Hey folks, Tom's great Shoot Club references aside, what games are good for LAN play these days. After hours we still play AOE and Starcraft here at work, but the current obsession seems to be some kind of virtual golf game. Since this is far too peaceful a pasttime for me, I could use some advice on good, fun games that play well over a LAN. They need to have easy learning curves, and should optimally have a spawn capability.
Thanks!

Unreal Tournament. Unreal Tournament. Unreal Tournament.

That was one of the first games I played at Shoot Club, and I still get misty-eyed whenever we play a round of CTF on Facing Worlds. That was my first experience ever with CTF. Even being a barely adequate gamer I could pick up the gist of what was going on and compete. Even now, more than a year later, the map is still fun both to play and to introduce new players too. Unreal Tourney is a great LAN game (deathmatch, CTF, whatever).

If you're looking for something else that has a fairly easy learning curve but still keeps the better guys interested and lasts longer than an FPS-style game, I would suggest Red Alert 2. I have zero experience with the RTS genre yet I could pick this game up and have fun even while the more experienced gamers were schooling me.

I'm also partial to Action Half-Life. Crowbar!

Amanpour

Back when I used to go to LANs a lot it was Quake flavor of the day, a bit of Red Alert or TA for the RTS types, and I remember Motocross Madness absolutely taking over a LAN party one time.

Personally I would like to play Counter-Strike if I go back to a LAN. It seems like it would play better with the other people on your team in the same room.

-- Xaroc

We still love Warcraft 2 when we get together for LAN parties. And I'll second the votes for UT and RA2. Both are incredibly cool.

Several of the guys I get together with are dying to try a game like Jetfighter IV, and my best friend and I are having a blast with Baldur's Gate multiplayer.

UT is a staple, no LAN should be without it. It is very adjustable, too, so you can tweak it to the skill level of those involved. Turn down the game speed and play coop against some low-skill bots if you want to introduce new people without scaring them off. I also recommend playing Domination for a faster-paced game with little camping (especially with TacOps weapons). Recommended mods include Unreal Forever (aka u4e, though certain of its wacky weapons can immediately unbalance certain games/maps, so you must remove them accordingly), TacOps (a Counter-strike clone, but you can use its realistic weapons in regular UT games), and Infiltration (more like Rogue Spear for UT).

The list of Half-life mods seems endless, and some previous packaging of HL can usually be found cheap. Action HL is fun, but still needs some gameplay work (for instance, the snow map + sniper rifles = five-second rounds) and some interface work (it is too easy to start a game before everyone is ready, and so inadvertently exclude some players from the round). Oz Deathmatch is fast-paced and goofy (Crowbar!). Holy Wars is a good twist on deathmatch, too. Jailbreak is also a fun twist on deathmatch, but pretty boring when you are sitting around waiting to be rescued. Once people are more experienced, you can start bringing in the more complex stuff like Team Fortress and Counter-strike.

NOLF is also fun, both deathmatch and "Unity vs. H.A.R.M." The character models add whimsey, and the weapons are familiar, so that tends to draw people in.

If you guys are already playing AOE and Starcraft, you may like RA2. I find RTS games generally too slow to be much fun at a LAN party - too much building and not enough action. I especially hate RA2 because the rules seem illogical and I don't want to bother learning them. I didn't like learning (the hard way) that my soldiers would simply not shoot at hovering aerial troops, and that their machineguns were incapable of dealing with guard dogs. It is a giant game of roshambo with the rules run through a blender.

"It is a giant game of roshambo with the rules run through a blender."

Beautifully put, Supertanker. Doesn't that make you *want* to play?

-Tom ("Shake it, baby!")

It's getting old now, but I really enjoy Rogue Spear on a LAN. It's a great play when you've got friends in the room that can really work as a team and not make the same mistakes as the AI (I know...what AI?). Play style completely changes in multi, where now your team has the brains to react and adapt to situations, rather than follow the plan.

"It's getting old now, but I really enjoy Rogue Spear on a LAN."

I'm surprised no one has done a mod that imitates the whole heartbeat sensor/jammer thing. I suppose you get a little of this in TRIBES 2, but it adds a whole new level of gameplay to MP RS/R6 games that no one's even tried to imitate.

-Tom

My own Shoot Club experience aside (which constantly imposed 2 vs 2 matches on Tom's four machines), the LAN parties I attend local to my home is usually entirely composed of some sort of cooperative gameplay. So the RogueSpear stuff has been great (with the Nato weapons mod), even though the AI is tough. But we haven't minded the several attempts at clearing a map; I guess the challenge was the thing.

Serious Sam is a blast in Coop (and is only $10 this week at CompUSA). We've also played the Venom demo in coop mode and had a great time. Desslock says he's been running several IceWind Dale coop games at his place and said that game is perfect for coop play. I played Operation Flashpoint at E3 on their four-PC LAN in both adversarial and coop modes and it simply rocked. Had a great time using the sniper rifle on my friend's head.

Obviously everyone gets the urge to frag each other, so we squeeze in a few rounds of deathmatch UT, Quake, and Counter-Strike between coop games.

My current favs include Unreal Tournament, CounterStrike, and Team Fortress.

My old favourites include Doom, Duke Nukem 3D. We had our best office multiplay sessions with Duke Nukem 3D.

I'd love to try some SWAT3:EE multiplay but it is hard finding good servers and quality players.

Thanks for the tips. They don't cooperate well, I've noticed, which is possibly why the RTS games do so well. They do compete, though. At one point they were playing (gag) The Sims, and it all came down to who could build the poshest digs.

On a LAN, Total Annihilation has been my favorite... i just love the reaction when i get a Big Bertha up and you can hear the base on the other pc being destroyed!!!

"WHERE'D THAT COME FROM?" is all i hear from them.

Or defending a base with an Annihilator or rampaging thru a friends base with a Krogoth... aye, I wish they made a TA2.

and plain vanilla half life deathmatch was awesome for awhile... that one map with the air support was a riot... i used to CAMP that spot in LAN gmaes just to piss off friends hehe.

etc

We had a lan party not here long ago, and learned you have to remember that some people may not be able to play games requiring lots of 3d acceleration (such as counterstrike/half life).

If Starcraft worked well, then I recommend Kohan. It is a total team based blast.

-Rob

If you can actually manage to get it to work, try Duke Nukem 3d. Yes, it's older than hell; yes, doesn't even have hardware acceleration. You can crank the resolution way up, though, now that everyone has fast computers.

That game is fun, fun, fun. Even UT can't hold a candle to it; back in the college dorms we probably spent a thousand hours playing 4+ player deathmatch (hey, that was a big deal then).

The reason it's so good is pretty much the laser tripmines. It's pretty satisfying to hear a scream of agony from down the hall when they run into a mine you put *just* in the right spot next to the rocket launcher.

Oh yes: Duke wasn't insta-death like Q3 and UT are, and the movement rate was actually reasonable, unlike the cocaine-freak rabbit fest that is modern FPSes.

I saw a review for Kohan in Computer Games magazine this month, and they loved it. Then I remembered a bunch of people here talking about it. Is it really that good?

"I saw a review for Kohan in Computer Games magazine this month, and they loved it. Then I remembered a bunch of people here talking about it. Is it really that good?"

Yes. I would almost call it the best 2D RTS since Warcraft II.

My only reservation: I think the old "who can build the most the fastest" rule still ultimately determines the winner when playing against smart human opponents. And I friggin' hate the random map options for gold, monsters, etc that everyone loooves to leave on in multiplayer.

"Oh yes: Duke wasn't insta-death like Q3 and UT are, and the movement rate was actually reasonable, unlike the cocaine-freak rabbit fest that is modern FPSes."

Errrmmm.. you might want to revisit those thoughts. Duke may not be instadeath but the movement rate can only be described as 'freakishly fast'.

"My only reservation: I think the old "who can build the most the fastest" rule still ultimately determines the winner when playing against smart human opponents. And I friggin' hate the random map options for gold, monsters, etc that everyone loooves to leave on in multiplayer."

Yeah, but there are a lot of elements in the game that keep you from building a lot of forces. Plus each city has militia, so even if a player has a larger army, attacking a city isn't a sure thing.

I'm quite taken with the game. It's really interesting.

Kohan

The game definitely has some anti-rushing features built in. The town militia's are one, and the economic models behind the four factions is another (two of the econs are slow to ramp up, another allows for quick units, but they are slow and weak, and the fourth that allows for a quick military has the weakest econ - fail to gain a serious advantage very early on and you are totally doomed - better to build early and protect your allies rather than rush).


I find that I usually have time to build four cities and have begun forming a regiment (or army) before the real action starts. This allows for you to get into the action, and building assorted types of company's and throwing them into combat is the best part of the game.

I do agree to a certain extent that in the games with the more exp players, he who builds fastest tends to win. I usually end up as fodder in these games, but I am learning bit by bit. Lately, if I can reach the mid-game (which post-newbie isn't that hard), the more I can keep my head the stronger my game is.

Let me es-plain: Generally in a rts, you build and send. The sending doesn't have to be very detailed, you just drag a box and point at the minimap, and your hoard goes off to war. I've never liked this aspect. Kohan really penalizes this type of thinking because of the limited number of companies (making them more valuable), and because there can be so many dangers inbetween your city and the battlefield (enemies, independants, brigands). So you've really got to pay attention to your units going into battle, using formations and judging enemy strength, your morale and your health, your positioning, etc. All this takes some concentration. In mp games there is usually two teams of 3 or 4, and invariably someone or more than one is going to need/ask for help. In many, many games, I tend to panic in my desire to stay in one piece, but also my desire to help out. What do I do? I band box three companies and point at the mini-map. Then I turn to my econ and tweak that, and build up a home force, and scan around the map looking for threats/opportunities, and by the time I get back to my helpful little force, they tend to be dead, scattered, sitting uselessly, etc. So ineffective.

Ok, I'm going on too much about one small apsect of my game, so I guess I just want to agree with Mark and say that the game is really interesting. It takes some poise. And I haven't even mentioned the detail that goes into all the units. It takes a while to learn how to effectively use the basic units. Once your comfortable with those, there are so many details that can be taken advantage of with the hero units and the special units, as well as deficiencies to be minimized.

I'll shut up now. I like this game. Try it.

Thanks,

Rob

Anyone know where I can get a demo?

"Yeah, but there are a lot of elements in the game that keep you from building a lot of forces. Plus each city has militia, so even if a player has a larger army, attacking a city isn't a sure thing."

Well, I've spent a solid 8+ hours playing the game online against humans, and the pattern is _always_ the same. I played hundreds of hours of TA and I felt TA had more strategy than Kohan, believe it or not.

The first player to muster either A) lots of midrange troops or B) a smaller number of elite troops, takes his ENTIRE army and concentrates them on one of your cities. He plows through your defenses and takes the city. He lets his army recuperate to full health here, then keeps rolling them through, repeating this process, city by city.

