Favorite RTS and why do you like it

[tubgoatstugboats]

My all time favorite RTS is Starcraft, was addicted to it enough to make the top ten in ladder matches, and the reasons why i liked it so much was because multiplayer was easy to get into to, it sported 3 different races which were radically different, which at the time was kinda few and far between, most games had 2 or 3 that were litterally just different skins at best. Also in single player mode the game was a story, and pretty well told people liked warcraft 3 but hate starcraft, strange because starcraft was the road paved to warcraft 3, and was very good considering when it was made. Since then no game has stolen my time as much, rts rpg fps doesnt matter becuase none have come close and i play games alot. Theres my input whats yours?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I would most likely choose one of the Total War games, maybe Rome or Medevil II, but Starcraft is a classic and should not be discarded either.

[mr insomniac]

Myth: The Fallen Lords, mainly because in many missions some of the units at your command will be dwarves with molotov ****tails and satchels filled with explosives. The atmosphere of the game is great and the story and details are pretty interesting for a RTS. The missions are fun as well.

[Atreides]

Starcraft's telling of its story is the best for me though there are several annoying gameplay limitations by today's standards.

 

Lately I've been playing RA3: Uprising and I like it's corny presentation and its gameplay is surprisingly intuitive. The hotkeys are the same throughout, depending on positions on the bar and mapped for the left hand which makes memorizing hotkeys redundant.

[Gorth]

Europa Universalis III

 

Because it is the only rts that I like.

[Bos_hybrid]

I would most likely choose one of the Total War games, maybe Rome or Medevil II.

 

This. Also add Sins of a Solar Empire there too.

[Calax]

Homeworld 2

 

Sure the story is a bit wonky but the gameplay is FANTASTIC!

[Azure79]

Most definitely Starcraft. Mostly because I still play a few games when now and again, and its still fun. I never invested myself in ladder play, but playing 3v3 games with friends and random people over Bnet was incredibly fun, especially when drunk/high.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Hard to decide between Myth II: Soulblighter/Starcraft/Homeworld/Dawn of War

 

The one I most enjoyed playing was definitely Myth II's single player campaign.

 

Homeworld is the most artistic and beautiful game of the lot.

 

Dawn of War's cool factor was through the roof.

 

And Starcraft was all an around great game.

[H]

Those two Warhammer games (Shadow of the Horned Rat and Dark Omen). The Myth series are a close second.

 

EDIT: I like Warhammer for having Skaven and a hilariously badass protagonist, and Myth for great map design.

Edited August 23, 2009 by H

[Gorgon]

Homeworld, or Homeworld Cataclysm. The homeworld 2 AI punishes you for playing well and rewards you for being a tard. It's called 'adaptive AI' and it completely ruins the single player experience. On the plus side the fleet management works a little better, squadrons instead of single strike craft, easy selection, etc.

[fastpunk]

For me it's definitely good old Age of Empire 2 + The Conquerors expansion. As for the why, it's just well balanced, I love the historical theme, and it's wicked for LAN games. I sometimes load up a custom scenario and play it for leisure. It's kind of my go to game.

[Purkake]

Company of Heroes. It's pretty sweet.

[Llyranor]

The Airborne Assault series is the absolute best real-time representation of high-level (operational level) strategy and tactics in gaming, and I will accept any challenges to the contrary. The basis of this argument is on both the implementation of command and control/chains of command, and on the presence of time as a crucial element in planning strategy in the form of order delays. You aren't playing a godlike entity with full absolute control of your units, you're a high-level commander.

(HistWar looks interesting, but it not yet proven. This series, on the other hand, has been virtually getting unanimous critical acclaim and awards from the wargaming community and press)

 

It is niche PC games like this that will ensure that, despite growing somewhat away from mainstream PC gaming in the last few years - I will always be a PC gamer.

 

As much as I love HoI2, what I consider the best WW2 game isn't HoI2; it's Airborne Assault: Conquest of the Aegean (its predecessor in the series, Airborne Assault: Highway to the Reich, is in a similar vein, but covers Operation Market-Garden).

 

Why is COTA a good WW2 game? It's not Hollywood-style, and it doesn't just implement the WW2 setting just for big explosions and drama. Instead, it uses the setting as a strength of the game, crafting historically accurate scenarios and putting you in the shoes of the general of a particular battle. It's of an operational scale (thus smaller than HoI2), which I think allows for tigher design. COTA covers the battles of Greece, Crete, and a hypothetical invasion of Malta.

 

It's an operational wargame. It's real-time with pause, but plays nothing like a RTS. It tries to be as accurate as possible, avoiding as much gaming conventions as it can - a pseudo-simulation of sorts. How does it do this? I'll present some points posted by someone else on another forum (MarkShot) who does it much better than me, and I absolutely agree with him.

 

In many so called "strategy" games, the player may formulate a strategy in pursuit of victory. However, when it comes to executing the strategy, it is largely incumbent on the player to execute each small detail in order to realize the strategy. So, the "strategy" is actually something the player imposes upon the gaming system, as opposed to the player actually interacting with the system at the strategic level. At worst, this leaves the player so mired with the details that the big picture is lost or at best, the player can track the big picture but finds much of their involvement happening at a lower level than the one for which they acquired the game for in the first place.

