy off from behind, its about the shift in the front line.

What is the most important micro-management in CoH is as I said the use of cover for infantry. it doesn't only limit itself to plunk your troops at the best cover possible , but also to force your enemy out of cover with grenades or MGs or flank him to render that cover useless, similarly to XCOM just with whole squads instead of individuals. This means you have the flexibility to do with your squad exactly what you want without burdening you too much and requiring you to control too many individuals, this means you can work both on the small and the bigger picture simultaneously.

As for SC micro-management as I already said it is a mere abuse of AI limitations. "Move injured units to the back' for example will only test how well you mastered your mouse movement, its a robotic action that requires no thinking, that is why it cannot be considered a "future" in an RTS in my opinion. RTSs are about thinking, predicting and outsmarting, not about how well you control your mouse or memorize buttons, that is mainly why those diamond games feel rigged, as I said they give you merely the illusion of control.

[Error]

I've played lower leage, tier, whatevers on SC2 multiplayer, and I found it fun. Competetive play? Click spam. Unranked, or non competetive? Quite fun, as it goes from speed deathballs to actually thinking up how you can win, where to place ambushed, when to attack, and how best to stop the other d00d shredding your base.

And @your explaination of micro, Iv, CoH has more in common with SC than I think your realize. You said ammo goes to artillery, munitions, and the like, and fuel goes to armor and tech tree progression.

Minerals in SC let you build units (given there's no call-ins like arty), get some of the unit upgrades, and serve as the basis for economy. Vespene lets you build higher-tier units, and is required for some of the unit upgrades and such.

Different structure of the same things. Units, tech tree, and in CoH artillery and heavy armor.

[Iv121]

Oh they also got ppl with rifles, and tanks, they are so similar. No rly , no territory control required, not even nearly as much meaning to static defs, cover, positioning, those arty strikes are actually class abilities of which you have 6 (disinclining opposing front which adds two more factions and 6 more classes) that you apply from your command screen, sort of game changers you also unlock the more stuff you blow up so bigger things like a freaking V1 or a King Tiger unlock later in the game, also includes paratrooper and AT gun drops behind enemy lines, building 88mm cannons all over the place or even stuff like propaganda.

Also you really confuse things up. You don't need to explain me how SC works I know it well enough from playing it myself, in our case minerals correspond with manpower that is used pretty much everywhere and there is no equivalent to ammo. Fuel corresponds somewhat with the vaspine yet you have no idea how vital it is compared to vaspine, how starving you are for fuel, that thing is more important than the victory points in my opinion and so I prefer to control the fuel first before controlling the victory points. Those games do have something in common called being RTSs, all that is derived from this fact is common to them both such as rock-paper-scissors mechanics but CoH goes much further than that.

[Error]

I was trying to point out, Iv - if you'll stop arguing aggressively for a moment - that there are parallels between all RTSes, and that CoH and SC2 cater to different audiences.

But, I - and, for that matter, you lot - have gone off topic. We now return you to the discussion of StarCraft and StarCraft 2.