Wanted: New RTS

[Jim F.]

Okie, I need to pick up a couple of new RTS/TBS games this weekend and I'm looking for ideas.

At first the cut and dry choice seemed to be Warcraft 3, but after hearing that the Skirmish is close to impossible and the MP on Battle.net is essentially a rush-fest, I have a hard time justifying the choice. I beat the original Starcraft campaign in a couple of week of off and on playing. Yet I still play it now and then exclusively because of the skirmish mode and the fact that rushes are possible, but easily countered, on Battle.net. If I'm spending $60 on a game, I want to play it longer than 2 weeks before having to stick it in the Closet of Never Played Games.

Battlecry 2 sounds interesting, but I haven't heard anything about the multiplayer or skirmish. Plus the low sales figures have me doubting if i can find opponents if the MP is worth playing.

Age of Wonders 2 is getting a lot of good word of mouth, but I don't know anyone who personally owns it. Is it really one of the best turn based games made?

Heroes of might & Magic IV: I loved the first 3 games, but unless this is a nice evolutionary step in the system, it's really not worth my gaming dollars. Haven't heard much of anything about it yet.

Other: Anything out there I should look into?

[Anonymous]

Army Man RTS is the Warcraft killer we've all been waiting for. Hours and hours of fun... They've obviously put a lot of time into topping everything else on the market, and leapt several iterations ahead of the competition. This game is literally ahead of its time. The mods from the vibrant user community alone will keep you busy for months.

Buy it.

[Anonymous]

Whoops, forgot. Here's the URL...

http://www.3do.com/armymen/rts/

Gotta get some of this action. Online multiplayer is like a fresh burst of mint in the reeking hellmouth of the game industry. Don't forget to pack extra undies, 'cause you'll be wetting your pants.

[Alan Au]

What do you have (and like) already? The Kohan games are highly recommended. AoW2 is also good stuff, but requires a good chunk of time.

- Alan

[Jim F.]

I have way too many RTS and TBS games. I'll just list the ones that I have and still enjoy. There are many old RTS games that I used to enjoy that don't do it for me anymore. C&C is now too ancient, Warcraft 2 has 2 cookie cutter races, which really puts me off. Etc.

Anyway, what I still enjoy:
Starcraft
T.A.
Heroes of Might & Magic III
Age of Wonders
Civ III & Alpha Centari

OK, so why do I enjoy these still?

Starcraft: easy to get back into. 3 distinct races that are each open to several different strategies. Strong skirmish that is fun to play and not overpowering unless you make it so (Me vrs 3 comps, for example). Very strong and active multiplayer community.

TA: Huge variety of units. Decent skirmish mode. Multiplayer is strong, even stronger than Starcraft. Variety of units makes for many available strategies in MP.

Heroes of M&M III: Good question. It's a very addictive game. Random map generator gives longer life to both the single player and multiplayer experience. Downside of MP is that it's always just you and a friend or 2, due to the time commitment required to finish a game.

Age of Wonders: Well made HoMM III clone with better unit to unit combat. Haven't messed around much with multiplayer yet, but the SP game has been fun.

Civ III & friends: No 2 games are alike. Nice AI opponents. Makes for nearly unlimited replayability. Custom rules and victory conditions make for new ways to challenge yourself (IE: turning off your Space victory forces you to take a new path to winning).

Sooo... yeah, that's about it. I really can't get into RTS games that have cookie cutter races. TA skirts the path of that problem, but the strength of the MP, the twist of having a commander, and the the variety of units saves it here.

I really don't like turn based games that just resemble a town down hex board with little square units representing your forces. Used to like these in the past, but they are way too slow for me now. Having a battle between 2 infantry units and 4 tanks shouldn't take me 2 hours to resolve.

[Dr Fear]

Age of Wonders 2 is getting a lot of good word of mouth, but I don't know anyone who personally owns it. Is it really one of the best turn based games made?
Absolutely. It is the game that may finally make me shelve Heroes 3. Buy it. It is fantastic.