 

So, what is it that is different about Panther's engine that allows strategy to be both the main focus of the player and main interaction with the game?

 

(1) Panther has introduced a flexible multi-level chain of command structure into the game. The player may interact with units/sub-units at any level within the chain of command. Thus, it is very adaptable to individual style and needs. One can both micro/macro manage within even a single gaming session. A critical road block can be created by tasking individual companies while some place else an entire brigade can be given very open ended orders to make an attack.

 

Some games have a natural level at which the player should interact with the game. As long as scenarios and forces are constructed around that natural limit, they play very well. Panther's engine is much more open ended. The ability to command at any level makes the game highly scalable. In many games, if you double the forces, the complexity for the player will quadruple (exponential scaling). In Panther's engine, the scaling is more of a logarithmic function. So, doubling the forces may increase the complexity for the player by a factor of 1.2 or so.

 

(Okay, keep this scaling in mind as I will come back to it soon.)

 

(2) Along with this being able to take command at any level, Panther has provided a very powerful (or as they prefer to say "capable") AI. In most games, the AI is something that serves as your opponent. In the Combat Mission series, Battle Front identified two different AIs. First there is the Tactical AI, which resolved combat between individual elements (units) in the game system. Second, there is the Strategic AI which formulates a high-level plan for the battle against the player. If we look at Panther's engine, we will also find both of these AIs. However, in the Panther engine the Strategic AI also functions on behalf of the player to produce plans in the execution of orders given by the player. It is this which allows the player to command at any level. The player need not concern him or herself with a myriad of typical details like choosing the best route, coordinating the movement of many units with proper overwatch and security, developing a proper attack formation, deploying different type of assets to their maximum advantage, etc...

 

---

 

So, when we add the two above features together we get a highly scalable system that allows the player's main involvement to be with defining and monitoring strategy. In some games, you may be able to command large scale battles. However, this is often achieved by abstracting the forces involved in the battle. With Panther's engine, large scale doesn't mean highly abstracted. In fact, while playing HTTR you will find all the low level elemental units like infantry companies, anti-tank platoons, mortars platoons, ... individually represented and involved. So, even though you are directing a battle involving tens of thousands men and giving order to brigades, it is fought before your eyes at a much finer level of granularity. All the inherent messiness and give and take of battle is not abstracted away by some hidden numerical system. It is all there for your immersion and analysis despite your involvement at a much higher level.

 

(3) I think there is one other aspect of Panther's engine that significantly contributes to the strategic nature of the game. This is order delays. Anyone who is serving or has served will tell you that no plans/orders are immediately executed. They require time to plan, communicate, organize, and execute. You will also be told that command and control delays during WWII were much greater than they are today. There were no GPS satellites, computers, integrated battle management, etc... Panther has implemented such command and control delays into the gaming engine. While playing, you are free to issue orders and reissue orders at any point in time. However, if you choose to play with order delays (this is optional, but is selected by most players), then you will not be issuing orders and revising them every simulated hour. You are going to analyze and then, formulate a plan. Then, you will issue orders. Then, you are going to, with as much patience as you can muster, sit back and let things run their course. Even when things are not going well, you will not immediately jump in and tweak this or that. You will make a commitment as the commander to stand by your decisions until a major overhaul is needed.

 

Believe me, this all feels very real life. The requirement to create the best plan on incomplete/inaccurate information and then sit back and let things just happen, adds a lot to the fact that this is about strategy. You will work out a strategy and then set it in motion. You are not going to keep nudging things in the right direction based on some tables published by players who have reverse engineered the gaming system. I have never served in the military, but I have managed large scale software projects and this game truely captures the feel and challenges of leadership/management.

 

Summary:

1) The Order of Battle actually matters. Multi-level chain of command means you can macro- or micro-manage as much as you want. The beauty of it is that the more you micro, the more HQ becomes overwhelmed, learning to longer order delays, so you quickly learn to deleguate.

2) AI is very capable of carrying out your macro orders. In setting your orders, you set out different parameters, and the AI carries them out competently. There are a general view of what order settings you can have available on the left:

3) Order delays means that this CAN'T be a twitch fest, even if you wanted it to be. Every order you implement (because you control battalions and regiments and above, and not single squads or units) takes TIME to be carried out. It takes time for your units to organize themselves and prepare. What this means is that you have to plan out ahead, and anticipate the enemy's plan as well, taking into account various possibilities as well. You can't overcome setbacks by clicking wildly. From a gameplay perspective, that makes it very challenging.

 

Why does no one play this around here? Well, you basically play on a 2D map and manipulate little squares around. You don't see lots of bells and whistles. Despite that, the look is clean, the interface itself is ace and very functional, and it performs really well. It's a big shame, really.

 

I dug the games so much, I went out and bought some books on Market-Garden and the Greece/Crete operations to read more on them. That's what WW2 games should do - stimulate the player to learn more about the conflict.

