>will RTS have a comeback someday?
Probably, but it will be some kind of indie resurrection where an indie game does something totally new, instead of old school RTS coming back.
No it won't, Indie will still feed on rats and breadcrumbs. The starting shot will probably be when Microsoft aquires Blizzard and resurrects Starcraft 3.
No. RTS games are all the same now. Microsoft isn't gonna change that by coming up with something new. If they were capable of that, they wouldn't need to be buying up every studio on the planet.
This.
As technology and tools advance, driven and talented autists will be able to create what was only 10 years ago considered AAA on their own. Great example being the Astartes video project.
Really hoping Factorio's expansion will introduce more RTS elements; you can already do a hell of a lot with the Spidertron in vanilla, but expanding that concept to different units would be amazing.
Get the automation part done by hand in the early game, only to unleash full-scale RTS warfare at endgame. What a dream.
>What's your favourite RTS unit?
You just posted it. And also the Disruptor. >Also will RTS have a comeback someday?
I hope so. But Zoomers are moronic unfortunately.
>But Zoomers are moronic unfortunately.
This. Can vouch for this as a zoomer.
To this day I am still stuck on AoE2's Saladin campaign despite having 90 hours on the game and stuck on the Dr Mobius mission in C&C despite having 15 hours in the game.
And I am too moronic for Civ as well.
I remember playing this multiplayer and realising how absurdly strong attack ground with disruptors was, you could level multiple buildings in like 3 seconds with that. Heli-dropping disruptors in the middle of a base could mean an instant game over for them.
>Also will RTS have a comeback someday?
The RTS concept has to be reworked to keep people entertained. I am pretty sure Tempest Rising will die a quick death.
>Also will RTS have a comeback someday?
No, the industry and the most vocal parts of the genre's playerbase have been irreversibly mindbroken by the design philosophy of Star/Warcraft and the lure of chasing that esports dragon
They must be designed to be as sterile a game environment as possible because variance and fluctuation in interactions is perceived as antithetical to strategy
Your only hope for anything that feels like a comeback is a small indie dev trying to make something original which means more often than not it will end up janky and shit if it ever leaves an early access stage at all and isn't barraged by negative reviews because it isn't designed like a Blizzard RTS
Add onto the fact that you cant effectively port an RTS onto console without it either feeling like absolute shit to control or having it be dumbed down dogshit like halo wars means devs are even less likely to bother trying to make an RTS game much less a decent one that doesn't fit the safe mold to ensure sales
>Also will RTS have a comeback someday?
Incredibly unlikely this genre needs innovation and its fans hate innovation with passion. So the industry tries to make the next starcraft or age of empires clone and the rtsgays hate it because it's not exactly the same thing and the cycle continues.
Horrible takes
RTS games declined because rising game development costs meant that a genre that only works well on PC and requires a lot of launch content to be developed for it has a harder time making a profit and devs/publishers are discouraged from spending a lot on it.
RTS games don't have less innovation between series and sequels than what other popular genres have
RTS games have no issue with "turning too competitive focused" either. Even SC2 has a stupid amount of high quality single player and casual friendly content, far more than what older RTS games had
RTS games simply no longer get a big variety of big budget releases. The genre is just not as financially viable with how the gaming market is now.
there is no "RTS games moved to focus only on competitive scene that caused the fall of RTS games" phenomenon, this shit literally never happened and I have no idea why the frick do people here keep spamming this same shit.
my only theory is that you got mad that these games ALSO have a high skill competitive scene that you are shit at and the games not having that at all would make you feel better which is why you are advocating for them not having them
Because it did obviously happen and you're either stupid or insane to think how you do. Shit like Iron Harvest and Gray Goo didn't fail because of it's fricking name, they were shit because they felt shit to play because they were designed to work for 1v1 ladder first and everything else second but 1v1 MP players are a minority in every strategy game there is. At no point did any unit in those games fulfill a thematic fantasy or feel enjoyable to use.
anon, Gray Goo literally tried to be an oldschool CnC throwback in every fricking aspect including controls or the cinematics where probably most of it's budget went.
the game is just fricking unremarkable with none of the designs, graphics, music etc. standing out, but that's already an issue with the game just being lower budget overall for it's time, not being able to attract as many and as high level devs.
also, games like Stormgate trying to focus on multiplayer is a symptom of RTS games having a hard time in the market and trying out different routes recently, not what caused the decline of the genre.
>Shit like Iron Harvest and Gray Goo didn't fail because of it's fricking name, they were shit because they felt shit to play because they were designed to work for 1v1 ladder first
Iron Harvest failed because they made a game about cool mechs fighting and instead the gameplay is focused on infantry running around the map and capturing sites
7 months ago
Anonymous
The mechs just felt like Tanks+ to me and not a unique type of unit.
7 months ago
Anonymous
they're weak as shit too, I have no idea why you'd use any Polanian mech except the biggest one. Only the biggest gigamechs dealt somewhat decent damage and survive more than 3 anti-vehicle shots. >mortar mechs are good though!
I can get 3 infantry teams that will do their job better and faster AND they can capture shit too.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Polanias best mech was to first one with the sniper PZM-7 "Smialy". You stack 3 or five of them and flank the enemy or you snipe them out of range as the enemy unit AI does not react to getting shot out of their range. But i must admit that Polania was the most balanced faction. Each Mech had a good purpose.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>You stack 3 or five of them
see that's the problem, stacking 3 or 5 of them requires you to skip infantry and map control. And if a competent player puts 2-3 anti-vehicle teams against your 5 stack, you still won't get to accomplish much, you ceded map control, and you lost more resources because Smialy dies in 2-3 shots unless stuff changed a lot since launch
7 months ago
Anonymous
Doesn't Smialy outrange the anti-tank squads? And you had 5 of them to one-shot any infantry squad. And sure you need also Infantry.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Polanias best mech was to first one with the sniper PZM-7 "Smialy". You stack 3 or five of them and flank the enemy or you snipe them out of range as the enemy unit AI does not react to getting shot out of their range. But i must admit that Polania was the most balanced faction. Each Mech had a good purpose.
