>I WANT TO PLAY RTS GAMES! THEY WERE MY FAVORITE GENRE!
>But only in single player. I don't want MP of any kind cuz it's stressing.
>Also I want a good story like the epic Red Alert
>Also I play in easy mode
>Also I don't want to really learn the game, I just want to build my dudes for an hour and then stomp the easy AI
>And I want to build bases, houses and decorate them
>And I don't actually want the tactics, build strats or think in the game cuz that's for tryhards. I want a relaxing game that is ACTUALLY strategy like turn based games.
>I actually want a turn based game
>I don't want to deal with other players
>And le epic Warcraft story too!
>Is Cities Skylines an RTS?
>If you tell me to git gud I will call you a tryhard and a blowout
>What you mean RTS are dead then?
Every RTS thread. Why are so many guys like this? Why not play a tower defense then?
Who are you quoting?
me, I said all of that
All I'm asking is for good single player and no hero units. If I'm playing multiplayer I'm playing only with friends and not on the ladder.
who tf are you quoting
The only thing I don't really like is how SC2 records your whole carreer. It's so annoying because you are being judged by your every mistake. They really should only display your last 3 season rankings.
RTS exposes all of the casuls on Ganker and Ganker. It's pretty funny.
>moron click... le good!
There it is, the cope post of any RTS thread.
I want Forged Alliance with more units, bigger maps, better AI, and a game engine that doesn't shit itself once somebody gets 1k units.
Can I fuck it?
Any good city builders that let me attack other cities?
There is literally nothing wrong with playing RTS games on easy mode
I find very little enjoyment in playing rts the "proper" way. I like to campaign and take my time, so that's what I do (even it does make me shit at the game).
I don't even know what RTS fans are laughing about when their genre is fucking dead. Cope all you want about casuals when your favorite genre is dead and guaranteed to only produce mediocre games for eternity.
I thought this was an artistic rendition of tiramisu.
So did I
Now I want tiramisu
Sorry OP or congrats I guess, I'm not reading all that
without casuals there is no RTS, sorry op. Most people who really loved RTS growing up would build cool ass bases with 9000 units and then zerg the computer opponent to death
Tryharding is not fun. I kick serious ass in arena shooters without trying hard but in an RTS I tend to get overwhelmed with all the shit happening at the same time and the lack of convenient commands to jump to what I'd want to address irks me, but I chart that to never playing multiplayer RTS until last year or so so I don't really have the "flow" for it. The truth about RTS games is that the genre just ain't that much fun in multiplayer in the first place, the campaigns and skirmishes are pretty fun but once you get into multiplayer you have to get interested in what an entire community of people wracking their nerves over the game thinks are the best strategies, the only skill expressions at that point are
>how to counter my opponent's tactics to defeat him
>how good I can follow the meta strategies
>how fast I can react and micromanage
And you end up getting weird shit like rushing a villager to build a tower in the enemy's base in Warcraft 3 because that's a meta people managed to discover and if you can't counter it in time you'll be put at a severe disadvantage.
Strategy games in general have a big problem with snowballing, stat-checks and power differences, you can't really do anything with your 5 units when your opponent's 10 units will not only destroy yours 2x faster but also take only half the damage from your units because you lost your units and thus your damage dealing far sooner, I chart that to a lack of real innovation in the genre, where most strategy games don't really bring anything alternate in means of combating enemies. Even C&C is just a more elaborate form of rock-paper-scissors.
just wanted to point out that arena shooters like q3a are equally as bad with snowballing
They had a little of it, but it didn't become having no chance to do anything because some other guy grabbed a better gun first. Unless there was a huge skill gap, you would still go back and forth on kills usually. It isn't as bad as RTS gets.