 

In any case, the upcoming game in the (renamed) series is Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge. It'll actually have a demo, so maybe people will finally try it out.

 

I usually hugely favor turn-based over real-time when it comes to tactics/strategy game. In fact, I will always ALWAYS pick a turn-based tactics/strategy game over a real-time one given a choice - the sole exception being this series. The authenticity that the system brings to the depiction of operational-level strategy and tactics (any such emulation in a turn-based system would be fairly abstracted) is so significant to me that I will even forgo my turn-based bias.

 

http://www.matrixgames.com

 

--------------

 

I also really like EU3 (in some ways I'd even favor it over AA, such as co-op), Men of War (awesome implementation of Rambo-style action and tactics/squad controls), and Close Combat.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

World in Conflict, mostly because if I'm going to lose all the time it might as well look good.

[Hurlshort]

I would say Myth as well. I don't enjoy the resource management, so it was perfect for me.

 

I'm not sure I'd call the Total War games an RTS. I mean you technically never even need to go into the real time aspect of the game to play it.

[Nihilus5078]

Empire at War, hands down. For me at least. It requires tactical strategy as well as military strategy to become good at it.

[kingofsquid]

Empire at War, hands down. For me at least. It requires tactical strategy as well as military strategy to become good at it.

 

I got EaW+FoC today, and it's good, but I have only had 2 hours with and do not have enough experience, so I must go with Age of Mythology: The Titans Expansion.

[Purkake]

For what it's worth Empire At War made me want to die after a while. The planet map part was very simplistic and repetitive, same for the space and ground "combat". It's like Diet Total War lite.

Edited August 23, 2009 by Purkake

[cronicler]

A Lot. I don't think I can give a single answer

Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines (I am a sucker for RTS puzzles)

Homeword and Cata (Epic)

Ground Control and Dark Conspiracy (Had tons of fun as Major Sarah Parker's orderly/commo guy . Miss Deacon Jarred. )

World in Conflict and Soviet Assault (Too bad the IP is sacrificed)

UFO Aftermath, Aftershock, Afterlight (What? I like shotgunning the world free from aliens )

Nexus: The Jupiter Incident (A total of 3 missons out of 30 at Jupiter. )

Shogun: Total War (European wars may be better. But Shogun has a diffrent place)

Company of Heroes (Sherman vs Tiger is better than Landrider vs Fireprism.)

[Purkake]

A Lot. I don't think I can give a single answer

Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines (I am a sucker for RTS puzzles)

Homeword and Cata (Epic)

Ground Control and Dark Conspiracy (Had tons of fun as Major Sarah Parker's orderly/commo guy . Miss Deacon Jarred. )

World in Conflict and Soviet Assault (Too bad the IP is sacrificed)

UFO Aftermath, Aftershock, Afterlight (What? I like shotgunning the world free from aliens )

Nexus: The Jupiter Incident (A total of 3 missons out of 30 at Jupiter. )

Shogun: Total War (European wars may be better. But Shogun has a diffrent place)

Company of Heroes (Sherman vs Tiger is better than Landrider vs Fireprism.)

 

Crap, change my answer to Desperados, I totally didn't consider it an RTS.

 

The UFO series has some awesome stuff, but the horrible level designs and having to defend your stuff every five seconds made it really annoying. I really liked all the research, base building and weapon/item stuff. It's like no one has ever played any of the games, weird.

[cronicler]

Spellbound Studios has made a lot of games in the RTS-Puzzle genre:

Desperados: Wanted Dead or Alive

Desperados 2: Cooper's Revenge

Helldorado

Robin Hood: The Legend of Sherwood

Chicago 1930

 

Pyro Studios (Eidos):

Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines

Commandos: Beyond the Call of Duty

Commandos 2: Men of Courage

Commandos 3: Destination Berlin

 

 

EDIT PS: The more I think about it, the more games I remember liking: Tiberium Sun, Warhammer Games, Mhth games, Hell even the Earth series and MechCommander were a lot of fun...

PPS: Oh damn. I totally forgot to mention the DUNGEON KEEPER!

Edited August 23, 2009 by cronicler

[Purkake]

I know, as far as I've heard Desperados 2 pales in comparison with 1, Helldorado is borken, Robin Hood is decent and I only found Chicago 1930 on mobygames just recently.

 

Commandos goes to crap after 2 right?

[LadyCrimson]

Most long-timers here would expect me to say Dungeon Keeper, but for some reason I've never considered that a RTS, even tho I suppose it is, kind of. And I haven't played many RTS in recent years, so I'll stick with saying...Majesty. Loved AoE1 when it first came out but Majesty's quirkiness wins out.

[cronicler]

To give a rough count, from best to worst it goes something like Desperados 1 (Superb story and presentation), Helldorado (Nice and Modern Gameplay) ,Desperados 2, Robin Hood (Nice story but too much bland fillers) and Chicago (So so).

 

For Commandos, my choice is 3, 2, 1, 1exp but that's more to the game interface etc than the actual game. A lot of people would put 3 to the end. (The Exp is deadly hard btw. That's why I hate it. And finished it perfectly )