There are some things you can do to modify this pattern. First, assuming you have enough entrenched troops at the city-- and you have similar build rates-- you can probably just barely stop his assault. But it's painful to leave troops hanging around, entrenched, and it would take 3 companies minimum to stop this kind of attack.

Second, you can go on the assault yourself. You can take his unguarded cities with your troops while he takes yours. This is marginally more effective but unless you take your entire army, they will eventually be overrun by someone else who DID take their entire army (or is better at building than you, yadda yadda yadda). Concentration of forces is lethal in this game, and that's the keystone to any effective Kohan strategy. If this sounds a bit like a tank rush, that's kinda because.. it is.

Basically, it's another "who can build the most" game. Disappointing, and I know it doesn't _APPEAR_ to be that way, but it really is.

Depressing, really. Just play online against people, and you'll see. There is some strategy to be had, but rushing and massive troop concentrations of type A or B are the most effective strategies.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

I disagree there wumpus. Building is a strong part of Kohan, but you can come back from big deficits if you play smartly. Lure your enemy into what appears an easy frontal assault then flank his stronger units from the sides or rear with another company. You must play with the zones of control on so you can see when you will engage. Minimize your engagement range by shifting to pressed column mode and move around the main attack to hit from behind. The smart players will use the game's strongest suit against you and that's the exposure of support units.

I've been in games where I was holding just a few massive cities going up against a player with many smaller settlements. That's something you just never see in other RTS games. You also have to learn how to shift your resources into the red to accomodate large groups of troops to survive and build successful assaults. Don't be fixated on keeping things nice and even all the time. Unused resources can be used to build more troops and as long as you're not bleeding gold too fast, you can often quickly turn the tide or counterattack an opponent who's taken one of your cities. Beyond that, just destroy the thing so he doesn't get its benefits!

The game is loaded with a ton more strategy than most RTS games. Record some games and watch how people play. You'll see a lot more things going on than you might have thought were happening.

Oh...and Total Annihilation is really just like any other RTS IMO. The guy who produces the most also wins there. It's just that with the enormous variety of units, you are deceived into thinking that isn't so. It's also something inextricably tied to the real-time strategy formula. You must master combat, tactics AND economics to win. Fail to become proficient at one of the three and you'll fall to a player who's good at all of them. It's all skill based anyway, just like a first person shooter, etc. You have to think and act efficiently. If you can't do that, you lose.

It sounds to me like you just need to work on the tactics and economics part of Kohan.

--Dave

"I disagree there wumpus. Building is a strong part of Kohan, but you can come back from big deficits if you play smartly. Lure your enemy into what appears an easy frontal assault then flank his stronger units from the sides or rear with another company. You must play with the zones of control on so you can see when you will engage. Minimize your engagement range by shifting to pressed column mode and move around the main attack to hit from behind. The smart players will use the game's strongest suit against you and that's the exposure of support units."

Dave, it simply doesn't matter. If your enemy has 5 companies of footmen with wizards, and you're defending with 2 companies (any kind) + city militia, YOU WILL LOSE. Period. No matter what kind of strategy you use. Flanking tricks assumes you have extra troops floating around, which will be needed to stop the frontal assault. If you have that many troops, you're better off just concentrating them. And yes, I've done that, cavalry looping around and killing wizards. I didn't have enough troops for it to matter, and once he captured my city, he just healed 'em all back to life by camping there for a bit anyway. Meanwhile, most of my forces were destroyed defending that city, so it's a foregone conclusion at that point. He has a big concentrated army and I have even further scattered forces. Buh-bye.

Repeat ad nauseam-- voila, Kohan! I was either on the giving or receiving end of the steamroller technique in every single game. Honestly, that's no different than TA.

"The game is loaded with a ton more strategy than most RTS games. Record some games and watch how people play. You'll see a lot more things going on than you might have thought were happening."

Been there, done that. As I said, I've played literally 8 solid hours of multiplayer. Maybe more, actually. It was always the same exact thing; the only variance was in team games, how well the teams coordinated their massive group assaults. It's ultimately all about steamrolling. Once you get that city, you camp and recuperate your largest _concentrated_ force. That city is not only your new base of operations but it also deprives your enemy of resources at the same time. A double whammy if you will. Then just move down the line, city by city, until you have them all. Cake.

"You must master combat, tactics AND economics to win."

The economics to churn out lots of quality companies is pretty much all you need. That old chestnut-- whoever is the best builder wins. Bah. There are some entertaining and slight variations on this, but in the final analysis, one massive army progressing city by city is all you need. There is no recovery once your forces have been scattered. (Though in team games, other team members can sometimes pick up the slack)

"It sounds to me like you just need to work on the tactics and economics part of Kohan."

Sounds to me like you playing against humans who aren't very good players, Dave. Against the computer it's a different story, of course.. the AI is easy to beat even on the hardest skill level. The AI hardly concentrates forces at all. On the internet against hardcore players, it's a totally different story.

I'm no Starcraft or Red Alert fan, but I am a Combat Mission fan. I know what I like enough to know that I'm not being fooled by the "appearance" of Kohan. I like it for what it is, a slower than normal paced rts, with very heavy doses of tactics mixed in, and a number of clever concepts. Don't get me wrong, the strategies aren't stunningly different from other games, or in an abstract way what any pattern of war follows (hmm.. didn't Ike mass his armies and take city after city?), but I don't think that hurts the game.

The game at its most basic is just like a lot of other games we've played. The new concepts: the companies, and the streamlined economy; coupled with those things they do very well: the varied units and the very stable multiplay; make for a really fun game, and one that is pretty darn difficult to master.

My "test" for a wargame is, does it create battles that have character and suspense? Combat Mission does this every time I fire it up. I can remember my best battle against Captilalistdoginchina (a great CMer) in the "A River Runs Through It" scenario like it was yesterday. That battle had everything: my ambushed mechanized platoon, my sharpshooters being hunted down, my Stug with the malfunctioning gun taking Stuart hit-after-hit, the menacing little Stuarts sweeping the city streets, my beast-like Mark IVs polishing off his M-10s, my observer raining shells onto his forward position (now that I think of it I should have concentrated on the eastern bridge and hoped for its demise). Kohan, while it doesn't have this detail, does provide me with some excellent battles to savor. Usually this is in support of some ally, as our armies march into the enemy territory. I've been in games where our initial attacks have been repulsed, and suddenly found ourselves on the defensive, and I've been in games where we've swept the board. It doesn't have the immediacy of a CM, but I can summon up how the terrain played a factor in a battle, and how my companies fared. Most rts games don't touch this level of "goodness" when it comes to my, "do the battles have character?" test.

-Rob

"The game at its most basic is just like a lot of other games we've played. The new concepts: the companies, and the streamlined economy; coupled with those things they do very well: the varied units and the very stable multiplay; make for a really fun game, and one that is pretty darn difficult to master."

Kohan is a great game, no doubt about that.

The problem is-- as you correctly point out-- that the strategic potential of the game is ultimately no greater than Red Alert, Starcraft, or TA. Sure, it _looks_ like it is-- terrain, companies, heroes, all that jazz-- but brute force is the order of the day in game after game after game.

It lacks a true sense of rock-paper-scissors, in that larger, more powerful armies almost always win regardless of composition. And worst of all, it falls prey to the typical "whoever can build the most troops first, wins" syndrome. That's unforgivable.

Again, this doesn't make it a bad *game*, but there's a far shorter distance from Warcraft II to Kohan than most people realize. Ain't it a crime?

"It lacks a true sense of rock-paper-scissors, in that larger, more powerful armies almost always win regardless of composition."

Yeah, I prefer games in which larger, more powerful armies don't have an advantage...

It sounds like wumpus just had his ass handed to him on a platter in several online games.

-Tom

"Yeah, I prefer games in which larger, more powerful armies don't have an advantage..."

Meaning, if I build a company with two paladins and their combined bonuses against Ceyah, it really doesn't adjust the balance of power against an all-Ceyah company enough to be meaningful. Sure it looks good in theory, but in reality, quantity rules. It's not how you use your armies, it's how quickly you can crank out the midrange-to-elite troops and attack en masse.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the classic definition of a TANK RUSH.

"It sounds like wumpus just had his ass handed to him on a platter in several online games."

Sounds like Tom has never played it online, which is par for the course.

And yes, I've been in plenty of winning games. The number of games that have actually been closely contested is small. Tiny even. It's either running roughshod over the enemy (eg, we have a larger army) or they run roughshod over us (eg, they have a larger army). Neither is very satisfying. And subtle, it ain't.

But please-- don't take my word for it. Join some internet games and see for yourself. It's not a total loss, but it's far from the revolutionary title it appears to be once you throw a bunch of real human AI at it. It turns into a rather pedestrian "guess who can bring to bear the largest army first" contest. That's not _strategic_.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

p.s. I'm reminded of the all-GEV defense in the original Ogre. Sometimes people play the game in ways the designers never intended or even realized were possible.

http://www.sjgames.com/ogre/articles/another.html

"Sounds like Tom has never played it online, which is par for the course."

I'll have to install internet on my computer to try this "online" thing you're talking about. Sounds pretty cool.

When you're done dissecting Kohan, wumpus, maybe you'll share more of your insight into Sacrifice?

-Tom

[P.S. For the record, I have played multiplayer games of Kohan with friends, which is how I enjoy most multiplayer games. I have not waded into the realm of the super-elite hard-core Kohan players with their practiced Ceyah rushes. So much for my credibility...]

"I have not waded into the realm of the super-elite hard-core Kohan players with their practiced Ceyah rushes."

Tom, I'm really serious. These guys have the build order down so fast that all the things that make Kohan "interesting" and "strategic" are just lost in the massive wave of carbon-copy troops.

Which just underscores how, at its core, the game is really a building contest. It's a goddamn shame, but shouldn't the designers have dealt with this?

Just humor me and play a couple games on the internet. Is it really so difficult? Not all of us have 3 friends hanging around with computers and CDs at the ready, and nothing better to do than have an impromptu LAN party. Most multiplayer gaming happens on the internet. If you are reviewing a game's multiplayer solely on the basis of LAN play, you are doing your readers a disservice. I guarantee most of them will consider "multiplayer" synonymous with "internet".

For example, Jeff Green recently wrote a column about multiplayer internet CS, so I know he at least gave it a shot.

Before you continue to make an ass out of you and you by making more assumptions, wumpus, I *have* played Kohan on the internet. Against people I know. I have *never* played Kohan at Shoot Club, where I suspect it's a bit too different for the guys. The only RTS regularly played here is Red Alert 2, which I'm not overly fond of.