The snowballing ties in more in kill difference than anything, a player with a 10 kill difference would have already essentially lost, but there's always opportunities in which the lower-kills player can still kill a higher-kills player and if he gets his hands on a power-up effect (in the case of Quake 3 Arena) he has an advantage (and part of the strategy is timing your movements in order to exploit getting the advantages). In strategy games the room for making a comeback is significantly smaller and the game is often decided in its earliest encounters. Perhaps some early-game warlord knocked off a city from your grasp because he's taken a gamble in investing purely on units while you were building the cities up (in which case the gamble was taken well), perhaps you lost a few units sent to establish a base in a new resource zone, perhaps the enemy has won a slightly larger combat encounter in which you both placed 30% of units in and their composition won, but the game is essentially decided at that point. In Gladius my opponent was bogged down by too many neutrals and couldn't muster enough units as Orks. That's why I think strategy games in general are better enjoyed in singleplayer and co-op.
I was thinking of tryharding more as "pouring a significant amount of mental effort in it" but maybe it's just me and it's only second-nature to dedicated RTS players, in which case my bad. But I still can't imagine switching screens and juggling between lots of units and buildings every 5 seconds to be anything but tryharding unless the player is korean.
Already did. They suck. Metagayry and esports ruined the whole genre and instead of winning and losing on any sort of personal merit you win and lose mostly because of the team compositions that are outside your control and you're supposed to play 100 games to make up for it. It's like the worst aspects of strategy games but amplified despite starting off from humble origins.
>That's why I think strategy games in general are better enjoyed in singleplayer and co-op.
Also then they don't need factions to be balanced around PvP anymore.
I liked that Starcraft 2 separated its multiplayer balance from singleplayer gameplay.
AI isn't very effective and in quite the amount of RTS games they just get a resource boost without playing any better. In multiplayer pubs it's a matter of luck whether you get to fight an opponent of similar skill from whom you can learn from during the game (if your army composition is good, if what they're doing is better than what you're doing, what you can learn from doing X and Y etc) or a noobstomper loaded up with the best strategies cooked up by veteran players and where the only thing there is to learn is what forum post he got those strategies from.
In any case it would involve a whole lot of losing (which is considered a taboo subject to ever imply is a reason of not pursuing getting into a game) just to learn how to do what almost every better player is doing anyway. It's more fun to get into occasional matches with friends but the occasional matches aren't often enough to make any experience stick, so the dilemma boils down to "don't have fun but get better at the game" vs "have fun but don't get better at the game".
people are so casual that they consider playing the game normally "tryharding."
try mobas unironically
>Tryharding is not fun
You can just, like, play the game and learn at your pace
I don't care about RTS.
I want Rimworld but with more units (and more autonomous) in a no-gun setting and with a story.
Sounds like you need to go back to your assgays and valorant/csgo, gay.
>LOOK MOM I POSTED IT AGAIN!
Inshallah hirraman nirrahim…
I too enjoy base building.
Stormgate will save the genre
One can only hope.
If it doesn't, I have other things to do.
Imagine asking for a fighting game, but you don't want the enemy to fight back, or if it does, it's only when you want to parry easily, and instead of different punches and specials, you get two buttons that do everything for you
You proceed to mash them randomly for hours to no end, beating the shit out of a potato sack, every time you do, the game says you are great, confident, handsome and talented. You are the number 1 in the prefixed dev score screen. You keep buying DLCs about mashing the same buttons but different colors fly by.
That's what RTS fans want nowadays. And the developer is CA with Total Warhammer 3.
>Imagine asking for a fighting game
Already lost me.
it's like buying a fighting game but only wanting to play where you build 100% meter by punching air at the start of the round and then you and your opponent just try to hit each other with supers
It's like asking for a fighting game except you really wanted a beat-em-up.
RTS is dead for the same reason fighting games average active 12 players after the first month. An obsession with esports, lack of diverse content and a genre that hasn't innovated since the 90s. FG and RTS players have given their games a reputation that you need to get a phd to understand their game or you'll get raped 24/7 online, and then wonder why their game is dead. Both genres jerked off their competitive scene, despite 90+% of their consumers never touching multiplayer. Both genres have stagnated and keep trying to "dumb it down" with every release to increase retention, when they really just need to make the game fun again.
>I just want to build a base and toss units at someone else why does he not fuck around for 30 minutes before he steamrolls me
cucks can fuck right off