Heroes of might & Magic IV: I loved the first 3 games, but unless this is a nice evolutionary step in the system, it's really not worth my gaming dollars. Haven't heard much of anything about it yet.
This game has all sorts of problems. First of all if your going to be playing it solo, the AI is so bad that there will be no challenge at all. Plus there are tons of balance issues, like the fact that heroes are so way overpowered you might as well just power-level some hero stacks and use these to wipe up the board. And since the AI is so sucky it is even more of a joke. Don't waste you money.

[Bub, Andrew]

HOMM4 is a mess. Aside from the artwork the mess is well below the surface though. The AI is just plain broken and the focus has been made less "board gamey" in favor of something rather milquetoast. In fact, sort of like Steve Bauman with Black & White, I believe Geryk was the only reviewer to call HOMM4 "right" (even if the rating he gives is a touch too generous). I tossed HOMM4 and returned to III pretty fast.

http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/apr02/heroes_magic4.html

[Tyjenks]

After the bad press the game has received in many places, much of it well deserved, I am sure you will not be purchasing HoMMIV.

Call me a dope, simple, or both, but I love it and I am still playing it. The changes they have made are wonderful and make it a substantially different game from Heroes III. The AI leaves a lot to be desired, but the last patch helped somewhat.

I do not play for hours on end, but I do play 5 or 6 days a week. Maybe I have not played enough to challenge myself more or dig deeper into the problems. I have finished 5 of the 6 campaigns and several of the individual scenarios. I am now playing user-created maps. I cannot get enough of it.

I have played the Heroes series since the 2nd ed. and may not convince anyone, but if you liked the others, find a store with a liberal return policy and at least give it a go.

[Tom Chick]

Jim,

I've said elsewhere, and I stand by it, that Battlecry II is the definitive real time strategy game. As someone not given to hyperbole and someone who has played most RTSs out there, I don't say that lightly. It has superlative skirmish support and a fairly active multiplayer community; I haven't been on the UbiSoft servers recently, but their boards are still hopping. The single player campaign is also very good.

Age of Wonders II also gets a big thumbs up from me. I like how it's a very open and accessible system; like a board game, you always know what's happening and why. There's a lot of variety in the races and spells, an exciting tactical combat engine, and a robust grand strategic scheme driving the whole thing. It's currently my turn-based game of choice, but mainly because I O.D.ed on Civ III and I'm still flummoxed by all the detail in Dominions.

-Tom

[Jason McCullough]

Get the kohan stand-only expansion.

[Tyjenks]

Jim,

I'm still flummoxed by all the detail in Dominions.

-Tom

OK. That does it. No one says that anymore in general conversation. I just did an internet search and the word flummoxed has not been used on the entire planet, in any language since the year 1956. Just STOP. You are hurting my head with your literary superiority.

OTOH, Is that Ill Winter's Dominions and is it fun at all? I have toyed with getting into one of those type games (Dominions, Call of the Warlords, Faith, et.al.), but every time I go to one of their sites the seemingly overwhelming complexity and sheer volume of rules do me in. Maybe if I catch pneumonia this winter I will have the time to attempt one. Then I would really have an Ill - Winter. You get it. Ill Winter. The guys who created Dominions. The sickness + the season. You see what I did was......Yeech!

That was horrid. I apologize.

[Brooski]

I believe Geryk was the only reviewer to call HOMM4 "right" (even if the rating he gives is a touch too generous).

While I wish I could take credit there, I think the Steve Bauman Accuracy Award on HOMM4 should go to Jason Kapalka for his review in CGW of a couple months ago. I think it was Kapalka. If it wasn't, then it was whoever wrote the CGW review.

P.S. In re this thread, I vote for Age of Wonders 2!

[Jaysun]

You could try out Battle Realms as well. I liked the game for it's rich history and colorful characters.

Hey Bruce, I saw on your Gamespotting article that you were playing Emperor of the Fading Suns. Where did you get your copy of it and do you know anyplace where I could find it? I'd like to play it again, but the copy I played earlier was owned by someone else.

[Chris Nahr]

At first the cut and dry choice seemed to be Warcraft 3, but after hearing that the Skirmish is close to impossible and the MP on Battle.net is essentially a rush-fest, I have a hard time justifying the choice.