Only ruskies had no reason to build mechs, when their power armor melee infantry is an all purpose rape squad.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Depends, the Smialy can counter them if there are 3-5 of them as they are fast as frick.
Ruskies had the walking fortress which was absurde as it had MG against infantry and a big as cannon against anything else. It was a no-brainer allround mech.
7 months ago
Anonymous
No, it failed because it had barebones pathfinding, non existing Unit AI and combat boiled down to either Rock-Paper-Scissors or only using the Allrounder Mechs.
Everything else was exceptional, from the unit design to the Campaign and the Cutscenes which were a blast from the past so to say.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>exceptional unit design >infantry function identically for all factions >only thing different is unit portrait >most mechs are useless and hard countered by a gust of wind >not to mention all the mech designs are ripped from some polacks paintings, at most you can admire the animations and they're not exactly impressive
7 months ago
Anonymous
>are ripped from some polacks paintings
they ARE the mechs from those paintings.
7 months ago
Anonymous
There are Mechs that counter Infantry and these are especially good.
>ripped
The Painter is Jakub Rozalski had he was completely involved in the process of making this. Even the story and characters are based on his works. The game would not exist without him. So ripped is just wrong, moron.
yeah you have no idea what the frick you're talking about because you pay minimal attention to what RTS games have released in the past two decades
take your drivel back to l*ddit
again, elaborate or shut the frick up with these no-argument replies
7 months ago
Anonymous
there's nothing to elaborate on, every single one of your points is blatantly wrong for well known reasons given in the posts you originally replied to
the fact that you argue against them show that you're a moronic homosexual that is why the genre stays in the shithole its in
7 months ago
Anonymous
>I have no argument but you are just wrong
amazing post anon
please keep explaining it to me how SC2 totally has less effort put into making casual content than what older RTS games had that "prioritized single player over esports", or how fleshed out multiplayer modes totally weren't a staple of the genre since fricking SC1, AoE1 or CnC1
7 months ago
Anonymous
hes moronic gay who posts that in every rts thread then gets destroyed, ignore him
7 months ago
Anonymous
more evidence you're a fricking moronic newbie who has no idea what you're on about
all the classic games that grew into having decent multiplayer games were designed as functioning games first with multiplayer being an afterthought in design
that is not how RTS games today are designed and its why they fail to create any interesting design because from the start the game is meant to be sterile and "balanced" in order to ape what shareholders see as successful
hence you need to go back and fricking have a nice day because your opinions are worse than worthless they're actively damaging to the thing you allegedly love
SC2 ladder was routinely sabotaged by balancing the game based on what the pros were doing. Made pvp awful as it was full of stupid shit like constant queen micromanagement.
SC2 has the most fleshed out single player campaings and pretty fleshed out casual coop modes, along with the most fleshed out custom game scene in the genre
saying that the devs only cared about competitive scene (which was also part of the series since it's inception) is so fricking objectively wrong.
Also you keep b***hing about the game requiring micromanagement but I bet you don't even play games like Halo Wars1-2 either that require little APM
7 months ago
Anonymous
Coop commanders wasn't added until LotV. For the first 5 years of the game the only thing to do after campaign was arcade or tryhard in ladder.
So take your "objectivity" and shove it up your ass.
RTS games only became cheaper and cheaper to make. The shift to consoles hurt RTS for sure, but that's not the reason they died. They died because of game design. The classic RTS gameplay has some serious flaws which were never adequately addressed by developers, they just kept making the same thing, so people moved onto other more interesting game genres
That supports my point, people have no interest in the new RTS games being made, because they fail to improve upon the old. So the diehards keep playing the old games. SC2 is an exception there because it's an exceptionally well made game even if it doesn't really offer anything new
The Dragon Knight from Warlords Battlecry 3. >only melee cavalry in the game that can attack flying units >extra resistance against the most common element >affordable, can be massed to become the main unit of your army >yet, all the hallmarks of the high elf faction: high combat skill, fast, good armor, strong against psychological effects
Love these guys.
>Also will RTS have a comeback someday?
No, it already peaked, nothing will surpass Starcraft 1, WC3, and AOE2, best you'll get to see in your lifetime is Starcraft 3 with Blizz pumping oodles of money into marketing to keep the playerbase afloat for its first year or two
Imagine being this menacing and then a mobile space station just floats above. When it stops within viewing distance spontaneously your skin begins to peel from your flesh as you've been doused with lethal radiation and you cook to death.
Every unit in this game shoots an actual proyectile, which makes a crater and impacts wherever they land. So big tanks=big holes and splash damage
RTS haven't gone away, but aren't the hot stuff right now. I think they're in a fine spot for people who like them. BAR is free so whoever wants to try something good can do so right now
Sumos are cute actually
For me is the Tzar. Its kinda bad to be honest for 8v8 frontal assaults when there's just too much concentrated firepower for their slow ass. But when the big shell fires and hits a clustered bunch of units it's more about the terror damage it does.
It's also very unique in the fact that it's a more traditional orchestra music, rather than the themes that other games have. I'm not really saying it's right or wrong. For example starcraft creates a faction identity by having different themes for each faction, but at the same time a grand orchestra really sets the theme for the grand scale of the war that is going on screen
fricking love jeremy soule
There's a ton of good ones out there in all kinds of great games, but if I really have to pick one I'd probably go with the ACU from TA/Supcom. It's just the concept of a massive walking tank that can build an empire that's just so cool
I see your tier 3 unit and raise you a tier 1 >Counters set-up teams >Counters jump infantry >Light counters vehicles >Tanky as hell and good piercing damage >Power-melee bayonets >Squad leaders die last, so at least 3 will always survive out of 7 >Can go invisible and hide invisible explosives
If they didn't drain power supplies to reinforce, they would be too powerful for mortal minds.
Favorite unit gotta be Flash Gitz (Dawn of War: Dark Crusade). Actually elite shootas for the greenies with chad lines and giant, rapid fire guns with bullets bigger than a twin size mattress.