In case you haven't noticed, there's a difference between RTSs and FPSs. I don't mind playing first person shooters against strangers. Generally speaking, the FPS experience online is quick and disposible. If you get a jerk on the other end, ignore him. If your team isn't coordinated and they're just goofing around, join another server. If you get your ass kicked, wait until the next round. Or just boot up another game.

But an average RTS bout takes an hour or more. The jerk factor has more impact on longer and more thoughtful games. People get frustrated. They disconnect. They're more prone to exploiting a game system for the cheese factor.

And contrary to whatever you may think you know, I do *most* of my multiplayer gaming on the internet. I don't get a lot of computer time at Shoot Club. I prefer to set it up and watch other people play. Once it's late and we're down to four people, I take a slot. Before then, I'm happy tooling around on the Dreamcast and making sure everyone knows which is the reload key and what you need to build to make Tanyas.

Anyway, you were babbling something about how Kohan is no better than Warcraft. I'll let you get back to it.

-Tom

"Tom, I'm really serious. These guys have the build order down so fast that all the things that make Kohan "interesting" and "strategic" are just lost in the massive wave of carbon-copy troops."

I don't doubt this, because any game that has building has an implicit advantage for players who can build more quickly or more efficiently.

"Which just underscores how, at its core, the game is really a building contest. It's a goddamn shame, but shouldn't the designers have dealt with this?"

Superior forces will almost always win. I'm not sure how you design away that kind of advantage. In a game like Kohan you're going to fight several battles, maybe as many as a dozen or so in any game. If you want to build in a way for an inferior force to best a superior one, you need more depth in the tactical battles. More depth = more time spent fighting.

Kohan, at least, makes it a bit harder to just overwhelm an opponent with numbers, and if a player with a numerical advantage isn't careful, he or she can still lose.

"I don't doubt this, because any game that has building has an implicit advantage for players who can build more quickly or more efficiently."

There _has_ to be a way to handle building that doesn't degrade the game into a tedious production contest. Clearly, Kohan doesn't know how to do this. That's why playing internet opponents in Kohan is a remarkably similar experience to playing Internet opponents Warcraft II over Kali in 1996-- it's all about building up a big army as quickly as possible and attacking en masse. Nothing has changed!

"Kohan, at least, makes it a bit harder to just overwhelm an opponent with numbers, and if a player with a numerical advantage isn't careful, he or she can still lose."

I alluded to this earlier. For one thing, the designers could make the rock-paper-scissors division between the forces more pronounced. Eg, 3 companies of units with anti-Ceyah Paladin bonuses should be able to beat 5 Ceyah companies. Better defensive structure options would help, as well. You could also increase the exp defenders get, so they become stronger faster than attackers.

As it is, there is almost no strategy involved in the last few internet games I played. It's straight up tank rush-- eg, build a giant force, roll in. It's actually a bit WORSE because of the way an occupied city both drains resources and acts as a staging area for the enemy.

"and if a player with a numerical advantage isn't careful, he or she can still lose"

And believe me, I have.

Just wanted to give Wumpus my latest Kohan report card. After passionately defending my current favorite game on the 1/4to3 message boards during the busy workday, I came home and played one game of Kohan. It lasted 1 hour and 45 minutes (approx). It was a terrific time. I think that in and of itself is a pretty decent defense of the game. But I do want to add two things.

Wump- eight hours isn't enough game time make an educated critique of the game. It probably takes 8-10 games just to figure out how to be competitive online, and that will take longer than 8 gaming hours in 4v4 battles (the best online parameters, and most available). I think a.) You got your ass handed to you every game, even the ones in which your team won and b.) you have no idea what a carbon copy Kohan "rush" would look like since you were probably crushed by a differant type of army every time.

My second point is that Kohan is really only worth playing against non-ai. It doesn't matter if they are internet strangers (though there is a darn good Kohan community right now) or against lan friends (always a superior option if your lucky enough to be in that situation), the key is that you are facing a thinking opponent (although I think this is true of just about every game).

I like reading your opinions Wumpus (on the various topics you write about here) but sometimes you are just plain wrong.

-Rob

"Before you continue to make an ass out of you and you by making more assumptions, wumpus, I *have* played Kohan on the internet. Against people I know."

Tom, do you consider this representative of the way most people approach internet multiplayer? The question is-- _do_ most players play with random people, or only with "people they know?"

Based on your comments, it seems that playing "people I know" in Kohan is NOT representative of the experience you would have against random internet players in Kohan.

I've played dozens of internet games against random players, and every single one turns into a mightily Warcraft II-esque building and rushing contest. Unless you're privy to some secret that I'm not aware of, that's the way most people play this game.

"But an average RTS bout takes an hour or more. The jerk factor has more impact on longer and more thoughtful games. People get frustrated. They disconnect."

In my experience (both TA and Kohan) this is almost never true. People only quit when they are clearly losing with no hope of coming back. The only "jerk factor" is the developers who left loopholes and game design flaws in their games in the first place! Most people are there to play and win. Will they try to win using every machiavellian trick in the book? Yes. And that's exactly WHAT I WANT. Competition. By the rules in the game.

"They're more prone to exploiting a game system for the cheese factor."

And if the game system is exploitable, whose fault is that? The player? Because you don't run into it with your trusted circle of friends, that means the problem isn't there? If you want to stick your head in the sand on this topic, be my guest. However, people reading a review of yours based on this limited multiplayer exposure won't get the whole story.

"And contrary to whatever you may think you know, I do *most* of my multiplayer gaming on the internet. I don't get a lot of computer time at Shoot Club."

Fine. Mea Culpa. In my defense, you approach internet multiplayer differently than I ever have. I prefer random internet opponents who are always ready and willing, even at 3am or whenever the heck I want to fire up a quick game at short notice.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"I came home and played one game of Kohan. It lasted 1 hour and 45 minutes (approx). It was a terrific time. I think that in and of itself is a pretty decent defense of the game. But I do want to add two things."

Kohan is a great game. But it's surprising how shallow the game's strategy is when playing random internet players. In _that_ sense it is almost no improvement over 1996's Warcraft II. Doesn't mean it isn't fun, of course, just that the game seems more "stratejic" in theory than it actually is in practics.

"I think a.) You got your ass handed to you every game, even the ones in which your team won"

Sorry to disappoint you. I don't have the rarified build order skills of some players, but the only time I get crushed is when .. surprise, the other team is more effective at production and concentrating their forces than our team is. Yawn.

"b.) you have no idea what a carbon copy Kohan "rush" would look like since you were probably crushed by a differant type of army every time"

Most of the time it's 5+ companies of armored footmen (not grenadiers) and either lightning or fireball wizards in support. That's becoming quite common. In fact, the game I just played had two players who did nothing but churn those out. There is some variation in company makeup across games, true, but the larger point is that the players are simply cranking out units, massing them, and steamrolling.

I ask you, where is the strategy there?

"you approach internet multiplayer differently than I ever have. I prefer random internet opponents who are always ready and willing, even at 3am or whenever the heck I want to fire up a quick game at short notice."

That's the opposite of my preference as well. I'm really only interested in playing strategy games with people I know (and I don't play FPS). My interest in playing against random Internet opponents is zero. That especially goes for PBEM.

"In my experience (both TA and Kohan) this is almost never true. People only quit when they are clearly losing with no hope of coming back."

You've led a charmed existence. When I tried random Internet games back at the time when I thought this might be interesting, I was *never* able to finish a game I was winning. At some point the other guy always disconnected. I started to think I was a chump for finishing games. Last year, when I was trying to play Combat Mission before any of my friends had it (it ended up backordered and there were delays for those who had not pre-ordered) I had exactly the same thing happen: someone starts to lose, and that's it. With PBEM games, if someone starts losing, at some point you never hear from them again. I've officially given up on all play against unknown opponents.

"the other team is more effective at production and concentrating their forces than our team is."

You've just described every strategy game in existence. Be more effective producing forces and concentrating them.

I looked back through the different posts, and I guess this is where I disagree with your point W: You think the game is settled by the person(s) who can build fastest. I think the game has a built in curve, in which once you are experienced enough to know the basic build orders, then the playing field becomes even. We all churn out +100 gold a turn. It is up to you to determine who wins, not by how much your producing, but by what your producing, where you're putting it, when you're doing it, and how well you think it out. I find that a hell of a lot deeper than most other RTS's. Get into the middle game portion, and you'll see that you bump into the company max ceiling, gold will start stockpiling, and you're far more invested in what is going on in various fronts of the war rather than what your "factories" are producing. You can't click the minimap to win here consistently. Dave, above, mentioned the "bleeding" of your gold supplies. That is where the economics truly play a part, and it doesn't have anything to with tank rushes. Its all about fielding the best force possible and getting the most effect out of them before your kingdom starts eating itself.

Of course, when you boil it all down, everything is a tank rush. Life is a tank rush. As Moses Malone once said doing some color commentary, "If the Celtics take more shots, and make'em, they do win."

-Rob

Bruce,

Want to fire up combat mission? I'm not talking PBEM unless you can't play TCP.

In fact, does anybody out there want to play some CM via TCP? I'm all about that.

As far as Kohan goes, I've not yet tried it online. I assume the place to meet up for games would be Gamespy Arcade? Or is there somewhere else?

"I think the game has a built in curve, in which once you are experienced enough to know the basic build orders, then the playing field becomes even. We all churn out +100 gold a turn"

Which would be fine, if the game wasn't full of random independents, random enemies, and random map generation. If I start near a random gold mine, that's a huge advantage. If I start in a random giant desert that slows my troops to molasses, that's a huge disadvantage. Ditto for starting near a huge field of Raksha or spiders. Ever had your settlers run into spiders? I needed a new keyboard after that happened to me. ;)

Granted, this is something that users determine, but the developers made them the DEFAULT multiplayer map settings. And of course, everyone ALWAYS goes with almost all of the default random elements enabled. Bad idea.

There are a few symmetric multiplayer maps with equal resources and placement, but virtually nobody uses them. Bummer. If I wanted randomness, I'd play dice.

"Get into the middle game portion, and you'll see that you bump into the company max ceiling, gold will start stockpiling, and you're far more invested in what is going on in various fronts of the war rather than what your "factories" are producing"

But the game is usually a foregone conclusion at this point. Unless every single player was supernaturally skilled enough to produce within 10% of each other, the production imbalance has already swung the balance of power enough. Stated another way: one or more guys has an army far larger than everyone else. Game over, man.

"Its all about fielding the best force possible and getting the most effect out of them before your kingdom starts eating itself."

Kohan's biggest flaw is exactly this. Most combat revolves around resources, which is pretty much cities. And the design of the city capture/support model all but compels everyone to fight battles with one single "best force", as you say. And once your BEST FORCE crushes the other guy's BEST FORCE, he is pretty much screwed. Why?