WC3 has an excellent campaign, and Battle.net play is said to be quite good as well. But if skirmish is more important to you, forget it. Also, you definitely shouldn't pay the initial $60 price -- it should be available at $30-40 practically anywhere by now.


Heroes of might & Magic IV: I loved the first 3 games, but unless this is a nice evolutionary step in the system, it's really not worth my gaming dollars. Haven't heard much of anything about it yet.

HoMM4 is indeed a nice evolutionary step as far as the game system is concerned. Unfortunately the release was completely broken, with an AI that randomly goes to sleep and offers no resistance at all, and a missing multiplayer mode that has yet to be added by a patch. If they ever fix it up it should be a really good game; until then, don't waste your money.


Other: Anything out there I should look into?

Umm, I guess you could buy a Gamecube and get Pikmin... or wait for Age of Mythology and the Civ3 expansion.

[Murph]

it [Warcraft III] should be available at $30-40 practically anywhere by now

Check again. Compuexpert has it at 47.90, and that's about the cheapest you'll be likely to find it, this week, at least.

But best o'luck to you. And if anyone sees it somwhwere for $40 or less, I'm looking for a copy. :)

[Chris Nahr]

Check again. Compuexpert has it at 47.90, and that's about the cheapest you'll be likely to find it, this week, at least.

That's amazing. Americans got screwed by that initial retail price of US$60 anyway -- the game started out at €48 in Germany, with the euro being roughly at parity with the US dollar and including 16% VAT. Just the other day I saw a big stack of WC3 boxes marked down to around €30. I would have assumed that most American stores would have similar "special offers" by now.

[Murph]

Not regularly. Not yet. :evil:

At least, not that I've seen, and I've been watching. I'm waiting for it to drop to $40 or less to buy it. So far, it hasn't made it.

[mtkafka]

I'd get TA for multiplay, theres still an active community that plays on Gamespy and MS Gaming Zone. For skirmish / solo play I'd get Warlords Battlecry 2... it has an open ended campaign and a persistent hero you can build up!

And for TBS, I'd say Age of Wonders 2 is a solid choice. Though, the original AoW isn't a bad choice either, I like building up non wizard heroes... Heroes IV I would have reccomended IF they had fixed the AI a bit and put in some multi. Sad, but Heroes IV was released unfinished, but I still prefer the Heroes tactical combat over anyother tb tactical combats...

Anyway, maybe wait for Warlords IV or Age of Mythology or Rise of Nations? And Warcraft III is overrated! I borrowed my friends copy... I just dont see whats the big deal with it (besides the cool cutscenes!) I actually think the graphics in Battle Realms is better, and Empire Earth was MORE fun online than War 3 for me....

etc

[Murph]

Well, I've spent a generous amount of time with the original Age of Wonders, and a more limited amount of time with the demo for AoW 2, and...I just don't get it. Whatever you guys see in those games, I don't. It's not the turn-based part that bothers me -- I've enjoyed a lot of turn-based games, from the Civ games to Disciples 2 to Space Empires IV -- but something about them just doesn't do it for me. I just can't get into them.

So, that's totally off-topic, but...what's new?

[mtkafka]

Hey Murph have you tried JA2? I think its one of the best ! And its turnbased!

etc

[Anonymous]

One not mentioned, but also an outstanding choice is Disciples 2. It is the game HOMM4 SHOULD have been. Four unique races, three classes within each for you the player to choose from (in addition to the various heroes you will hire), branching tree for upgrading units, and units that upgrade based on experience.

I have easily spent way more time playing this one than Civ 3 or HOMM4.

[Gladguy]

I rather enjoyed Battle Realms. You won't be playing it forever, but it's a fun diversion for the weekend, and should be available in a bin somewhere.

Another overlooked title I really enjoyed was Anteaus Rising. Some really innovative stuff in there, but it just bombed at retail. I've seen it available now for $5, and it's a steal at that price.

As far as more current stuff, I'd recommend Freedom Force if you haven't played it yet, and Warcraft III. WC3 has some very glaring shortcomings, and it certainly isn't the Greatest Game Ever Made, but it certainly presents a very polished product worthy of play for any strategy fan.