Its gonna be like that wannabe left 4 dead game that came out last year iirc:
From the creators of (insert genre defining game that was a success) to get morons to buy it, actually it was a game created by a team almost composed from people that had little to no experience making said genre, except 2 or 4 actual veterans making those games, so the game becomes pure shit,which is what is gonna happen to stormgate, also why anyone would be interested in a sc3 reeskin that looks literally the same if you already have large experience playing a game that came out 15+ years ago and is still great?
There's no way for classic RTS to ever evolve beyond APM and optimized build order and the purists will always invent a new term for games that don't have these elements
It's actually extremely easy SC is the only one that has difficulties with it because it's build orders go for so long relative to the game length and even basic builds can end games before they're even over. An all-in for a C&C game means actually crippling yourself rather than sacrificing 4 potential workers.
Terrans in Starcraft could force a stalemate followed by a slow moving forward of their lines seven or eight years ago. No idea if it's still that way.
This kinda playstyle ended up being the basis for stuff like Age of Darkness, They are Billions and Conan Unconquered IMO.
Very turtle and base building heavy games.
>Favorite unit
For me, it's the Armored Hoplite from Rome Total War. It would be the Aventuros from Medieval 2 if pikes in it worked properly though >Will RTS have a comeback someday
I hope so, but probably not. The average person legitimately does not have the attention span to actually play RTS, and the ones who do try to play it like it's the esports garbage they see on twitch, and only care about APM and timings. On that note, I fricking hate people who give a shit about APM when 99% of the time, it's just the dumb Black person playing selecting a worker unit and opening the build menu over and over just to bloat his APM, and that other 1% is just him switching between units and right clicking during fights
Played it quite a bit a launch. AoE2-like enough to have made it, but the balance between the factions was shit and didn't get fixed in a month+, so the game was doomed to obscurity.
There is no better feeling than making this fricker work, especially when you combine it with 2HS/Champs to shred anti-cav. Second favorite is the Ratha, but the Bengali midgame is absolute shite and the Ratha fails as both a cav archer and a knight, so I've been playing other factions. Tatar 19 pop archers is absolute kino.
AoE4 players like AoE4. It didn't siphon off from AoE2, but it got a dedicated crowd of people who wanted something AoE2-adjacent.
It's not good, but it has players, and they're now selling an expansion pack.
Not until they allow more 'campy' and slow playstyles in RTS games.
They do. You genuinely just suck and don't want to improve.
Aoe4 is bad because civ are designed and balanced with a build in mind
X should be better at Y so we buffed their unit
meaning that you always want to do the same things that uses your civ advantage, which is fricking boring.
>do people like Age of Empires 4?
Some people do, there's a relatively small but stable community around it.
The issue is the game was 4 years in the making and used a Diablo-level mainstream IP to generate... basically no sales at all, as far as AAA leagues are concerned.
>Also will RTS have a comeback someday?
No, the industry and the most vocal parts of the genre's playerbase have been irreversibly mindbroken by the design philosophy of Star/Warcraft and the lure of chasing that esports dragon
They must be designed to be as sterile a game environment as possible because variance and fluctuation in interactions is perceived as antithetical to strategy
Your only hope for anything that feels like a comeback is a small indie dev trying to make something original which means more often than not it will end up janky and shit if it ever leaves an early access stage at all and isn't barraged by negative reviews because it isn't designed like a Blizzard RTS
Add onto the fact that you cant effectively port an RTS onto console without it either feeling like absolute shit to control or having it be dumbed down dogshit like halo wars means devs are even less likely to bother trying to make an RTS game much less a decent one that doesn't fit the safe mold to ensure sales
>and the lure of chasing that esports dragon
Except this entire upcoming generation of RTS has almost unilaterally admitted to going after casual play first.
Tempest rising has shown mostly campaign
Dorf has made no attempts to even try and pretend it's a tight competitive experience
Sanctuary is trying to fit in some wacky shit with its weather and terrain while being another supcom, a team game by default
Stormgate has made a big deal about it's coop mode since everyone liked sc2 coop
Hell, Zerospace is putting frickin mass effect companions in as a big feature to shill the SP to oversocialized normalgays.
The 2010s were publishers trying to ape esports success, the 2020s devs are going to fail for different reasons if they do but almost certainly not because of a 1v1 ladder match focus.
I hate when people say rts can't work on console when C&C3+ kanes wrath work great on Xbox with the radial interface. Yes micro is harder but everything else works like a charm
If you make an RTS with consoles in mind you're making a game with intrinsic limitations in mind as well, like the controls, no modding, shit interface and overall gay shit. It will never be updated, improved and built upon.
So frick that and frick you. Frick Iron Harvest, frick Halo Wars and frick any other bullshit you can think of.
>Also will RTS have a comeback someday?
Incredibly unlikely this genre needs innovation and its fans hate innovation with passion. So the industry tries to make the next starcraft or age of empires clone and the rtsgays hate it because it's not exactly the same thing and the cycle continues.
>Red Alert/Tiberian Dawn one sold
enough that they put up with post launch support costs like patching. EA is really weird in that regard in that they can be pretty relaxed when it comes to small budget niche stuff like indies or nostalgia ridden remasters like the ra1/td1 remaster. But absolute corporate hatchet men when it comes to big budget AAA
Biggest issue stopping tiberian sun and re2 remaster is that they lost the source codes for both of them
>Red Alert/Tiberian Dawn one sold
enough that they put up with post launch support costs like patching. EA is really weird in that regard in that they can be pretty relaxed when it comes to small budget niche stuff like indies or nostalgia ridden remasters like the ra1/td1 remaster. But absolute corporate hatchet men when it comes to big budget AAA
Biggest issue stopping tiberian sun and re2 remaster is that they lost the source codes for both of them
Petroglyph is up for it, but EA owns the rights in the end.
This, Akkan just made the early colonization game so much easier while still being more than capable of dealing with early groups of frigates. Second one was always a Kol, love the Battlestar Galactica look.
>do not hurt me >ow! i will work >you change your mind often >why must it be so far? >i like my new shoes
These little guys must have the highest concentration of good quotes in a game where almost every unit is quotable.