1) Your army gets to rest and recuperate at the newly captured city. If you _couldn't_ recuperate your attack force in captured enemy territory, your best force would be weak after that attack, and vulnerable to repeated, smaller harassing attacks that would wear it down and maybe even force you to turn tail and run back to a friendly city. But no! The city militia retards any attacks near the city, and the city supply model means his best force is back to full strength in a matter of minutes-- while yours is in tatters, if it exists at all.

2) It's a double whammy. In addition to the resupply of the attacking army, capturing the city instantly gives you more resources and your enemy less resources.

If I could change one thing about Kohan, it would be this: Defeating a city automatically razes it. As it is, the design is far too generous to the capturing army.

"Of course, when you boil it all down, everything is a tank rush. Life is a tank rush."

You're saying it's impossible to design an RTS game where the biggest producer is not the victor in nearly all cases. I disagree. There has to be a happy medium here. I often felt that Total Annihilation would have been a COMPLETELY different game with a fixed per-unit cap. In other words, you can only make (x) flash tanks, (x) rapiers, etc. Just an example.

"You've just described every strategy game in existence. Be more effective producing forces and concentrating them."

When I say 'production' and 'concentration', I'm using the Westwood dictionary of RTS terms. EG, I mean in the simplest, most mechanical, brain-damaged way imaginable.

1) There's no need to consider _what_ you should build, such as "hmm, he's using ceyah, so I should build paladins and priests!". Where is the paper-scissors-rock? It's nonexistant, or so ineffective that it might as well be. For example, Total Annihilation had the long range artillery which had huge strengths and huge weaknesses.

2) There's no need to maneuver your forces to flank, or split your forces and feint, etc. Just bunch em up and crush. Yes, you _can_ do this to a limited degree, but that is far outweighed by the advantage of sheer numbers. And you can't really micromanage the battles ANYWAY. If I want my cavalry to ignore the enemies in front of them and rush around to kill the wizards, there's no way for me to do that. Once they're engaged, that's it. All I can do at that point is retreat or rout.

BTW, I just got out of _another_ game of Kohan-- same exact thing. Produce a ton of decent units (doesn't matter which kind) then go door to door with all of them-- avon calling! We did win, and actually I had the highest production graph of anyone in the game. Could it be, perhaps, that production determines the outcome instead of strategy?

Kohan is deceptive. It's like this totally hot chick who turns out to be exactly like your last girlfriend.

Yeah thats it Aszurom. Oh and to previous articles disconnecting during games isnt really as much of a problem as it used to be. Especially if you play on a latter system. Most rt's detect when someone disconnects and assigns them a loss so they dont disconnect at all or at least not till they have almost lost.

Also though I havnt been playing Kohan long I play with random players on the internet and so far I agree with wumpus "stragic depth" is an illusion but always has been really. Ultimatly every rts has always came down to canned tactics and build orders. Your most important role isnt that of a general or even a squad leader its that of a freakin economic strategist.

"You've led a charmed existence. When I tried random Internet games back at the time when I thought this might be interesting, I was *never* able to finish a game I was winning. At some point the other guy always disconnected. I started to think I was a chump for finishing games."

Well, I've played probably a thousand Total Annihilation games* and maybe 25-40 kohan games. All against random internet opponents.

I honestly estimate the percentage of people who quit "too soon"-- eg, they gave it the old college try and didn't quit as soon as things looked bad for them-- was 10 percent. And that's being generous.

Of course, in TA you could really wreak havoc with your commander with virtually nothing left. And he's practically a mini-base by himself. So that was a strong incentive to hang around. There were some funny things you could pull with the commander at the end to salvage your honor if not your dignity.

The percentage is no different for Kohan. And in Kohan, when you get behind, there is no commander to fall back on. You're pretty much fucked once your cities start falling, unless the skill disparity between you and your opponent is way, way out of whack.

Most people quit when you expect them to-- when they have no reasonable chance in hell of winning. Do you really expect them to play out that sad charade to the bitter end?

"Last year, when I was trying to play Combat Mission before any of my friends had it (it ended up backordered and there were delays for those who had not pre-ordered) I had exactly the same thing happen: someone starts to lose, and that's it. With PBEM games, if someone starts losing, at some point you never hear from them again. I've officially given up on all play against unknown opponents."

I think these are very different types of games, though.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

* I was _so_ addicted to Total Annihilation. I'm talking EverQuest 40-hours-per-week proportions, guys. You have no idea. I can tell you in-depth strategies for every single one of the 150+ units in the game. Walking through the park and reminiscing.. brings a tear to my eye. Sob. A brillant game. Just brilliant.

I've played many a TA match in my day! and quite a few ive actually come back from near death to actually win the map! the main thing that seperates TA from the other games is the near huge maps that TA had in some cases.

ie... I remember a ffa 4 player match on a huge metal heck map... and within a half hour i was decimated by nukes...but i had my commander and a few construction vehicles...half hour to hour later, i had a huge assault force of up to forty COUNT THAT FORTY Krogoths... hehe the lag was terrible... the other players kept saying "what the hell is with this lag?" so by the time i was at the doorstep of the last player he says, "I've never seen so many Krogoths!"

muahahah!

anyway, the key to that match was my anti radar coverage, they never knew where i was!

ah...no other RTS has given me mathces like the ones ive played in TA!

btw, rumor i hear is that Chris Taylor is supposedly doing a RTS after Dungeon Siege... hopefuly similar to TA!

etc

Quote from Mr. Wumpus

"Well, I've played probably a thousand Total Annihilation games* and maybe 25-40 kohan games. All against random internet opponents."

Contradictory quote from Mr. Wumpus:

"Well, I've spent a solid 8+ hours playing the game online against humans,"

25-40 games is going to put you in the 25+ to 40+ hours of Kohan playing (which if you have, you know a hell of a lot more than I do about it).

Another contradictory quote from Mssr Wumpus:

"Yes. I would almost call it [Kohan] the best 2D RTS since Warcraft II."


Has anyone ever told you that you like to hear yourself talk? From your latest posts, I would say that TA is the best 2d rts since War Craft. Unless TA was 3d, but I don't think it was. I never played it, and from everything I have ever heard, I missed a great game. Damn.

-Rob

---

Quote:

From your latest posts, I would say that TA is the best 2d rts since War Craft. Unless TA was 3d, but I don't think it was. I never played it, and from everything I have ever heard, I missed a great game. Damn.

---

---

Quote:

Has anyone ever told you that you like to hear yourself talk? From your latest posts, I would say that TA is the best 2d rts since War Craft. Unless TA was 3d, but I don't think it was. I never played it, and from everything I have ever heard, I missed a great game. Damn.

---

Ok, I'm sold. I'll pick it up this weekend if I can find it. Do people still play multiplayer consistently? This game has to be nearly 3 years old. I'm gonna kick Wumpus's butt with my long range arty (hehe). I hate that damn Kohan game!

-Rob

"Has anyone ever told you that you like to hear yourself talk? From your latest posts, I would say that TA is the best 2d rts since War Craft."

No, TA is 3D/physics based over a pre-rendered 3D background. Kohan _is_ the best 2D RTS since Warcraft II. Nothing I've said is contradictory to that. It just isn't much deeper strategically than WC2 was, which is very disappointing.

Playing a bunch of internet games will quickly disabuse you of any "strategic" Kohan plans you might have. Unless, of course, like Tom you play only against people you know. Then the situation is somehow, completely different-- I guess everyone can agree to not break the game design and play "strategically". Whatever the hell that means.

"25-40 games is going to put you in the 25+ to 40+ hours of Kohan playing (which if you have, you know a hell of a lot more than I do about it)."

I've played quite a bit of Kohan online in the last month. It's hard to guesstimate exactly how much. 25 matches is a number that I'm comfortable with. It's a fun game, even though it's ultimately a renfaire tank rush. What can I say? Time flies when you're having fun. It's like eating a bag full of Snickers bars. Great while it lasts-- just not very satisfying as a full meal. I played at least 5 matches during this long debate, by the way, just to make sure what I was saying was consistent with actual playtime.

"The units and terrain are done in 3D, and TA is actually as 3D as an RTS game should reasonably be. It's 2D in the sense that you don't ever have to muck with the top-down camera. I don't remember if amphib units, subs, ships, and planes can occupy the same location (at various heights). If you haven't played TA, you're missing a great game!"

There are basically three planes-- water, land, and air. All can overlap. I'm pretty sure subs can go under ships, too, though I'd have to check.

I concur on Total Annihilation. Easily one of my top 5 games of all time, and if you like RTS games, it should be on your list too.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Well, I figure any game that inspires the kind of universal high praise combined with nitpicking heated debate has to be a good one. People don't generally bother arguing over finer points unless those finer points are all they can find wrong.

I'll make sure to try this one out, and thank everyone for the input!

If anyone on here wants to play a TA game, count me in! e-mail me a date and time

I'm pretty sure "Boneyards", Cavedog's answer to battle.net, is long gone. :( I still have a boneyards T-shirt, though.

[email protected]

WUMPUS: "Most people quit when you expect them to-- when they have no reasonable chance in hell of winning. Do you really expect them to play out that sad charade to the bitter end?"

I dunno. I guess I'm just a fucking psycho, as Bub put it. But it works like this: when we go to a bar, you don't leave your drink on the table and walk out silently half way through the evening. If you're playing a computer game with me over "the Internet" and think you've lost -- FUCKING MESSAGE ME and say, "hey, d00d, you win. I concede this game." Then quit and we're fine. I occasionally play Go with some (Chinese) friends at a local bar. We go (haha! get it?) there, get a couple drinks, they kick my ass (one of them plays and another does the play-by-play) and it's a good time. When I'm losing beyond all hope (probably 2 hours into it) I don't just pretend I'm going to the bathroom and then sneak out of the bar.

Maybe you're part of some "crazy new Internet generation" where all experiences are throwaway and Gladiator is a fun movie. And maybe the Internet is just a place for cheap thrills and total annihilation. If so, congratulations. I congratulate you. But I don't have any real interest in this kind of interaction. I suspect this is why Tom only plays games over "the Internet" with people he knows, but that's just speculation and maybe Tom has a bunch of secret reasons.

Learning how to "break" a computer game design is great. All it takes is some intelligent people playing it and wanting to win. That doesn't require anonymous Internet denizens. Playing with people you know doesn't preclude discovering a game's design faults. In fact, if the people you "know" are halfway intelligent (and want to win) you can probably do this in half the time. And you can have fun doing it. And, at the end, you can call up your opponent and discuss how he kicked your ass so conclusively, and what exploits he found. So I don't see the advantage to playing the guy from Team Obsessive. Unless he has some kind of 133t sekrits. In which case he's cheating.

"When I'm losing beyond all hope (probably 2 hours into it) I don't just pretend I'm going to the bathroom and then sneak out of the bar."

But it would be a hell of a lot funnier if you did. That, in a nutshell, is the difference between you and Erik Wolpaw, by the way. I know you've been wondering all this time, just to have me lay it out on a platter for you like that. You're welcome, by the way.