[Dave Long]

If I'm not mistaken, Compuexpert had a sale on Warcraft III over the weekend priced at $34.90. That's over now though.

I'm with Tom. You should be playing Warlords Battlecry II. It has a dynamic campaign that you can play over and over again. It's kind of like skirmish with an overarching goal. In fact, anyone that loves real-time strategy games should play it. It's the best traditional RTS money can buy. Yet it's not all that traditional in a lot of ways...

--Dave

[Tyjenks]

I'm with Tom. You should be playing Warlords Battlecry II. It has a dynamic campaign that you can play over and over again. It's kind of like skirmish with an overarching goal. In fact, anyone that loves real-time strategy games should play it. It's the best traditional RTS money can buy. Yet it's not all that traditional in a lot of ways...

--Dave

Also, $29.99 at most of your local friendly retail outlets.

[Jim F.]

Hmmm... I think I'm going to try out AoW 2 and Battlecry 2 this weekend. I played the first additions of both, and enjoyed them quite a lot. Battlecry is sitting The Closet now after me burning out on it, but it sounds like they have fixed things up in the sequel.

I know, someday, that I'm getting Warcraft 3. Too many people I know are going to be picking it up for me not to have it for our little LAN parties. I'm hoping they patch the AI up a bit, maybe add a difficulty slider to the skirmish mode. I mean, hell, if Homeworld can have a viable AI with 4 different difficulty levels, why can't Blizzard seem to handle it?

Now that my wife is working again, I'm finally able to start buying games again. We picked up a Gamecube about a month back, have picked up half a dozen games for it, but I finally decided that there are enough PC games out that i can start feeding that obsession again. So these 2 games aren't the end of my purchases, just the first to get me back into true PC gaming.

Anymore, my PC has felt like a $1500 EQ console. The game is fun and all, but I need some variety.

[Jaysun]

Hey Murph have you tried JA2? I think its one of the best ! And its turnbased!

etc

Jagged Alliance 2 is one of the best turn-based strategy games ever. Did you play the expansion? Those new characters were hilarious and they brought back Tex!! He was always my favorite from JA1.

[Tyjenks]

Hey Murph have you tried JA2? I think its one of the best ! And its turnbased!

etc

Jagged Alliance 2 is one of the best turn-based strategy games ever. Did you play the expansion? Those new characters were hilarious and they brought back Tex!! He was always my favorite from JA1.

Was JA2: Unfunished Business not insanely difficult to anyone else? It began to seem like work, so I just went back and played through original again.

I do agree. It is probably my favorite TBS game.

[Lurker]

"[war3]...MP on Battle.net is essentially a rush-fest]"
and
"[starcraft] Yet I still play it now and then exclusively because of the skirmish mode and the fact that rushes are possible, but easily countered"

Warcraft 3 has as much, if not considerably more, anti-rush capability as Starcraft. Towers are faster, plus all heros start with a teleport scroll which means your entire army can be anywhere on the map, but your homebase remains safely guarded.

This doesn't mean the game isn't awesomely fast-paced and, as with Starcraft, an ultra fast mouse and hotkey user can still overwhelm a more leisurely paced or defensive player.

Regardless, if you really rank Starcraft as your favorite multiplayer RTS of all the choices available, then Warcraft 3 is definitely the next one to purchase.

[Alan Au]

Jagged Alliance 2: Unfinished Business can be insanely difficult at times. The difficulty is also scaled up if you import the character roster from JA2, since they expect you will have upped the stats on your mercs.

That said, JA2 is one of my favorite TBS games owing to the combination of gameplay and personality.

- Alan

[Chris Johnson]

The only RTS I play regularly these days is Age of Empires 2. Kohan and Battlecry 2 are great games, but I seem to always go back to AoE. It may be because my chief online rival - my brother - hates all of that elf and wizard stuff. It may also be that he has discovered a new tactic that I haven't figured out yet. But for whatever reason, AoE2 with the expansion is the RTS I play the most. Before that, it was TA (robots are OK with my brother).