I just love the entire concept of these fricking ghouls teleporting in from nowhere and forcibly removing people, vehicles and even entire buildings from the timeline by deleting them before they were built/born, and the fact the victims are caught in some sort of stasis for a little while, completely conscious as they fade away. Absolutely horrifying. >ALREADY THERE >DECONSTRUCTING >NEVER EXISTED...
Everyone knows that the best kind of RTS is the one where the devs made a campaign and made the units specifically for the missions, and then just going "Oh i guess we should add a multiplayer mode as well, throw everything in there" without a thought for balance or ebin competitive e-sports
this "le wacky broken balance is fun" doesn't work in reality
you will quickly figure out what's OP, then you will either use only that and ignore literally everything making the game more boring, or you have to make up rules for not using them (aka just making your own balance patches)
What, sorc is the backbone of human armies. I don't know what you're smoking, but slow spam can absolutely smoke you early game, a single sorc can ruin your day and dryad massing is incredibly fricking strong.
anon, WC3 had a stupid amount of effort put into it's balancing, with it still getting balance patches 20 years after it's release.
like literally, it is the RTS with the most amount of effort put into it's balancing, more than what SC1/2 had
It's the exact opposite of an example where devs just make wacky OP shit with little care for balancing the game
WC3 TFT was pretty much fine out of the box, the tweaks were very small. It was RoC that was an unbalanced mess. And I don't see what sort of a point are you trying to make? Devs got better as they continued to support the game so they improved it? How is that exactly an argument against competent design? They laid a solid foundation and built upon it. Warcraft made blizzard.
No, wow killed itself, a victim of its own success.
I replied to you claiming that the best RTS games are the ones made and I quote "without a thought for balance"
I literally replied that broken balance doesn't work in reality because if you figure out that something is OP then you will either just use only that, leading to less variety, or intentionally ignore using it at which point you just applied your own balance patch
you replied that but WC3 proves me wrong, but it did not, WC3 was always a game with a lot of effort put into balancing it's units
I wasn't making that claim and I'm not the guy you were talking with originally.
I replied to you claiming that the best RTS games are the ones made and I quote "without a thought for balance"
I literally replied that broken balance doesn't work in reality because if you figure out that something is OP then you will either just use only that, leading to less variety, or intentionally ignore using it at which point you just applied your own balance patch
you replied that but WC3 proves me wrong, but it did not, WC3 was always a game with a lot of effort put into balancing it's units
There's another reason why making a new RTS game is unappealing to backers.
RTS games are somewhat unique in that the pillars of the genre, as in the old classics, never really faded away.
I know it got remade twice but AoE2 is still AoE2. and SC2 has been kicking for 13 years now, Broodwar never stopped being popular either.
FPS doesn't have this. Quake is dead, CoD is only relevant to it's latest title.
Sports games, by design tho, are the same. Even fighting games which still see the older games played are influenced by new releases.
This is also a factor yes for big AAA pubs but there are PC centric pubs.
Hooded Horse has a fricking throbbing erection for smaller, more niche strategy games for example.
>AoE4
Frick off. It's literally the dullest, most soulless game that was quite literally designed by and for e-sports c**ts.
Look at the major AoE names. All of them still play 2, or even 1. Nobody plays 4 despite how hard they pushed for 4. Even 3 is a better game. Hell, 3 is a good game overall.
>game that was quite literally designed by and for e-sports c**ts.
you people are getting ridiculous with these accusations
how in the frick is it more designed for e-sports than any other AoE
If anything it had far less multiplayer features than what AoE2/3DE had
Probably a split between Whirlwind artillery tank from DoW 1 and the drone cruiser from Homeworld. I love highly specialized units that are incredibly effective in their chosen roles. Honourable mention for the salvage frigate from Homeworld as well, you can't not love those little shits that can steal literally anything. And the Flak 88 gun in Sudden Strike, that thing could kill anything.
I want a remaster but that's such a goddamn monkey's paw because they'd inevitably change shit, misunderstand the atmosphere and design, or frick it up somehow.
Seems like I'm the only one who played Populous:the beginning
Anyway i think budget to profit ratio is a big problem for RTS games.
Also gameplay. Normies don't want to micromanage everything.
I had an idea where your buildings would just automatically produce units for you which meant you still needed to be conscious of your economy but game designers and the (moronic) RTS fans are so sunk into the idea of pressing hotkeys and clicking with the mouse as much as possible as a measure of how good they're playing.
I'm an RTS fan and after spending some time away from the genre and coming back to it to see most of the gameplay look like busywork makes me rethink the staples of the genre.
yeah you go download the launcher here :
https://thebeginning.uk/multiverse/
then once done you go download the campaign on the campaign tab of the website and they will install on the launcher immediatly
I was surprised to see AoEIV actually had less automation than Dawn of War, which came out all the way back in 2004 and had the same developer
Overwatch production is completely gone and unit stances are back to AoEII levels
>I had an idea where your buildings would just automatically produce units for you which meant you still needed to be conscious of your economy
I'd instead considered something where units can manage themselves somewhat if left idle. >Order a squad to a point on the map. >Forget about them for a minute. >They automatically seek good cover within a half-screen range. >Keep ignoring them because you're a normalgay building a pretty simcity base. >They begin constructing sandbags and digging in without being ordered to. >An enemy squad comes past and they take injuries. >A medic unit you've also been ignoring that's nearby automatically moves to the squad and starts patching them up. >A tank shows up and you don't notice because you're slow even for a normie and distracted reading the flavor text in every tooltip. >Squad and medic have no anti-tank weapons so they begin falling back towards the nearest anti-tank unit on the map.
Basically the longer a unit has gone without being clicked on the more it begins automatically coordinating with nearby units and reacting to things, to the point a poor player could just build units, order them to the general vicinity of where they want them, and let them handle themselves from there on out.
Able to be toggled at the click of a button on a per-unit or mapwide basis OFC so people who can keep up and know what they're doing don't need to deal with squads acting on their own when it isn't wanted.