"you're playing a computer game with me over 'the Internet' and think you've lost -- FUCKING MESSAGE ME and say, "hey, d00d, you win. I concede this game." Then quit and we're fine."

You underestimate the civility of most long-term online gamers. I grant you this is more likely with a friend than with an anonymous internet player. However, most core online communities that form around games-- believe it or not-- are actually interested in the game, and play it with a modicum of civility. For example, I got to know literally dozens of "random internet players" during my obsessive TA phase on TEN through 1998.

I just think you and Tom are painting with a awfully broad brush here-- "anonymous internet players bad, my friends GOOD!!"

"Maybe you're part of some 'crazy new Internet generation' where all experiences are throwaway and Gladiator is a fun movie. And maybe the Internet is just a place for cheap thrills and total annihilation. If so, congratulations. I congratulate you. But I don't have any real interest in this kind of interaction."

I don't need friends. Now I have the internet. Friends are sooo 1994.

But seriously. The issue is more one of _convenience_ than anything else. If you have lots of friends whose idea of a great time is blocking 3 hours from their day for a board game-esque marathon, hey, more power to you, champ. As for me, I find a larger pool of competitors online than I could ever hope to in the real world, at any time of the day, at any skill level. I can drop in and play 30 minutes of counter-strike, kohan, TA or whatever, without it turning into a goddamn production.

Plus, I find that most of my real world friends have little interest in gaming, or if they do, it's extremely casual. I actually prefer it this way. Obviously this is a personal choice, but having too many people around me who are as obsessed with this stuff as I am would probably be bad for my health. Besides, what would my scrapbooking club think?*

"I suspect this is why Tom only plays games over 'the Internet' with people he knows, but that's just speculation and maybe Tom has a bunch of secret reasons."

It's such an exclusive club! So swank and posh! Ah, to be a friend of Tom Chick and join the gaming elite that are worthy of his company in online games. Hey, a man can dream, can't he? Pity the unwashed masses who are not able to experience the rapture, nay, the pure unmitigated joy of facing Mr. Tom Chick, mano-a-mano.

"Learning how to "break" a computer game design is great. All it takes is some intelligent people playing it and wanting to win. That doesn't require anonymous Internet denizens."

Playing with only people you know also implies a lot of setup involved in each game. Juggling schedules, e-mailing or ICQing back and forth, locating a server, making sure everyone is has the game installed and patched to the latest version, and dear God I'm getting a sympathetic headache from just listing all this crap. Anyway, the point is that you probably haven't played a lot of the game in question if you ONLY play with friends you know. It simply takes too much time to set the games up.

Furthermore, you have a generally higher level of skill among online players than random people with computers. They tend to be more dedicated.

Therefore, more game time, against better players, equals better chance of discovering flaws in the game. Capiche?

I know it's emotionally rewarding to kill a close personal friend instead of an anonymous stranger and all that claptrap, but in the end-- IT'S ABOUT THE GAME. If the other player is a good, skilled player, that's all _I_ give a rat's ass about. It certainly doesn't make the game more satisfying to me to know that my opponent, like Tom Chick, subscribes to Cat Fancy magazine, had a recent pedicure, and really hates Deus Ex. I don't care! It's all about the gameplay.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

* thanks Pepper and Supertanker.

Losing at Go can be fun if you understand why you're losing. RTS games don't provide that sort of satisfaction, since you don't necessarily know what your opponent is doing. It makes it that much more frustrating, because you don't know you're losing until your base gets overrun.

I personally prefer playing with people I know if for no other reason than we can sit and reminisce at some later point. Yeah yeah, I think you've all heard this before.

- Alan

"Losing at Go can be fun if you understand why you're losing. RTS games don't provide that sort of satisfaction, since you don't necessarily know what your opponent is doing. It makes it that much more frustrating, because you don't know you're losing until your base gets overrun."

Ah, that brings me back to the days of the original C&C. In that game, the fog of war, once uncovered, stayed uncovered. In my mind, that's a far superior way to play than having the fog shroud over again like it does in most RTS games since.

Not only does it put a premium on scouting early on before you opponent builds up defences that can kill your scouts before they can uncover the fog, it lets you see exactly what your opponent is doing most of the time, and vice versa. It becomes much more of a chess match in this situation. Instead of losing or winning by surprising the opponent, you win by tactics. Some of my most memorable online games were C&C games where my opponent and I had similar resources at our disposal and we could see what each was building. They became real cat and mouse games where you'd jockey forces about to try to get a momentary advantage at some point of attack and nibble away at the opponent's forces.

"Ah, that brings me back to the days of the original C&C. In that game, the fog of war, once uncovered, stayed uncovered. In my mind, that's a far superior way to play than having the fog shroud over again like it does in most RTS games since."

It causes me physical pain to see this westwood bastardization of the genre celebrated. Although Blizzard's Starcraft was a pale shadow of the game that TA is, at least they got this critical part of it right.

To properly remove the fog of war, you simply have scouts, or units with enough visual range, stationed where you want to see. Your scouts get killed? Tough titty.

The westwood "way" means the element of surprise is _completely_ removed from the game. Strategy -5. There are other, far less harebrained ways to handle this, such as jamming, stealth, and so forth.

My main gripe with Kohan has nothing to do with multiplayer...its the lack of units and lack of different unit strategies (imo). There are no air units, siege units, artillery units, stealth units, defensive units...basically its either cavalry infantry and support, thats it. Dont get me wrong though, Kohan has a lot of good things going for it. The meld of Warcarft meets Warlords. The better game with the same type of originality as Kohan, that i liked alot, was Seven Kingdoms (Warcraft meets Civilization). Now thats a game I liked in multi more than Kohan... I never knew REAL spy units could be so important in an RTS until 7k.

etc

Re: Shroud

I think agree with Wumpus. (Man, I've GOTTA stop saying that...) Half the strategy is knowing what you're opponent is doing. Use air units to scope out the area. (That's why I love the allies in Red Alert -- I'll give up the higher firepower to be able to see what my enemy is doing. I also play as humans in Warcraft 2, because I'd just miss holy vision too much...) You just shouldn't be able to see your enemy the whole time without having to work for it.

Ummm... I thought this post was closing down, but now there are a couple of new and interesting arguments.

Online: strangers vs. friends. Hands down, the friends has to win every time, but at 31 it is damn near impossible to get my friends online on a regular basis (and these were all dedicated AD&Ders in their youth - oh those halcyon days). I totally disagree with anyone who would say the game itself is more important than the friends you play with. Thats ridiculous. The game is simply a platform that allows us to enjoy our interactions with our friends in a heightened manner. Sadly, as friends grow apart we are left holding only the platform. I-strangers (or e-strangers would be more dotcom of me) generate some of the old comraderie, but not much unless a real friendship blossoms (tough to do unless you play a lot). The real reason I want to start a gaming company is so my friends can all come "work" with me and we can start Shoot Club's Boston Chapter. Oh-oh, did I just psychoanalyze all post 25 year old gamers? Sorry.

On to more important matters: Mechcommander plans to have NO fog of war. And for good reason: satellites will pretty much pick up anything that moves during the mechwarrior era. I like this idea for three reasons: it is realistic (I love realism in both games and movies (ok books too-but not poetry), it gives the player the opportunity to feel like they are more involved in a game WITH people (I want to know how other people play too), and lastly, it doesn't change the amount of strategy, it just introduces new strategic concepts. For example, instead of coming up with ideas of how to see the enemy (do I send one fast scout or a number of slower scouts in web pattern (PBYs anyone?), you have to figure out how to keep the enemy from knowing your intentions (if I shut the engines down does that mean their infared sats can't see this regiment? hmm.. these light mechs kinda look like their heavier counterparts when I stick'em in the woods, maybe I can fool my opponent into thinking I'm stronger than I am). Strategy never dies. It just changes.

Kohan units: I was wondering if ship companies, or flyers would work well here. I think probably so. The initial reaction I had of Kohan was that it looked boring, due to the vanilla units, even the specials, and maps. The gameplay kind of overcomes it though. It does give the developer a lot of room to grow when the sequal comes out.

-Rob

"I know it's emotionally rewarding to kill a close personal friend instead of an anonymous stranger and all that claptrap, but in the end-- IT'S ABOUT THE GAME."

And this, ladies and gentlemen, sums up beautifully how far off base wumpus is.

I play multiplayer games against people I don't know and against people I know. I would rather play a bad game against people I know rather than a good game against people I don't know.

-Tom

---

Quote:

Playing a bunch of internet games will quickly disabuse you of any "strategic" Kohan plans you might have. Unless, of course, like Tom you play only against people you know. Then the situation is somehow, completely different-- I guess everyone can agree to not break the game design and play "strategically". Whatever the hell that means.

---

"I know it's emotionally rewarding to kill a close personal friend instead of an anonymous stranger and all that claptrap, but in the end-- IT'S ABOUT THE GAME."

Just the opposite of my feelings in multiplayer. Playing some anonymous stranger is just like playing an extremely smart AI opponent (well, some fit the smart categorization.) With a friend, a multiplayer game transcends being a computer game and becomes a means of personal interaction.

For me, anyway. Different strokes, etc.

Jeff

It seems the votes are in, and more people prefer playing internet games against their friends than against random strangers, 6-1!

"On to more important matters: Mechcommander plans to have NO fog of war. And for good reason: satellites will pretty much pick up anything that moves during the mechwarrior era."

This is fair enough; you can achieve the same end result with jamming and stealth. I would also argue that satellites can be picked out of the air. ;)

"It seems the votes are in, and more people prefer playing internet games against their friends than against random strangers, 6-1!"

Sigh. Yeah, and everyone should have sex with $20 hookers instead of their wives and girlfriends! This is totally not what I'm saying.

What I _am_ saying is this: making a statement like "I play only with friends I know" automatically implies A) you aren't playing the game a whole lot due to scheduling issues and B) you are playing with people of limited skill level. See above messages for detailed explanations on this.

Not that there's ANYTHING wrong with that. But if you are really into the _game_, that implies that you play against a lot of internet opponents and occasionally against friends when you can. I am not arguing that one is inherently better than the other-- merely that the internet is far more practical.

"I would rather play a bad game against people I know rather than a good game against people I don't know."

I completely disagree. It's pathological to play bad games intentionally. Great games demand to be played, regardless of who your opponents are.

Maybe you guys could fire up some multiplayer Deus Ex..

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

---

Quote:

What I _am_ saying is this: making a statement like "I play only with friends I know" automatically implies A) you aren't playing the game a whole lot due to scheduling issues and B) you are playing with people of limited skill level. See above messages for detailed explanations on this.

---

"I don't think your blanket implications hold any water."