AoW2 is a great game. Easy to get into and can be difficult to defeat.

[Anonymous]

Yes, but is WC3 multiplayer fun for the leisurely player? If it is in that Blizzard quality manner, then I would be interested. Does the player matcher work all that well?

[Jim F.]

Neither of the Age of Empires games managed to do it for me. I can't put my finger on it, but the campaigns just didn't entertain me at all. Multiplayer was decent, but wasn't really my bag either.

My main concern about Warcraft 3 is the multiplayer. I enjoy skirmishing against the computer, but the bad skirmisher isn't enough to keep me away from the game. What's keeping me away right now is all the outcry I'm hearing that the game is nothing but a rushfest on Battle.net.

Playing with a few other folks at a LAN party or over a friendly IP game is one thing; you can agree that rushing is out or whatever. That doesn't work on Battle.Net, especially with the matching service.

[Bernie_Dy]

Those new characters were hilarious and they brought back Tex!! He was always my favorite from JA1.

You said it. Tex was my favorite too, although Unfinished Business randomized who you'd meet, and sometimes it was Tex, other times it was John Culba? (the tourist gunsmith you rescued in one of JA2's quests). I got Culba, and I'll have to replay again to get Tex. "Hey partner! What you looking for?"

Oh yeah. Part RPG, part strategy, and part adventure, JA2 is the SHIT. And Strategy First may be keeping the franchise alive. Woo hoo!

If any of you JA2-heads are interested, there are a few user-made campaigns out there. One is called Deidranna Lives and is supposed to be pretty good.

PS: If any of you haven't played it but are interested, JA2 can be found very cheap now. I saw it at the Half Price Books chain for $9.

[Jonathan]

I have really enjoyed Conquest: Frontier Wars. It is an RTS in space with more strategy than RTS rushfests due to chokepoints, Admirals that give bonuses to particular ships in a fleet, and a limited number of "command points."

The single player gets you going, but the online and random maps keep it interesting.

It is high on my underrated list.

- Jonathan

[Anonymous]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned Shogun: Total War. It's a mix of turn based and real time strategy (the campaign is turn based and the battles are real time). And best of all, it has no spell-casting units! (A personal preference of mine. :) )

The sequel, Medieval: Total War, is coming out in a few months.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I have yet to buy the Warlord Expansion for Shogun, but it never really did much for me. The battles were beautiful - Gen. Lee was right about the risk falling in love with war. But the set up to get to the battles...Ugh.

The strategy game was Risk, with silly building limits which the AI did not seem to have to observe. So, to get to the great thing about the game (the battles) you had to slog through a dreary and often pointless piece-moving exercise against an opponent that seemed to play by different rules. The grand epic battles at the end were not enough of a payoff for me.

Not to mention that it was a beast to run on my underpowered machine.

Kohan is the best RPG I've played in the last year, but I'm not alone in that.

[Anonymous]

Another vote for Conquest. A totally underappreciated game. Why can Warcraft III get away with such an aged formula but Conquest gets knocked for having even a little of the traditional formula while still introducing some neat ideas.

Arghg. Good game tho. 10 bucks most places!

[Gladguy]

Does the player matcher work all that well?

Ummm... no.

But I'll qualify that by saying it's not through any fault of Blizzard or the concept of player matching. It's because, generally, people suck.

What I'm finding is that I get (correctly) matched up against other level 3-4 players, who turn out to be semi-professional Warcraft gods, playing with some magical input device that they've programmed the ideal build order into. When questioned, I get responses like, "oh yeah, this is my practice account" or "I only use my real account in ladder/tournament matches" or some other lame excuse for smurfing.

Not to get off on a rant here, but it kinda ruins the fun for me. I don't have the time to devote to memorizing build orders to maximize a rush enabling a total annihilation of my opponent within 3 minutes.

I played a lot of AoE over the years, and got quite good at it. Good enough to compete with most intermediate players, and good enough to not get slaughtered by expert players. At least in the Zone, you could get a sense of who you were about to play against... with automatic matching, you get none of that, especially when really good players are smurfing accounts to "practice" against newbies.