Perhaps with an additional system to set general orders the units will take into account: a 'hold this position' marker will make the squad run to the medic at that marker location instead of vice versa, for example, and make the units there less likely to retreat when outnumbered or facing something they're not equipped for, instead rallying other nearby units to that position. Or an 'avoid this point' so they don't run past spots where you know the enemy has shit.
you can almost get a taste of this in multiplayer games like Hell let loose, in that as a commander or squad lead you can be like "squad attack here" and because it's other players they all take care of themselves to achieve a common goal, but following your general direction.
I understand it's completely different, but I too have had your idea and this is the closest real tangible thing I've ever found.
That's neat, but the entire point here isn't the system itself, but a way to make the RTS genre more accessible in entry-level play (Without it being intrusive to or dumbing down things for more advanced players) so that it's less alienating to normalgays and thus more profitable/viable for companies to make RTS games.
Make low APM turtling a really good strategy. Base defenses should be powerful if invested in and should deter cheesy rushes from even higher skilled players.
The pros can still rush/cheese/harass eachother and circlejerk their 2 minute matches while noobs can turtle and amass huge armies that they A+click into eachother for some phat fights
The issue here goes beyond RTS games and game design as a whole and into actual battle tactics.
Initiative wins fights and being a raiding sack of shit that prevents the enemy from ever getting comfortable or establishing themselves is and always will be a preferred tactic.
This isn't an issue that can be fixed easily because it's a basic principle of conflict across literally everything, be it sports, combat or vidya.
The idea is to provide entry level players a set of training wheels that can slowly be taken off as they learn the game and improve in skill, not changing the balance of the genre to pander to their playstyle. This is also why I mention the automation ramping up slowly as units are left idle rather than turning it on full bore immediately at a button click. So they still need to learn to respond to changes on the battlefield, but it narrows how MANY units they need to manage at a given time to the most recently produced/moved ones rather than all of them.
Also occurs to me it'd probably tend to steer them away from the 'select mapwide, move-attack' kinda shit because that would turn automation timers back to zero for every unit, which would hopefully organically get them thinking more in the terms of 'What do I need to use to deal with this' as they should be rather than just throwing everything they have at everything they see.
As neat as this sound you are describing a player driven RTS essentially morphing into a AI run simulation in real time.
I don't think that's possible while also keeping it any kind of fun or engaging tbh.
You wouldn't want it TOO advanced/efficient because if the automated units alone are more effective than they can be when used by a player of average skill there's little incentive to develop that skill instead of just relying completely on the automation. Perhaps I overstated things with 'a shit player can just build units, right click the minimap, and ignore them'.
As neat as this sound you are describing a player driven RTS essentially morphing into a AI run simulation in real time.
I don't think that's possible while also keeping it any kind of fun or engaging tbh.
>AI uses over-engineered stance system >Player forgets to set "Don't engage enemy" stance and loses his infantry before the medics arrive >Medics get torn apart >Tanks arrive with no infantry support and get torn apart >Player complains online
>Player goes too long without telling his infantry what to do >Runs back from an advantageous position on a resource to a nearby production building >Enemy reclaims territory >Player complains online
>Player sets units to huddle on a set position >Manually sets them to the correct place >They don't engage the enemy because they don't know when it would be appropriate >Idle units do nothing until the enemy's deathball approaches >Player complains online
>Player uses "General" unit with an AI that does everything for you so long as it's near an army it can command >General's AI weights are shown on Youtube >Other player plays, knowing how generals manage units >General loses >Player complains online
You didn't read a thing, did you?
Veterans make content that lets newer players know what they should be doing in a given scenario. They provide comprehensive breakdowns on factions, units, techs, etc. AoE2 is thriving, as usual, because veterans invested in keeping the game alive, even becoming devs for the game, and used third-party platforms to support it.
Not always.
I kinda wonder if the almost universal push to limit player communication to avoid people being mean to one another is part of the problem because it also prevents veterans actually talking to and by extension teaching new players what's up
>Veterans actually talking to and by extension teaching
Not once in my countless hours of AoE/Starcraft and Warcraft skirmishes has this ever happened to me even once. And I'm quite possibly the worst RTS player in the universe.
I doubt the inevitable removing/limiting the chat will really do to much. Or perhaps I just got really unlucky.
Point taken. At the end of the day it's still RTS and the genre certainly isn't for everyone. And there's a LOT of morons out there who will complain online any time they face any kind of adversity rather than looking at what they did wrong and how to learn from that mistake.
Still, one of the biggest barriers to us getting more of them with decent budgets is the learning curve looking more like a learning cliff. They're never gonna have the mass market appeal of many other genres, but that doesn't mean they can't have a broader appeal than they do now without ending up completely casualized in the process.
You didn't read a thing, did you?
Veterans make content that lets newer players know what they should be doing in a given scenario. They provide comprehensive breakdowns on factions, units, techs, etc. AoE2 is thriving, as usual, because veterans invested in keeping the game alive, even becoming devs for the game, and used third-party platforms to support it.
Anon, people don't want to watch 40 hours of youtube and read an encyclopedia before launching the game. The only people who'll engage with that are the ones who are already invested in the genre.
This kind of instruction should be built into the game itself, ideally in a way that teaches organically, not lazy ass infodump popups
>Still, one of the biggest barriers to us getting more of them with decent budgets is the learning curve looking more like a learning cliff. >Anon, people don't want to watch 40 hours of youtube and read an encyclopedia before launching the game.
AoE2 can be learned quickly. It has a very well-designed tutorial made to prepare people for multiplayer, with supplementary material for anyone curious. SotL IS AoE2's biggest marketer, easily, so no, it's not an issue of it being too difficult to learn.
>just study 60 hours of SotL hidden game mechanics and spreadsheets so you can get a better understanding of when to engage with your crossbows! >how to survive to crossbows? Well just study 60 hours of SotL "first 15 minutes" editions for each race so you can get a better idea of how to advance from Dark Age to Castle and further...
anon you picked a game with a frickyouhuge amount of content and hidden mechanics, just stop being so fricking autistic and understand people aren't like you
7 months ago
Anonymous
SotL's content was popular before he ever looked at MP. Just making civ overviews was enough so people could decide which civ they wanted to waffle about in low-elo unranked play with.
