Starcraft 2

[Thought-Fully]

My point was only that there is no "ONE UNIT TO RULE THEM ALL" like Dranoel said.

 

That may be true, but there are some units thata come pretty darn close. Take fiends fully upgraded for instance, they dominate in the ranged category AND in the anti-air category. I personnaly think Starcraft is much more balanced then Warcraft 3. Starcraft has absolutely no dominating units.

Out of 4 years on Warcraft 3 and 4 years on Starcraft, I would have to say Starcraft has a much more nice community. For example, you go on Battle.net (Warcraft 3) and do something wrong in a.... 4v4 Random Team game let's say. Immediatly, the word "N00b" will appear 5,000 times on the screen from your not only opponents, but enemies. Now let's say you prove someone wrong in a chatroom. Soon you will see either the word "N00b" or a inappropriate word accross the screen. My point is that if you do ANYTHING wrong, the word "N00b" will be seen on your screen 100,000,000,000 times. I find Starcraft had a more welcoming community.

Now a lot of people are complaining about Heroes. Blizzard said that Heroes would bring a "new" strategy to the Warcraft series. All heros brought was a creep fest. The only point in warcraft is the following: Creep, Mass, and Micro. Also known as CMM to the more advanced players. Starcraft isn't much better though. It's based on luck. You make some units and hope they can counter the opponents. You really don't mix units in Starcraft.

All in all, they are both fairly good games, but sequals are never as good as the original.

[roguefrog]

Quite frankly I've had enough of the tired Blizzard RTS. I want to go back to the days of TA when RTS was more fun.

[Dranoel]

Dark reapers carry reaperlanchers and not normal missile lanchears if I recall my 40k correctly these are lightweight lanchers that shoot alot of small missiles instead of one big one hence they are superb vs heavy infantry such as marines but too weak to harm anything but the lightest vehicles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Last time I played 40K was almost 10 years ago but Dark Reaper missile launchers were identical to the marine, Imperial guardsmen, orc and every other type of rocket launcher. They were the eldar anti-tank infantry and you could choose between Frag and Krak same as everyone else!

 

Maybe they did get a reimagining which would really suck as they were the only aspect with any real chance against a Land raider! If you send in fire dragons they were bound to get toasted before they got half way close enough to use melta bombs!

 

But seriously though 40K is focused around melee weapons that inflict more damage consistently than their ranged counterparts. In DoW compare thunder hammers vs regular terminators. Regulars seem to rule on all fronts.

 

War 3 - Incidentally Thingolfin... ever tried NE vs Undead who has teched to wyrms? Unless he's really crap he will also have fiends which are ridiculously good vs both NE anti air counters - hippos get netted and dryads just die!

 

Yes there are counters to air units but they remain the single most powerful unit type in the game - particularly due to the base damage amounts they inflict.

[kumquatq3]

no green text

 

eyes bleeding

[Loof]

Last time I played 40K was almost 10 years ago but Dark Reaper missile launchers were identical to the marine, Imperial guardsmen, orc and every other type of rocket launcher. They were the eldar anti-tank infantry and you could choose between Frag and Krak same as everyone else!

 

Maybe they did get a reimagining which would really suck as they were the only aspect with any real chance against a Land raider! If you send in fire dragons they were bound to get toasted before they got half way close enough to use melta bombs!

 

But seriously though 40K is focused around melee weapons that inflict more damage consistently than their ranged counterparts. In DoW compare thunder hammers vs regular terminators. Regulars seem to rule on all fronts.

 

Yeah that would explain it, did you play rogue trader or secodn edition 40k?

Either way they changed how eldar play a bit in the last edition, and from what little I have seen of Dawn of War it tryes to stay true to the latest edition.

 

Nowdays reapers as I said aren't realy made for anti vehicle duty, but eldar has alot of other ways to deal with them now. Usualy involveing vehicles of their own, wraith lords or antigrav platforms for guardians, if any of these work in DoW I don't realy know though...

 

About the terminators I would say that regular stormbolter + powerfist has been better in almost all versions of the tabletop game too so I didnt even think of trying the thunderhamer stormshield version when I tryed DoW oh well....

[Thought-Fully]

no green text

 

eyes bleeding

 

fine red text for now on

[Maedhros]

Incidentally Thingolfin... ever tried NE vs Undead who has teched to wyrms? Unless he's really crap he will also have fiends which are ridiculously good vs both NE anti air counters - hippos get netted and dryads just die!

 

Actually yeah. Played a long game a couple of weeks ago vs an UD on Plunder Isle who went Wyrms. I went Mountain Giants and Dryads and it actually worked pretty well. I ultimately lost though, because I never got enough money to rebuild my expo in the upper left corner after my other two mines were dried out.

 

But it should be fully possible to defeat Wyrms as a NE player. As you probably know dryads are immune to magic damage so they won't take damage from wyrms, and with the Warden as a semi-tanker to finish off the fiends with Fan of Knives and Shadowstrike it shouldn't be a problem if you micro well. Producing 1 bear to get 25% more attack also helps a lot, as well as having healing and armor scrolls on your hero. And the Panda is a must as second hero on tavern maps.

[zer"0"]

Cool thread.