People suck. :evil:

[Tyjenks]

Does the player matcher work all that well?

generally, people suck.

What I'm finding is that I get (correctly) matched up against other level 3-4 players, who turn out to be semi-professional Warcraft gods, playing with some magical input device that they've programmed the ideal build order into. When questioned, I get responses like, "oh yeah, this is my practice account" or "I only use my real account in ladder/tournament matches" or some other lame excuse for smurfing.

People suck. :evil:

That is pretty disheartening for someone who would like to get into more MP gaming and maybe get WC3 for said gaming. I thought Blizzard could have worked any matching quirks out by now in Battle.net. I guess there is no un-exploitable matchmaking service.

And yes, to quote Slipknot, "People = Shit"

[Mark Asher]

"Not to get off on a rant here, but it kinda ruins the fun for me. I don't have the time to devote to memorizing build orders to maximize a rush enabling a total annihilation of my opponent within 3 minutes."

Even if you don't memorize build orders, RTS multiplayer games are all production races. I've grown a bit tired of that aspect of them. I hate that constant pressure to crank out units. Kohan does the best job of muting this, but the pressure's on in that game also to continue to add to your army via creating/capturing new cities.

[Tyjenks]

Even if you don't memorize build orders, RTS multiplayer games are all production races. I've grown a bit tired of that aspect of them. I hate that constant pressure to crank out units. Kohan does the best job of muting this, but the pressure's on in that game also to continue to add to your army via creating/capturing new cities.

There must be another formula for RTS games where the main goal does not necessarily focus on the rush to powerful units. Are there any on the horizon that take a different approach?

Again, I wonder why no one has tried something along the lines of Myth. A fixed army that you have to actually try to preserve rather than continuously manufacturing more units to throw into the fray. I think that is why Myth is still my favorite game I have ever played in MP.

[Mark Asher]

There's Shogun and the upcoming Medieval version of Shogun.

Games that let you build units will probably always have a problem not being production races. You can make defensive structures cheap and powerful to hold off rushes, but then you have games of turtling, which I'd prefer but which seem to be less popular with most other players.

The original Command and Conquer discouraged rushing to some extent by having limited resources -- you just couldn't build a big army all that easily. There was still rushing, but it was easier to counter. With Red Alert Westwood made everything move and build faster and players could build a large tank force quickly.

[deanco]

That's right, you really had to save for that second tiberium collector, didn't you? Funny how no one has gone down that route since C&C, it's just been easily gotten resources and faster build times since then.

DeanCo--

[Mark Asher]

That's right, you really had to save for that second tiberium collector, didn't you? Funny how no one has gone down that route since C&C, it's just been easily gotten resources and faster build times since then.

DeanCo--

I think most players like RTS games where you can build a lot of units quickly. There are a lot of us who complain, but I suspect we represent a minority of the online players.

[James Galimo]

I have to say the AOW2 is my favorite TBS since Master of Magic. Haven't played the first one, though. To be honest, I set it aside when NWN came out. In turn, that was set aside when Warcraft 3 hit the shelves. So lately, it's been back and forth between WC3 and the occasional rampage through GTA3, depending on my mood.

I'm kinda curious as to how the PBEM game for Age is going. Are you guys having a good time? I was thinking about starting up a game with some buddies of mine. So I was wondering.

[Mark Asher]

The PBEM game is in the early stages, turn 3 or something. We had a problem during the first turn and things were delayed for a day or two. There are eight players so it takes awhile to get through a turn.

[Dave Long]

Just in case anyone's wondering, we're still playing the Qt3 SMAC PBEM game that started over a year ago. We're on turn 84 I believe. There's been delays for travel, computer problems, some e-mail troubles and the like, but we're still going. It's a pretty compelling game too.

--Dave

[Paxton]

Again, I wonder why no one has tried something along the lines of Myth. A fixed army that you have to actually try to preserve rather than continuously manufacturing more units to throw into the fray. I think that is why Myth is still my favorite game I have ever played in MP.