You don't have to know any of that to start with the game, and it's easy to play casually. Learning the fundamentals, however, will make you a better player, and you have plenty of resources to learn with.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Long time AoE2 player here, what the frick is SotL?
7 months ago
Anonymous
Spirit of the Law. The guy who makes civ overview videos.
I'm talking about the genre as a whole, not a single instance. Besides which, a tutorial can't do everything, no matter how well designed. You don't go from attack-moving a couple units or a muderblob around the map to good situational awareness of multiple groups and the battlefield as a whole by playing a tutorial. That requires experience and for the game to be enjoyable at your level while you're getting that experience.
Keep in mind I'm approaching this from the perspective of finding ways to make RTS games an appealing experience to people who may have never played one in their life before and making it easier for them to stick with it as their skill grows, assuming they're the type of person who will end up enjoying them if they give them the chance instead of being driven off in frustration early on.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Besides which, a tutorial can't do everything, no matter how well designed. You don't go from attack-moving a couple units or a muderblob around the map to good situational awareness of multiple groups and the battlefield as a whole by playing a tutorial.
That's what skirmishing and unranked are for. >That requires experience and for the game to be enjoyable at your level while you're getting that experience.
No, you're thinking of how you "win". You can enjoy the game, even if you're on the losing side of a moronic slapfight.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>That's what skirmishing and unranked are for.
Yes. I never said anything at all about multiplayer exclusively, much less ranked multiplayer.
>You can enjoy the game, even if you're on the losing side of a moronic slapfight.
Unfortunately this simply isn't true for a lot of people. They don't enjoy losing. Not much that can be done about that.
Personally I usually see it as an opportunity to learn from whoever's kicking my ass, but pretty sure people like that are a minority.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Unfortunately this simply isn't true for a lot of people. They don't enjoy losing. Not much that can be done about that.
Then play with the dumber AI for a bit.
reminds me of Zero-K and BAR with a bit of Men of War
honestly, Zero-K has most of these
like you can set areas for fall back zones and set stance for units to retreat on given percent of HP
there are also auto repair zones for engineers, units also try to juke out shots without autistic high APM micro, they try to not overkill enemy targets, like if there are three units that can kill a target with one shots, then only one will fire
Huh, never even heard of zero-K before.
At a glance, looks like it's the kinda game full of experimental gameplay shit that I absolutely love but never seem to find anymore. Definitely gonna check it out, thanks anon.
sadly it has never been too popular and been on a decline in the past years especially with BAR being the new fancy thing out there nowadays
but it's still a very good game, one of my favorite RTS games
I could give less of a shit how popular it is, I just love anything that tries something that hasn't already been done by a hundred other games before it.
I could give less of a shit how popular it is, I just love anything that tries something that hasn't already been done by a hundred other games before it.
People still thinking this is something I wanna play and not a half baked ideaguy about how to make RTS more accessible in a semi-decent way.
Still, why can't I hold all these gamerecs.
RTS is a shit anachronistic genre for morons that is rightfully dead and buried with RTT replacing it almost entirely.
Sudden Strike, Dawn of War 2, Mech Commander, Company of Heroes, Total War battles > Starcraft, Supreme Commander, Warcraft, Red Alert and all other move-attack nobrain asiatic clicker dogshit.
And they can still just frick themself. They and their gay ass heresy Marines they pumped out of the ass of a fricking Heretic. Anybody who buys into the "modernized" Marines, Sigmar or not, is a mouth breather not understanding they erode the fundamentals of their game. It shows they can just redcon everything they ever wrote or made and people still buy into it. This results in the last bit of meaning the hobby had is just replaced by empty consumerism.
I really wish devs would just make RTS games with KB+M in mind even if they want to release their games for consoles. Modern consoles support KB+M already, and they could still add pad controls like AoE2DE has, with the game doing some of the microing for you.
Making RTS with controllers in mind from the getgo just ruins every longetivity they could have. Will check this game out since I'm desperate for good looking RTS games but I don't expect more than a single campaign playthrough from it.
>Order faction is Stormcast, the most bland option they could go with. Even Lumineth would have been more interesting. >Destruction faction is Kruleboys instead of proper Orcs >Death faction is Nighthaunt. Not a bad choice but Ossiarchs would have been better >Chaos faction is Tzeentch, probably the only good decision in terms of faction choice >Set in Ghur, the ugliest and arguably one of the more boring Realms >Gameplay is screwy and made for consoles. Units in melee can't take any orders besides falling back, units feel slow and clunky, attacks don't feel responsive
It's a bit disappointing all around.
No, RTS is "dead". They don't have mass appeal and they can't leverage 3D graphics to dazzle casual consumers into thinking they're cool. Deal with it and enjoy your games.
There is a french and a english website, i know the french have the installation/key cd/etc.. for the game, reforged is still in developpement but it want to be a big overhaul of the game, up to date graphism, new units, and more, but if you just want to game as it was you can download it there https://www.laterredumilieu.fr/tuto/bfme
New RTS games will always have trouble because they're competing with AoE2 and SC2.
Imagine having to make a new game with 43+ factions, stellar balance, and art using a style that fell out of fashion 20+ years ago, before most online tutorials were made.
>43+ factions
You say that as if the "factions" in AoE has the same asymmetry as Sc2. When in fact it's just copy-pasted with 5% here and 10% there in differences.
Symmetrical factions are fricking boring.
Starcraft, Warcraft 3, Dawn of War, C&C Red Alert 2 and C&C Generals are all really fun RTSes that, in part, are fun because the factions are so different.
t. Someone who gives zero fricks about multiplayer
>Symmetrical factions are fricking boring.
ZOOMER
OUT >t. Someone who gives zero fricks about multiplayer
How do you confidently type that like you aren't showing off the shit in your diaper?
More content is nice, but copy-paste is lazy shit.
Would rather have 5 factions that all have unique units than 50 that are 90% identical myself.
>More content is nice, but copy-paste is lazy shit.
And if you knew anything about AoE2 civ design, you'd know it's not "Copy-and-paste". They've diluted all of the "Special" features and differences you'd see in an asymmetric title down to the things that matter, so they can be easily communicated.