 

Another great RTS is Homeworld. I 've yet to play Homeworld 2, I wonder how the sequel stacks up.

[Darque]

I own it, but never played it... maybe I should install it. <_<

[Whitemithrandir]

Another great RTS is Homeworld. I 've yet to play Homeworld 2, I wonder how the sequel stacks up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

More strategically varied than Homeworld. Cap ships are less dominating. You can't mass anything and expect to win. Frigs without 'vette support get eaten alive by bombers, 'vettes without fighter support get dominated by frigs, supercaps without frigs get shot up by enemy frigs, etc. Also, the maps are much smaller than Homeworld maps, and resources get drained very quickly. This makes carriers much more important as mobile resource-escort bases. Resource ops are easier to defend than in Homeworld, since the resource drops (with the aid of static turrets sprinkled about them) can fend off most small bomber sorties and even ion frig jumps. Less strike craft management is needed, but more cap ship management is neccessary, compared to Homeworld. Tactics based on special weapons (grav well, cloak gen) tend to have a greater impact in battle than Homeworld (they're also much more expensive). Whereas in the original Homeworld you can essentially counter anything the enemy can throw at you by massing frigs/supercaps (assuming you outnumber the enemy), you can't in Homeworld 2. Scout, counter with the right units/strats, or lose.

[roshan]

Anyone here played dark colony? IMO thats the best strategy game ever made.

[zer"0"]

Another great RTS is Homeworld. I 've yet to play Homeworld 2, I wonder how the sequel stacks up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

More strategically varied than Homeworld. Cap ships are less dominating. You can't mass anything and expect to win. Frigs without 'vette support get eaten alive by bombers, 'vettes without fighter support get dominated by frigs, supercaps without frigs get shot up by enemy frigs, etc. Also, the maps are much smaller than Homeworld maps, and resources get drained very quickly. This makes carriers much more important as mobile resource-escort bases. Resource ops are easier to defend than in Homeworld, since the resource drops (with the aid of static turrets sprinkled about them) can fend off most small bomber sorties and even ion frig jumps. Less strike craft management is needed, but more cap ship management is neccessary, compared to Homeworld. Tactics based on special weapons (grav well, cloak gen) tend to have a greater impact in battle than Homeworld (they're also much more expensive). Whereas in the original Homeworld you can essentially counter anything the enemy can throw at you by massing frigs/supercaps (assuming you outnumber the enemy), you can't in Homeworld 2. Scout, counter with the right units/strats, or lose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thanks mithrandir. It sounds nice.

[oherror]

Quite frankly I've had enough of the tired Blizzard RTS.  I want to go back to the days of TA when RTS was more fun.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

you too...i think i may break it out and play it again. TA had and still has some of the biggest explosions that i've seen in rts's.

[uncdeez]

It will happen but I doubt it will be their next game. Blizzard is going to do at least 1 (probably more) expansion for WoW. Given their history with really long development times I don't think we're going to see Starcraft 2 anytime soon (hope I'm wrong though).

 

Also, Starcraft: Ghost is supposed to be an extension of the Starcraft I story (at least I think I read that in some preview years ago). So if they do a Starcraft 2 it will have to come out sometime after Ghost. God knows when that game is coming out.

[Darque]

Starcraft is dead. Blizzard killed it

[karka]

You necroposter!

[Llyranor]

On the bright side, World of Warcraft is going strong!

[Darque]

You necroposter!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And blizzard still sucks for cancelling Ghost.

[Lyric Suite]

Warcraft III was a good game, everybody who thinks eitherwise is full of ****.

 

Blizzard's only sin was becoming sucessful among the hip crowd, so now all the sore nerds are coming out of the wood work, shunning the former with an impossible standard whilst rooting for every marginally talented underdog out there.

 

When Dawn of War was released, the relic message board was half filled with threads that attacked Blizzard in every possible way whilst louding DoW for being such a great, balanced RTS right out of the box, and all the while the other half was bitching about how screwed the balance was, how overpowered and bugged the Eldar were, or how this game was all about rushing. Ho, and yes, the single player was pure crap.

 

Define irony now, please...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2006 by Lyric Suite

[Darque]

Warcraft 3 was ok only.

 

Not a very challenging game, and far too focused on the "leader" units.

[Jumjalum]

Warcraft 3 was a quality product, maybe the heros were too overpowered but the game was still more flat-out fun to play than most other releases. I don't know of any other game that has as much character as W3.

[metadigital]

I like Warcraft III; I couldn't stop playing it! Then I bought the expansion pack The Frozen Throne, and I couldn't be bothered to get through the prologue (had to play as wood elves, or some such nonsense): I tried twice and uninstalled it twice halfway-through the prologue.

[Darque]

Warcraft 3 was a quality product, maybe the heros were too overpowered but the game was still more flat-out fun to play than most other releases.  I don't know of any other game that has as much character as W3.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not for me, it was kinda boring, and sup par compared to Starcraft.

 

I only finished the game because I am a completist and because a good friend kept telling me that it'd get better and that the end battle was the hardest thing ever.

 

It didn't get better, and the end battle was easy.

[Musopticon?]

Threadromancy is bad.

[Darque]

So is Spamocation