Ground Control was a fine RTS game with fixed armies configured at the start of each mission. It seemed like it was well balanced for multiplayer, but it never caught on. I think it sold very poorly. The graphics were great, and the game had a lot to offer in terms of realism. The treatment of flying units was incredibly convincing, as was the modeling of weapon range, accuracy, and elevation. It was really quite impressive. the closest analog i can think of is homeworld, minus the mothership and plus a hilly landscape.

[Tim Partlett]

I think I've played nearly all of the RTS games this year, barring WC3 (amazingly), and I'd have to say that Warlords Battlecry II has been by far the best of the released titles I've seen. However it doesn't really hold up so well in the multiplayer department, and the last time I checked the forums were quiet and the online server was near dead, with nobody on GSA either. It's a very polished RTS game, but it has been so overlooked that there is almost no online community to speak of. That isn't the case for the only other contender for RTS of the year so far, which is WC3, and that has dragging in everybody, even those who prior to its release said they never would, because they hate fantasy D&D. Most of the complaints I've heard about it is that it is too simple and repetitive, and, yes, rushing is rampant. The current favourite is the Orc Tower Blitz, that seems to be considered unstoppable. Hmmm...shooting buildings.

It's difficult to know what to recommend if you want a good multiplayer RTS without the rushing, because the only RTS games popular enough to support a good multiplayer communities tend to be rushing games, because rushing is popular. Age of Mythology may buck that trend, or at least try to, but that won't be out until at least October. I've been beta-testing that for the last month or so (hence not having played WC3), and there does seem to be an attempt to include all the main play styles of rushing, booming and turtling with the use of rock-scissor-paper balancing. The God Powers also seemed designed to allow for different strategies, with GPs like Cease Fire stopping the rusher from gaining a speed advantage. Still, ES tried to balance rushing out of AoK, and while initially successful, it did eventually degenerate (evolve?) into a one unit/one civ rushing frenzy. Maybe rushing is just endemic in RTS design.

[Mark Asher]

The problem is that once you think you have a superior force, you attack. Doesn't matter if it's three minutes in or ten -- it still feels like a rush to the person being attacked.

I don't mind quick attacks. I just have grown weary of feeling like I need to be constantly building and expanding throughout the length of a game. I've yet to play an RTS game in multiplayer that didn't feel like this.

[Alan Au]

Agreed. I feel like most modern RTS games these days end up boiling down to a war of attrition to see who can generate the most resources and then overwhelm the opponent. This is what turned me off of Homeworld, and why I still prefer the Myth productionless style of gameplay.

I guess you could say that RTS games are like chess, in that there are established sets of opening moves (build orders). I would rather dispense with those ridiculous mouse dexterity drills. There's no thought involved, so it's the gaming equivalent of manual labor. Just give me an "auto-build order" or better yet, just start me with that stuff up and running.

- Alan

[Anonymous]

I've been playing a lot of Sudden Strike--initially, because of one scenario which I played in unconventional fashion (and which I'm writing about) but since then because of the pleasantly high level of small-unit tactics. (The detaisl of how you play really matter.) The AI isn't perfect--I can trick it when I have to trick it--but it isn't bad. And when the enemy attacks, it really attacks.

Peter

[Rob O'Boston]

I played a ton of Ground Control, and I loved it. The multiplayer community was slightly bigger than a profootball league's training camp roster, but it sure was fun while it lasted. The graphics were great and the camera still hasn't been surpassed in my mind. There wasn't any building, but the dropships brought in your reinforcements. The game was a lot like Myth in how it played, both were basically moving your mobs of units around, trying to get the better of another mob of units (the best would be catching another player in the middle of another battle).

GC had only 2 base maps, but they were both great. One had a single base per side with lots of mesas and hills inbetween. Great map for setting ambushes and nuking bases from hidden hills. I loved the cloaking commando squad best I think. The other map had three bases on each side, and I think I used to be able to split up forces pretty well to defend 2 or even 3 of them effectively. You could have your MBTs and Arty units cover the center one, your hidden commandos and a squad of troops with the APC cover another, and then the deadly rocketlauncher tanks cover another. Even the planes were well done in GC, lots of vapor trails and furballs, with deadly payloads if the bombers broke through.