You cannot compare Spanish with Bengalis or Khmer with Cumans. Even though the civs look similar, they have drastically different gameplans, builds, and progressions throughout a match.
This surface level, "They're all the same" talk comes from genuine idiots who need sparkles to guide them through a product.
>How do you confidently type that like you aren't showing off the shit in your diaper?
Because the roots of RTS are in their single player campaigns, and not the multiplayer.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Because the roots of RTS are in their single player campaigns
RTS is essentially just a control scheme and camera angle. It's not rooted in SP or MP, but SP campaigns are crippled by the opponent's inability to play the game. It only becomes a proper game when there are two players facing each other.
Friendly reminder that the most consistently successful big-budget RTS-like series still chugging along in the current day is the one that throws balance completely out the window, goes all-in on factions being wildly different from each other, and frickall nobody plays the multiplayer.
If nobody plays its multiplayer, then it's a failure as a game.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>If nobody plays its multiplayer, then it's a failure as a game.
I find it incredibly funny that someone who calls others zoomers has the audacity to type a sentence like this. Holy shit I haven't seen a worse opinion in ages.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>If nobody plays its multiplayer, then it's a failure as a game.
Wew lad, is that your genuine opinion or are you just baiting us?
Honest truth. It's why Mahjong is still one of the best games around. People actually play it. Not just a few pre-made hands as "puzzles" you can look up the answers to in 5 minutes, but an actual game with strategy, counterplay, and a pseudo-religious layer of strategy that amounts to using hype itself as a weapon.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>If nobody plays its multiplayer, then it's a failure as a game.
Wew lad, is that your genuine opinion or are you just baiting us?
Friendly reminder that the most consistently successful big-budget RTS-like series still chugging along in the current day is the one that throws balance completely out the window, goes all-in on factions being wildly different from each other, and frickall nobody plays the multiplayer.
7 months ago
Anonymous
this
The renaissance for the genre will come when everyone finally realizes that the real audience for RTS is autistic people painting maps, not sweaty nerds.
>And if you knew anything about AoE2 civ design
Perfectly willing to concede that I absolutely do not. But I'm typically more interested in the individual units/buildings/play in terms of both visual and mechanical variety, not in the autistic meta spreadsheet stuff. Only time I care about that is when I get very, very into a game, and AOE2's large amount of what seem to me to be mostly interchangeable factions is one of the big things that prevented it from being such a game.
7 months ago
Anonymous
So, you refuse to open your eyes to the vast differences between factions because you're not already aware of their differences?
Is this bait?
7 months ago
Anonymous
M8 I'm not saying it's a bad game, I'm saying it's not the type of faction design that appeals to me personally, and that prevents me from appreciating it on the level you clearly do.
You know different people can have different taste, right?
7 months ago
Anonymous
That's fine. I misread you.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Symmetrical factions are fricking boring.
ZOOMER
OUT >t. Someone who gives zero fricks about multiplayer
How do you confidently type that like you aren't showing off the shit in your diaper?
[...] >More content is nice, but copy-paste is lazy shit.
And if you knew anything about AoE2 civ design, you'd know it's not "Copy-and-paste". They've diluted all of the "Special" features and differences you'd see in an asymmetric title down to the things that matter, so they can be easily communicated.
You cannot compare Spanish with Bengalis or Khmer with Cumans. Even though the civs look similar, they have drastically different gameplans, builds, and progressions throughout a match.
This surface level, "They're all the same" talk comes from genuine idiots who need sparkles to guide them through a product.
I have nothing against civs that only do small but meaningful changes, but most AoE2 civs differences are so fricking underutilized because of the game's balance, the civs almost always just end up being about spamming the same generic units (mostly archers and knights) with only minimal changes in power spike timings.
like I would be all over maining War Elephants and trashbows with persians, but in reality you will be just spamming knights with them
it would be cool to make some Serjant/Donjon build with Sicilians, but again, in reality you will be just spamming knights.
It would be cool to make a slow moving teutonic knight army, or swarm the enemy with karambit warriors zerg rush stlye, but shit doesn't work, you will just make knights/archers
etc.
devs are affraid of meaningfully buffing anything that would shake the game's archer/knight oriented meta
7 months ago
Anonymous
but anon the intense micro involved with getting the most out of those units is so engaging!
7 months ago
Anonymous
>the civs almost always just end up being about spamming the same generic units (mostly archers and knights) with only minimal changes in power spike timings.
And you have the other tools to reverse momentum. You want to spam power options if your opponent lets you get away with doing so, but if you play knight spam into Hindustanis, you'll be destroyed. If you try to run an archer-heavy comp when your enemy walled off and then made mangonels, you'll have a rough time. >like I would be all over maining War Elephants and trashbows with persians, but in reality you will be just spamming knights with them
Yeah, because Persians are a cavalry civ with top-tier Paladins. War elephants and trashbows are supporting units you use to push in against archers and infantry, respectively. >it would be cool to make some Serjant/Donjon build with Sicilians, but again, in reality you will be just spamming knights.
One of the recent meta-breakers was a Serjeant spam build. It's an easy escalator to 2k+, just playing Sicilians with their version of a Hoang. >It would be cool to make a slow moving teutonic knight army, or swarm the enemy with karambit warriors zerg rush stlye, but shit doesn't work
Of course those don't work. Teutonic knights are a defensive option to stop Paladin and Champion charges, and Karambits are an aggressive trash-breaker. Both are better-off using barracks infantry to push. >devs are affraid of meaningfully buffing anything that would shake the game's archer/knight oriented meta
You say that, but Hindustanis and Gurjaras were at the top of the ladder until recently, and Romans are currently the best civ in the game.