Double sigh. I am not making blanket implications. Obviously playing with friends is nice when you can make it happen and superior to random strangers. I'm not saying "internet players GOOD! friends BAD!". That is so, so, SO not my point. I know it's fun to gleefully misinterpret what I've written, but can we have, like, a temporary moratorium on this? Please?

However, I do the feeling Tom et al are making this statement in reverse-- eg, *all* internet players are soul-sucking idiots. And I don't agree with that, either.

"The fellows I play Age of Kings with are easily my equal and one is substantially better than me. I don't venture into the Zone too often simply because I don't like the attitude of many of the players there and I get infinitely more satisfaction from playing with and then discussing the game with the people I know. I also play it about two times a week for some three or more hours at a shot."

4-6 hours per week is about the maximum play time you can get with friends, due to scheduling and setup issues. Plus, this has to be pre-arranged in advance, and if any one of them bails.. again, going back to my convenience and practicality argument.

"Besides, isn't it true that the big push behind multiplayer is building "communities"? That implies friendship and camraderie."

You're only going to get that from offline friends you happen to play online. Making online-only friendships.. er, I dunno. It happens if you play the game a _lot_, but otherwise it's creepy, like hanging out in AOL chatrooms to 'meet people'. That's not real interaction.

And all that, to me, is beside the point. The game is satisfying because it's enjoyable to play, first and foremost. I can understand wanting to play with friends when you can, but making bizarre statements like Tom's "I'd rather play a bad game with friends than a good game with random players" is completely foreign to me.

It's like sex. Sex with someone you love or care about is great. But to argue that you'd turn down an offer of no-strings-attached anonymous sex with a willing and experienced partner? Hey, you're a stronger man than I am in that case. And unlike sex, there's no social stigma to being promiscuous in gaming. Except here on the glorious Q23 forums, I guess. What can I say? I'm a gaming slut, and proud of it. I'll do anyone, anytime.

"You're way off base here wumpus, or you don't have many friends online or off that play games."

I already said that most of my real-world friends have little interest in gaming. Even in the quake clan I've been a long term member of, our gaming interests are so varied now that it's nearly impossible to play together, match schedules, find a game we all agree on, etcetera.

I guess I just don't "get" this use of multiplayer games exclusively as some kind of oddball friendship vehicle. If I want to hang out with friends, it doesn't have to focus around gaming. Hell, I'd prefer that it *doesn't*! Why is it such a sin for gaming to be about the GAME first and foremost?

wumpus

---

Quote:

I completely disagree. It's pathological to play bad games intentionally. Great games demand to be played, regardless of who your opponents are.

---

wumpus said:
"I guess I just don't "get" this use of multiplayer games exclusively as some kind of oddball friendship vehicle. If I want to hang out with friends, it doesn't have to focus around gaming. Hell, I'd prefer that it *doesn't*!"

Then you simply don't get it and that's that (and says quite a bit about you, actually).

Nonetheless:

Let's just say that the friendship vehicle for a particular given night happens to be computer gaming. Why is that any different than playing poker or some boardgame, what we used to do more often before we started setting up LANs in our homes? I see no difference whatsoever among these various types of social interaction. You do see the reason why people who know each other play non-computer games together, don't you? And you understand these friends do so on a regular basis, don't you?

So which is more fun: playing poker the first Friday night of each new month with all your friends, or making sure you always play poker someplace new with people you don't know? Depends on what poker means to you. For me it's the former, but for you it might be the appeal or challenge of taking on someone you don't know. If so, then that's a reflection of what you want out of a game, not a reflection of the gaming being about the game "first and foremost."

"Why is it such a sin for gaming to be about the GAME first and foremost?"

You're mixing two points here, wumpus. Know what the ultimate game about just gaming "first and foremost" is called? Solitaire. Every single-player game out there is nothing more than a glorified FreeCell. Friends don't factor into it and it's about just the game itself.

Therefore, *any* game that has multiplayer is *always* more fun when you're playing it with your friends (Even over the impersonal, hard-to-get-everyone-together-at-the-same-time Internet. It's obviously far better in the flesh). So what's wrong with maximizing your fun and trying to play with only friends as often as possible (just like what a lot of married couples did when they went to their friend's house for "bridge night"? I don't think they went to the public Bridge Hall).

BTW, just how many LAN parties have you ever attended? Always played Monopoly by yourself while you were growing up did you?

The funny thing about Wumpus is that in the next couple of hours he is going to respond to these very rational responses to his half-assed arguments with ever more shifting material, so that he can continue to post his monotonous credo, "I know what I'm saying is correct BECAUSE I'M SAYING IT".

-Rob

Hey now, when did this thread turn into the "beat down wumpus" discussion? I mean, the general discussion topic is interesting, but I could could do without the personal attacks. I'm more than happy to disagree with him and let it rest.

- Alan

Actually every thread on QT3 eventually turns into a "beat down wumpus" discussion. {LOL}

Well, let's take last night's Asheron's Call excursion for an example.

I utterly hate playing this game without people I know. My friends do enough dumb crap without throwing strangers into the mix who's motivations you don't know. At least with us we know any utter stupidity will be the main subject of ridicule in the office next week, and that keeps everybody honest :-)

So, Shadus and his girl are on the phone with me as we clean the golems off the beach at Hebian To. We've got Kahar (our hardware tech) with us, and we're power-leveling. Everything was going well until I shouted "Look out! RUN RUN RUN It's a Corned Beef Golem!" and everybody scattered for a second. Now I know that monday, when I'm asked what I want for lunch I can say "Corned beef sammich" and get a good giggle.

That's just not possible with people you don't know.

"So which is more fun: playing poker the first Friday night of each new month with all your friends, or making sure you always play poker someplace new with people you don't know?"

Triple sigh. This is the core of the logical fallacy at work here.

I am NOT arguing that you should avoid playing with friends to play on the internet. That's ridiculous.

I AM arguing that playing on the internet is far more convenient and practical for the vast majority of people. Also, this venue generally has a wider skill range of opponents and they tend to be more dedicated than casual friends.

Therefore, if you truly enjoy (x) game, you will likely play against internet opponents AS WELL AS friends. What blend of the above you use, depends on your priorities..

"Depends on what poker means to you. For me it's the former, but for you it might be the appeal or challenge of taking on someone you don't know. If so, then that's a reflection of what you want out of a game, not a reflection of the gaming being about the game 'first and foremost.'"

Well, I disagree. To argue that poker is _only_ useful as a vehicle for hanging out with your friends, denies any inherent enjoyment one would get from the game itself AGAINST COMPETENT HUMAN PLAYERS. There is a world of difference between AI and this; the solitaire argument is so riduculous I won't even bother.

And again, to make the argument that Tom did-- "I'd rather play a bad game against friends, than a good game against strangers". The issue is not one versus the other, in some sort of bizarre zero-sum game. That's a red herring introduced by Tom. Everyone take a minute to wave at Tom! Hi Tom! Thanks for reading this buddy! I appreciate your contribution!

BOTH playing against friends AND playing against strangers are valid forms of play. I never said otherwise, though I know the gleeful misinterpretation will continue unabated, no matter what I write here. Tom is the one saying that a great game isn't _WORTH_ playing unless you play it with friends. And that, to me, is perverse and utterly wrong.

A game is fun because it's a great game, first and foremost. I think it's the MOST fun against humans OF ANY TYPE, known or unknown. Some people think it's double plus good fun against friends. That's fine too!

And as I said: I'm a gaming slut. I'll play anyone, anytime, anywhere in a game I enjoy. I don't say "ooh, no, sorry, you're not a friend so I couldn't possibly derive any kind of enjoyment out of this game with the likes of *you*. Buh-bye."

If that's wrong, then I don't wanna be right.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Then I'm just an outlying piece of data, because I almost never play on-line against strangers. It just doesn't hold any great appeal for me.

Jeff

"Then I'm just an outlying piece of data, because I almost never play on-line against strangers. It just doesn't hold any great appeal for me."

Well, have fun playing the AI then, or else you can round up some friends-- if they are of comparable skill level, have open time in their schedule, PCs are fast enough to run the game (with latest patches installed), a decently fast internet connection, and any interest at all in the game you happen to like.

I wish you the best of luck, sir.

NOTE TO READERS: I am not saying you should avoid your friends to play anonymous strangers. This is not a zero-sum game. You can have it BOTH WAYS. Unless you're Tom Chick, in which case you'd rather swallow your own tongue than play those damn dirty strangers in a game.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Well, have fun playing the AI then"

That's actually how I spend the majority of my gaming time. Most of my multiplayer gaming is EverQuest these days.

did i hear someone mention Total Annihilation? where the C&C family of games (erm.. Dune2 on the Amiga, actually) introduced me to RTS-type games, TA is the game that, once i had played it, there was no point in playing other RTS games. i'd love to dust it off and see if it actually works well under win2k these days. :)

- mike - somewhere in east-central illinois -

Aszurom, what server(s) do you play on in AC? (out of curiousity) .. i 'live' on LC, myself.

- mike - somewhere in east-central illinois -

"TA is the game that, once i had played it, there was no point in playing other RTS games. i'd love to dust it off and see if it actually works well under win2k these days. :)"

Mike, you are _so_ right, and I'm saddened to inform you that you're.. still right, even today. There still isn't any RTS game out there that compares, IMO.

There is certainly fun to be had in some newer entries to the RTS genre, but nothing breaks as many conventions and introduces so many new elements as effectively TA did. Homeworld (or better, Cataclysm, which addresses many of the odd design choices in the original game) is probably the closest thing to a must-have title in the RTS genre to date. I had high hopes for Kohan, until I played a bunch online and I got medieval tank rush syndrome. :(

"That's actually how I spend the majority of my gaming time."

Nothing wrong with AI, at least for the first pass through a game in singleplayer. But I personally can't imagine playing through a game more than once. There are just too many great games for me to focus on a single title AI that much.

"Most of my multiplayer gaming is EverQuest these days."

And do you play with people you've met in the real world exclusively? Or people you only know online? Or a mixture of both? If it's a mixture, what percentage would you estimate of each?

wumpus

I think Starcraft compares quite favorably to TA. It has a far superior single-player game and better skirmish AI. The interface isn't as nice, but I like the three distinct races. The sides in TA are much more alike than different. There are also too many units in TA. It's overkill.

Warzone 2100's a nice RTS. Kohan, of course, is a nice game. The Enemble games are quite solid.

There are a number of games that compare well to TA.

"I had high hopes for Kohan, until I played a bunch online and I got medieval tank rush syndrome. :( "

But doesn't TA lend itself to rush tactics also? And isn't TA usually won by the player who amasses the superior force?

"But I personally can't imagine playing through a game more than once. There are just too many great games for me to focus on a single title AI that much."

There aren't that many games I spend a lot of time with. I think of games as being disposable products. You play the game and get ready for your next gaming fix.