Just got WC3, and have played the first 7 chapters (missions?). Pretty fun stuff (sorry Tom, I realize fun isn't a statistical unit). One important note: I really like Battlecry, and I think Battlecry has a lot more to offer in the options department, but in comparison to WC3 its butt-ugly (not really a crime), and is totally unstable (a crime). WC3 runs like a dream, but I would estimate every fourth time I play Battlecry it crashes HARD. Gotta reboot. AND THAT SUCKS. Gotta start the mission over (or from the last save). Per the forum, I would say I'm not alone as others are having the same problem.

[mtkafka]

Warcraft 3 crashed me 2x already. But I'm not complaining about that... its just a derivative and boring rts.

etc

[Mark Asher]

Warcraft 3 crashed me 2x already. But I'm not complaining about that... its just a derivative and boring rts.

etc

Just curious, but what about Battlecry isn't derivative? I guess the heroes were a fresh concept, but did SSG do anything else new? I like the heroes, but I hate how I can't level up and get new abilities during the mission.

[Anonymous]

The heroes weren't even a fresh concept. They were just carried over from the original line of Warlords games.

Peter

[mtkafka]

I just don't like the close up view, the less units, the less tactics (imo) and the rush fest in skirmish, plus teleporting back to town with heroes, what a copout gameplay mechanic. Still, I like the graphics and the story (yeah!) in W3 but beyond that, I've actually had more fun with Empire Earth and Battle Realms than Warcraft 3.

I'm actually suprised at all the broohaa with WC3. It seems alot of people who like WC3 never gave other RTS's a chance... imo that is. Theres a ton of RTS games, good ones, that barely get mentioned that as much WC3. But no bother, Blizzard does know how to make a solid game. But solid games don't mean great to me.

As with WBC2 being derivative, well it is and it isn't. I dont think any other RTS has a the hero option as detailed as WBC2. Thats what keeps me coming back to WBC2. And the open ended solo play with the campaign hasn't been duplicated yet.

etc

[wumpus]

Still, I like the graphics and the story (yeah!) in W3 but beyond that, I've actually had more fun with Empire Earth and Battle Realms than Warcraft 3.
That's freakish. I don't think WC3 is perfect, but it is clearly better than those two games. Blizzard also made a lot of positive changes to the gameplay; it plays significantly differently than Starcraft or WC2. It is an improvement and refinement-- if not a reinvention-- of those mechanics. If you want to argue that rushing is a problem, yeah, it's a problem in every RTS game with production. But beyond that you just aren't looking deep enough.

And the battle.net multiplayer interface. Man. Using the auto-match you're in a 2vs2 or 3vs3 game inside 60 seconds of starting the game. It's amazing that nobody thought of this sooner. As far as I'm concerned, Blizzard should be awarded the goddamn gaming nobel prize for that.

[Mark Asher]

Yeah, but try something like that with a game like WBC2. You'd wait and wait and wait and wait....

You need the critical mass of a huge game for an automatching system to work.

It is pretty cool though. Much better than the old way.

[Rob O'Boston]

I used the automatcher tonight for the first time. Totally cool. It reduces a lot of the tedium of getting in the game room, making small talk, picking the map, people complaining, people leaving, etc (I guess people may still drop after the game starts, but thats still a lot better than the old system).

I've only played the human campaign, so I used the humans. I won both games, first guy dropped after 20 minutes or so (I think I was doing ok), and the second guy turtled for 1 hour and 20 minutes. It took me a while to figure out how to get enough gold to put together 3 tanks and 2 mortars surrounded by my heroes army. Finally, I broke through the 10 or 12 towers he had built up.

I watched the replay, and there was definitely one point he could have swept me off the board after a failed attack of mine. I thought I was lucky. But then, much to my surprise, I saw this Shade hanging around in my base the whole game (I didn't know about those!). He had full Intel on my base, but failed to pull the trigger. Oh well, that which doesn't kill us...

The scale of this game, along with the heroes, makes me think of the Trojan War when I play this game. Where are Hector, Achilles, and Agamemnon? They would rock!