With EQ I solo a lot or just group with random people. It's hard for anyone to wreck my game. They can't pkill me and if they disconnect, my game continues.

"I think Starcraft compares quite favorably to TA. It has a far superior single-player game and better skirmish AI. The interface isn't as nice, but I like the three distinct races."

Starcraft, for all its polish, is really just Warcraft 2 in space. Believe me, I could go on for hours on this topic, so I'll save everyone a lot of pain and suffering by just briefly summarizing. It's not that SC is a bad game-- clearly, it is not-- just that TA had some really fundamental paradigm shifts in the gameplay such as being fully 3D, physics-based, having a wide variety of land/sea/air units, the commander, and the energy/metal budgets. SC was a riff (granted, an Eddie Van Halen virtuoso riff) on the same old 2D bitmaps blasting each other.

Specific example. One of _the_ most annoying things about SC was the bullshit, arbitrary rules such as "you can't shoot this air unit that is shooting you because the unit under attack cannot fire at air units." In TA, even a defensive ground cannon could (and would!) take shots at air units. It just sucked at hitting them, because most planes are far too fast and it couldn't track them very well due to low turret rotation speed. However, that makes perfect sense, unlike SC's mishmash of 2D bitmaps and random rules Blizzard pulled outta their ass.

And for the record, I have seen a ground cannon hit a hovering pack of brawlers before, which is hilarious.

"But doesn't TA lend itself to rush tactics also? And isn't TA usually won by the player who amasses the superior force?"

This is partially true, but again, we're talking late 1997. And as I've pointed out in another thread, on a given map, it's really true that strategies did evolve radically over time. The floating metal maker, for example, fundamentally changed the way many maps were played. As did the hovercrafts, and the water 'bots like the pelican and the gimp.

Given not only the wide variety of land/sea/air units, but also the large selection of walls (2 types!) and defensive structures-- combined with the fusion plants and other energy/metal related structures-- you could even play defensively and win. Can you get a big bertha long range artillery up before your opponent does? Can you get a nuke up? Stuff like that.

Here's a specific example. I remember one time on evad delta-- a map with a small river dividing three large land sections-- a guy built a ton of amphibious tanks and sent them en masse, catching me off guard. I had never seen anyone do that before, though I had played the map dozens of times. I had even seen people build ships on that small river. Pointless, really, but fun. You can shell from quite a distance with a battleship. ;)

"The sides in TA are much more alike than different."

True, but the differences become magnified when you play them for a while. And I'm personally of the opinion that making "we must have (x) different races in our RTS" a design directive is a simplistic, redneck approach to game design. Clearly, more is better, right? I don't see anyone complaining about lack of depth in chess, and the 'units' are identical. Someone is looking the trees and missing the forest, here.

"There are also too many units in TA. It's overkill."

Almost all of the units in TA are useful in the right situation. It's true that there are a few that could be left out, but the depth of units is fantastic for exploring different strategies, as I pointed out above.

My biggest criticism of TA was, as with all building type RTSes, it becomes about production more than strategy. I don't consider this a fault of TA per se, since every single RTS ever made has the same flaw.

I hope some brilliant game designer can eventually come up with a way to include building, _without_ falling into this trap like every other RTS before them has... including Kohan, unfortunately.

wumpus

"Starcraft, for all its polish, is really just Warcraft 2 in space."

Well, I don't want you to go on for hours, but in Warcraft the sides were almost identical. in Starcraft the sides are completely different. The game's remarkably well balanced, too.

Also, the single-player game in Starcraft is far superior to TA's.

Finally, and I'm reiterating here, the skirmish AI in Starcraft is also much better than TA's. It also came with a robust editor and several (I've heard) very good campaigns were made by fans.

Maybe as a multiplayer game TA is better, but that's just a small part of the whole picture.

it's strange.. i bought Starcraft after having played TA for ages.. and.. then i started playing TA again; my Starcraft cd's have been removed from their retail boxen, but are still in the shrinkwrap. maybe some day i'll check it out :)

i think one of the things that makes TA *THE* game for me is that it seemed to do so many things right compared to what i had been used to, which was C&C/RedAlert... of course, you built units.. but better still, you could ACTUALLY QUEUE the builds! and not only that, your mobile construction units (commander, etc) could queue units/structures to be built! again, i only really played C&C/RA prior-to, so if there were others that did this, it wasn't something i'd seen, and it probably wouldn't have meshed well with the 'background story' of the games, either, unless they were futurish like TA was.

on top of that, the planes didn't 'fly' like they were on a racetrack: they have some sort of physics going on. very cool stuff!

maybe Warcraft(2)/Starcraft had this stuff as well, but having not played them, i dunno. i never got into WC(2) mainly because it sounded gay as hell. orcs and humans? i look back on it now, and i guess i was younger then and didn't think it was all that cool. starcraft just didn't really appeal to me, probably because it was hyped as the next best thing since sliced bread and blizzard could do no wrong. :shrug: so maybe i'm wrong. maybe i'll really have to open the jewelcases someday and try them out.

wow, ok, enough rambling from me. back into lurk mode, i think.

- mike - somewhere in east-central illinois -

Soclaim server. Character's name is Barsoom.

"Well, I don't want you to go on for hours, but in Warcraft the sides were almost identical. in Starcraft the sides are completely different."

As I said, I consider this a chapter from the redneck book of game development-- more is better because.. well, it's MORE!

Now, if you want to argue the 3 sides play differently, that's fine. However, I still think it's the wrong thing to focus on. Now that Starcraft had 3 different races, does the next RTS have to have 4 races? 6 races? 10 races?

This trend is also at work in Diablo I (3 char types) and II (5 char types) and the expansion (7 char types). More more more, but the gameplay is .. uh, pretty much the same. I just got to Act III in Diablo II playing with a Sorceress instead of a Necromancer, and I was still doing the same song and dance with both characters.. I didn't see it as this revolutionary, completely different experience as a Sorc. In fact, I was bored. It's rare for me to play a game twice, and Diablo II's much vaunted "different character replayability" wasn't doing anything for me. I think I'll just deltree it and wait for new monsters and areas with the expansion.

Having 3 races doesn't mean anything to me when the core gameplay is essentially the same as Warcraft 2.. BUT WITH THREE DIFFERENT RACES! Whoopety-doo. That's progress? WC2 had an editor. WC2 had good AI. WC2 had a great single player game. In fact, it had pretty much everything StarCraft did.. except three races. And I'd like to point out as far as longevity, people still play WC2 on battle.net, too. Remember there was a 32-bit remake with bnet compatibility released.

Now, compare this with TA, which had a radical (at the time) fully 3D units, 3D prerendered terrain, and physics based gameplay. It also had the concept of the all-powerful commander as your avatar on the field, dozens of land/sea/air build trees, an innovative energy and metal economy, wind that actually affected projectiles, debris from dead units that blocked your path (or could be harvested for metal), and weapons and strategies that worked like they did in the real world.. really, dozens of things, some little, some big. All never seen before. All original. All 100% whoop-ass.

Hey, you're a fan of Dungeon Siege aren't you? And you know why? Chris Taylor is a fuckin' genius, that's why. It's a travesty and a crime against humanity that his name is not in the same league as Molyneux, Marshall, et al.

"The game's remarkably well balanced, too."

TA was balanced, except for a small problem with the flash tank. I will admit that I was disappointed in Cavedog's lack of response to the flash tank. They did introduce the anti-air flak gun in response to air imbalance complaints, though, so I can't say they did nothing for balance.

"Also, the single-player game in Starcraft is far superior to TA's. Finally, and I'm reiterating here, the skirmish AI in Starcraft is also much better than TA's."

I can't deny any of this, however, the underlying gameplay mechanics in TA were/are so much deeper and more satisfying than SC, that for many of us gameplay purists, it simply.. didn't.. matter. No doubt that SC had more polish, more mahogany inlay, more brass rivets, in these areas-- but no matter how much you polish 2D bitmaps, they're still 2D bitmaps.

Like most Blizzard products, SC is a victory of polish over gameplay. They deserve to be successful because precious few developers spend the time to get every single little pixel in place like Blizzard does. However, there is a dark side to this, and it's in the area of innovation. SC is no exception, nor is Diablo II.

"Finally, and I'm reiterating here, the skirmish AI in Starcraft is also much better than TA's. It also came with a robust editor and several (I've heard) very good campaigns were made by fans."

Again, can't deny the AI issue, but to be fair there was an official TA editor released on one of the expansion discs.

Celebrating SC is, in many ways, celebrating polish over innovation in gameplay. But this is nothing you already didn't know about Blizzard.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Having 3 races doesn't mean anything to me when the core gameplay is essentially the same as Warcraft 2.. BUT WITH THREE DIFFERENT RACES! Whoopety-doo. That's progress? WC2 had an editor. WC2 had good AI. WC2 had a great single player game. In fact, it had pretty much everything StarCraft did.. except three races. And I'd like to point out as far as longevity, people still play WC2 on battle.net, too. Remember there was a 32-bit remake with bnet compatibility released."

The three different races each provide a unique play style. That's what's so compelling about them. You get a unique experience with each side. You absolutely did not get that with Warcraft 2.

If you call "more is better" redneck game design, then TA with its 1768 units must be the ultimate redneck game.

"I can't deny any of this, however, the underlying gameplay mechanics in TA were/are so much deeper and more satisfying than SC, that for many of us gameplay purists, it simply.. didn't.. matter."

And how much of this came out in the single-player game or skirmish games against the AI? That's one of the great things about Starcraft -- you get a great gameplay experience without ever having to venture online.

I like TA a lot. It just seems that it's more of a multiplayer game than anything else, though.

"Hey, you're a fan of Dungeon Siege aren't you? And you know why? Chris Taylor is a fuckin' genius, that's why. It's a travesty and a crime against humanity that his name is not in the same league as Molyneux, Marshall, et al."

Well, the guy's got one game under his belt. He needs to spit out a couple more before he's officially labeled a genius.

I was impressed with Dungeon Seige. The big question is if it will have the staying power of Diablo. There are no random dungeons, but the editor looks promising.

>>Well, the guy's got one game under his belt. He needs to spit out a couple more before he's officially labeled a genius.

Going back, he designed and programmed the amazingly ahead of its time 4D Boxing, Hardball 2, launched Triple Play for EA Sports... he was one of the head guys at Distinctive Software, which eventually became EA Canada.

I'd say that's a pretty good track record.

"except for a small problem with the flash tank. "

If you played anybody on a metal heck map who knew the newer strategies in TA... the flash rush can be stopped EASY. The flash is the second cheapest rush compared to the cores Storm rush. The storm rush is UNSTOPPABLE, especially on a metal heck map...people didnt know how powerful this core kbot lvl 1 unit until almost a year after release. I learned this trick from a coworker.. i told him "nothing can stop a well prepared flash rush" he says "try me". ANd i tried ALOT. He basically produced as much Storms as many flashes as i could, and used his commander to e gun continuously.

The Flash Tank rush is highly overrated. though it workds great against "newbie" players.

etc

"And how much of this came out in the single-player game or skirmish games against the AI? That's one of the great things about Starcraft -- you get a great gameplay experience without ever having to venture online. "

I dont know... i never liked that SC cheatin AI!!! like the way they team up on you...even when they ARENT on the same team! but ill admit, the TA skirmish ai was pretty crap, but there are a few AI patches that fix it (at least if you restrain from rushing the AI early)

Actually the best skirmish AI I've played in ANY rts, was in KKND 2! in this game the computer somehow used multiple paths well, and retreated when they lost just a few units... they did probe/scout attacks as well...or it all seemed that way. overlooked rts btw. plus the way the resource model worked, close to the CnC, made it much easier for the AI I guess. also the KKND2 ai was very good at holding up a defense...i remember facing countless attrition trying to break thru some of there defenses in some skirmishes...and eventually losing! but its been awhie since i played that game.

etc

"If you call "more is better" redneck game design, then TA with its 1768 units must be the ultimate redneck game."

I'm sorry, was I not clear when I listed the dozens of small and large things that made TA actually innovative? Redneck game design is using "let's add more" as a SUBSTITUTE for innovation.

And there is no doubt that Blizzard is very, very guilty of the above. Hmm. Doesn't Warcraft 3 have 5 playable races now? Dark Elves and what-not? Heck, that means it's automatically going to be 50% better than Starcraft! Get those review pencils ready for that "adds more playable races" checkbox, reviewers! Because god knows, that's what makes a great RTS. Lots and lots of playable races.

"Going back, he designed and programmed the amazingly ahead of its time 4D Boxing, Hardball 2, launched Triple Play for EA Sports... he was one of the head guys at Distinctive Software, which eventually became EA Canada."

I never got into sports games (was Hardball 2 on the Amiga? I might have played it in that case, I remember messing with Earl Weaver and the early Hardballs back then)-- but I owned a copy of 4D boxing on the PC and I thought it was amazing.

And another little tidbit for you. Chris got divorced from his wife (circa ~1998) because he was spending so much time developing games. Now that's hardcore.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"The Flash Tank rush is highly overrated. though it workds great against "newbie" players."

No, trust me, it really _does_ work. I got to the elitest of the elite level of players in this game, and I say that without a hint of irony or exaggeration. This is probably the only game, ever, that I have spent that much time playing.

It's not so much the flash as it is the general model of attacking from the very SECOND you can build units, to damage the other guy's production. That old chestnut.. whoever produces the most wins. So if you can slow or stop his production enough to get significantly ahead in the race to pump out units, you are very likely to win.

With really good players it was a ballet of attack, attack, attack all the time (on land maps anyway). It was very nerve wracking actually.

We would actually pump out a couple jeffies (cheapest possible bot, totally lame in any other situation) IMMEDIATELY to run around and blow up metal collectors from two different directions. The deal with the flash tank was, it was the best price/performance ground unit in the game-- by far. It dealt out a lot of damage (much more than the Core equivalent) and had a substantial amount of armor.

"If you played anybody on a metal heck map"

Competitive TA players didn't really bother with the metal heck map. Unlimited resources.. that's like cheat mode on. It is fun for just messing around though, and if you want to fight big bloody battles. It was the worst for rushing since that makes it 100% production oriented.. as if the "winning by production" problem wasn't pronounced enough as-is, playing on this map removed one of the two resource bottlenecks altogether!

Also, did you ever have anyone crash a tank into one of your factories, so the debris from the tank blocks the units that are exiting the factory? That was "teh suck" strategy, I fucking _hated_ people who pulled that move. And it was really tough (and even impossible) sometimes to harvest the debris, depending on how deep it was lodged in the factory exit. Happened a lot on MH though.

(For the TA uninitiated, MH is essentially an unlimited resource situation since metal mines can be placed anywhere-- the entire 'ground' is made of metal.)

wumpus

Also, TA's music is WAY above the music in Starcraft. The guy who did TA's music did Icewind Dale and Citizen K. Talk about great...he has only did three games it seems...but Icewind DAle's and TA are on my very top! (havent played Citizen K yet).

I still play the beginning intro to TA every once in awhile...its so friggin great...that little peewee cracks me up! and how they show all the units in the game, damn gets me into the game still. And the nuke launching with the Pyro unit splurting into the credits...just great.

btw 4d boxing was awesome! i remember getting it for 10 bux as a bargain bin EA title (and i think that was the release price too), i thought at the time it was the best ten bucks i ever spent.

also, Starcraft was really the work of many people, whereas TA seems to have been primarily the work of Taylor. so you could imagine TA being produced with a Starcraft budget...could have been even better!

and Taylor is set to make a RTS after DS i hear... and frankly im glad...im tired of the warcraft/CnC model of rts gameplay.

etc

"I'm sorry, was I not clear when I listed the dozens of small and large things that made TA actually innovative? Redneck game design is using "let's add more" as a SUBSTITUTE for innovation."

I was referring to the vast number of units in TA. Isn't that "let's add more"?

Let me ask you this. Is TA a better single-player game than Starcraft? It seems to me that you're experience with TA is mostly as a multiplayer game. For some reason, I play less and less multiplayer these days. As a result, I really appreciate games that provide a satisfying single-player experience. I think Starcraft has it hands down over TA in that regard.

If you like innovation, you should play Warzone 2100. Units carry over and get better with experience, the campaign map carries over, you can design your own units, it's fully 3D, etc.

"Going back, he designed and programmed the amazingly ahead of its time 4D Boxing, Hardball 2, launched Triple Play for EA Sports... he was one of the head guys at Distinctive Software, which eventually became EA Canada."

Heh -- didn't know that. Ok, we can call him a genius.

It's funny. Dungeon Seige on one hand seems very derivative to me. From the 45 minutes I played it, it really does seem a lot like Diablo. OTOH, it's full of brilliant interface touches.

Wumpus, I dont know who you played with, and i agree the flash is a great unit...(btw most of my TA games start out 1000 1000 non metal heck). anyway, the flash is the best price/cost for a unit for attack early in game...but for defense it sucked (at least for me). and constant little attacks on a small map work really well..but on a huge map small little scout attacks will get eaten alive easy. its best to concentrate (at least from my experience) on base buildup ALL THE TIME and to always have enough energy to defend with a dgun with the commander on rushes (but never alone). i ususally slowed flash rushes with solar panels! and yes i hated the kill the unit in front of the factory...though if a little peon can get thru to my main base i was probably losing the battle alrady. basically the flash rocks on small to medium maps... and with a start of about 4 - 6 metal mines (intial start). but after that they are pretty much useless, i was creamed with the Flash rush belief by my coworker...every time. im telling you the Core Storm is takes just a lil longer than the flash to make but cost just as much, plus its AoE damage, takes more damage, fires long range...basically it was the best anti flash unit i had seen (and this was after a year of playing that i saw this tactic), plus it is a great attack unit. if i play multi now, land maps, i go core with the storm/morty combo as my main force.

anyway, thats whats great about TA, there are still a ton of unit rush tactics... i hear people using slashers as a rush unit these days...i wonder if the TA community is still as strong, havent been playing it as much recently.

etc

"Is TA a better single-player game than Starcraft? "

For me it is, only because the "visceral" feel of battle is so much better in TA. Also, even if the skirmish AI is sorta dumb in TA, just watching the battles in TA is just much more appealing to me... I have had TA on my harddrive since install when i got it and its alwaus been on my hard drive (through a 166 to a 450 to a 1.2 amd!). But Starcraft has rarely been played and been intalled and uninstalled many times for me.... its all matter of opinion i guess.

etc

Heres a link to some good TA strategies...its covers the Flash and Storm rushes...and even the uses of Dragon Teeth...plus resource management, this looks to be a pretty good guide.

http://www.planetannihilation.com/intelligence/ta/strategy/strategy.shtml

"*all* internet players are soul-sucking idiots. And I don't agree with that, either."

When it comes to RTS games, I'm closer to believing they are than are not.

And if I play an RTS, you'd better bring silver bullets. If I'm getting pounded I'll make you run down every last resource gatherer and kill all my bases, or I'll be back to make you suffer, especially if there are 3 or more players in the game, so that someone else is distracting you while I painfully rebuild. Against friends or at least people you know from many other games this is okay, and adds to everyone's enjoyment. But when playing Starcraft or AOE online, I always ran into the same thing: A "tank rush" early on of zerglings or archers, followed shortly by a logoff when the person realized their attack had failed and they were at a severe disadvantage. No sportsmanship, no gaming. Just boring and frustrating; two words I have no use for when placed in context with games.

I'm seeming to remember that there were timers on some of those games, so that if you quit early on it wouldn't penalize your standing, which helped to contribute to the rush-and-dump.

I will have to say that when playing against strangers on the internet (In RTS games) the ratio is at least 20:1 of jerks versus good gamers. That's enough to make me stay clear of strangers on the web.

My problem with RTS games on the Internet is that just about everyone has some kind of early game rush. That's fine, because these games certainly allow for that, but I'm just not really into it.

I haven't tried Kohan yet, but I'm going to give it a go since at least it's hard to build up a crushing early game force.

I really should get back into Myth. That's a fun multiplayer game. I'd think that would be the answer to Wumpus's complaints about RTS games being about production instead of tactics, actually. Myth is 100% tactics and zero percent production.

Yes, Myth was a blast too. I don't know why there aren't more games like it. I actually loved Ground Control for a while for the same reason. It was all about tactics, and no building whatsoever. The criticism of course is that the game basically came down to line'em up and *rush*, which on the random maps was pretty repetitive. But for a while there were two base maps that lent a lot of back-and-forth to the battles which were crazy fun. I remember a lot of games in which the victor wasn't assured until the very, very end. You could also drop into a battle at any time, which was cool. If there were players out there, then it meant you could have a pick-up game anytime. I don't think Myth had that going for it.

-Rob

ps. Totally off-topic, but is anyone else excited for Anarchy Online being released this month? I'm starting to get that "think about the game every waking moment" feeling after seeing the E3 video.

"If there were players out there, then it meant you could have a pick-up game anytime. I don't think Myth had that going for it."

The good thing about Myth, though, was that the games usually didn't take more than five minutes or so, so you never had to wait long for one to end.

"If there were players out there, then it meant you could have a pick-up game anytime. I don't think Myth had that going for it."

Bungie.net was pretty packed with Myth games when it was initially released. I don't know what it was like six months later, but initially there were plenty of opponents.

Sid Meier's Gettysburg was another great online RTS. No production. Deep tactics and even in team play you could...

Oh, damn, everyone already stopped reading.

-Andrew