7 months ago
Anonymous
I won't reply individually to every point but will generally say this that's true to pretty much all your points
a unit that is only viable very rarely is not a well designed/balanced unit, especially if it's clearly meant to fill a popular power fantasy role
I don't care how "but there was this one moment where all the stars aligned and someone could actually make a couple War Elephants work", when this shit just isn't how overwhelming majority of your matches will play. You will pick into Persians and over 9/10 times you will be spamming knights. This is how most unique units or even basic militia line works in AoE2.
having to evaluate your options is cool, but most of the time the situation doesn't even come close to you having to do this, because knights/archers are just so overwhelmingly better choices for most situations. This shit isn't good balance.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>a unit that is only viable very rarely is not a well designed/balanced unit, especially if it's clearly meant to fill a popular power fantasy role
It's not that it's "rarely viable". It's that you actually have to pressure your opponent into making the choices that lead to that unit being used. If you want to use trashbows, rush with knights. If you want to use War Elephants, use light cav/cav archer or camels during the midgame. If you want to use teutonic knights, build a siege workshop. If you want to use Karambits, play M@A-skirm or rush with battle elephants and support with siege. >having to evaluate your options is cool, but most of the time the situation doesn't even come close to you having to do this, because knights/archers are just so overwhelmingly better choices for most situations.
This is false. You do have to respond to things your opponent does, and you will have to condition their responses to win.
> the combination of units is much better for them than unit spam.
why the frick infantry civs in general shouldn't have this same option of militia line being viable to them midgame
>but it would be bad unfair against this one civ
then give that one civ a buff against infantry if this is an issue
>why the frick infantry civs in general shouldn't have this same option of militia line being viable to them midgame
Because the entire Malian civ is a Castle-age powerspike. Everything falls off in the lategame. That's their identity. >then give that one civ a buff against infantry if this is an issue
Not just one. Anyone missing both Arb and Bracer now deals exactly 1 damage to FU Champs with your suggestion. Even being limited to 4 is palpable. Archers are the bespoke counter to infantry for anyone lacking hand cannoneers, and certain matchups get absolutely ruined by this.
More importantly, this is just a dumb way to buff infantry. They have a momentum issue because longswords and unupgraded spears get crushed by knights, and their utility is unclear, not because they need even more resistance to archer fire.
7 months ago
Anonymous
I bet you are one of those apologists who keep saying how it's just impossible to buff militia because then they would break the game
then the devs release like 6 fricking buffs through the course of the next couple of years and they are still fricking shit, rinse and repeat
7 months ago
Anonymous
>I bet you are one of those apologists who keep saying how it's just impossible to buff militia because then they would break the game
Wrong. I also wanted buffs, just indirect ones to better suit their use as an offensive supporting unit.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Teutonic knights are also supposed to be used to smash defensive buildings, castles, etc.
7 months ago
Anonymous
They come out too late to be used against towers, and actually attacking a castle with infantry is such a hassle, especially once murder holes is researched, that you'll, in 95% of cases, be better off playing trebs instead.
7 months ago
Anonymous
It's what their bonuses are for, I don't personally prefer them. Incidentally, I believe they're supposed to be supported by siege weapons. They're really slow, but they're strong.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>It's what their bonuses are for
None of their bonuses point me in the direction of Teutonic knights being used to fight enemy defensive structures. They have the same problem rams do, in that they get crushed by mangonels effortlessly, and can't take out units trying to kill them. >Incidentally, I believe they're supposed to be supported by siege weapons. They're really slow, but they're strong.
It's the other way. They support siege weapons very well.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>it would be cool to make some Serjant/Donjon build with Sicilians, but again, in reality you will be just spamming knights.
>He doesn't know about YouPudding upsetting the entire meta of the game overnight
7 months ago
Anonymous
AoE2 factions are certainly not interchangeable, albeit the differences are not as extreme as something like in WC3. No archer faction for instance plays the same. Some have better options from feudal starting onwards, other only really in the late game. Some have good infantry to complement them, others have better cav. Different economic bonuses, tanky archers, faster archers, cheap archers, good or bad defenses, good or bad water - there is a lot. Purely from a mechanical standpoint, they might seem the same, everyone gets most of the same buildings and most of the same unit types, and you can play them relatively the same. But if you really dig deeper, then there is a lot to uncover.
Guess what AoE2's campaigns are fun as well.
I'm on the fence about symmetric or asymmetric faction design, but a well-made campaign is simply fun because it's well-made.
This guy. I'm not sure why the tanker is Russian in hw2 but still cool.
Are there any other RTSs that have a PVE mode like skirmish? I'm ultra casual and don't really want to put 400 hours in mp to be able to play a game.
>What's your favourite RTS unit?
pic rel >Also will RTS have a comeback someday?
no ppl are too dumb for it these days
is that the artillery from TS that left a hole in the ground so you couldnt build there anymore?
>shells literally unavoidable homing on your units >does enough damage to kill inf in 1 shot >can prevent you from building because of cratering
Even after the nerfs in the Firestorm expansion they were on the best units in the game
I rather liked the Tempest Rising demo.
Pathfinding could and did get a bit stinky on longer move orders but overall I felt it was a pretty solid C&C homage.
-The Cybran sACU has 3 torpedo launchers on its stomach called Dart01, Dart02, and Dart03, two engineering beam muzzles on its chest called Reclaim01 and Reclaim02, jetpack called Rez_Protocol with two exhaust bones connected to it, and that the AA gun is actually a tactical missile defense turret.
-The UEF sACU has a jetpack that is visible when you upgrade it with the jammer, but that jetpack has an exhaust bone. The thing on its left shoulder opposite the engineering pod is a SAM launcher that is never used as a weapon.
-The Aeon sACU's 'turbine' backpack also has an exhaust bone pointing downward and a tactical missile launcher muzzle on the top.
-The Seraphim sACU has no unused bones.
-The Cybran ACU has no unused bones, either, but it does have an unused personal shield mesh definition file in its file folder.
-The UEF ACU has no unused bones.
-The Aeon ACU has no unused bones.
-The Seraphim ACU has an unused shield mesh its folder.
-The UEF destroyer has bones for an additional AA turret on the rear platform, that has no skin, and is unused and invisible.
-Most of you already know that the UEF atlantis has attach points for pop-out SAM launchers that were removed from the game, but it also has an additional two attach points the top-rear platform behind the loading doors that are also unused.
-The UEF battleship and nuclear sub both have unused torpedo launcher bones.
-The UEF spy plane has an unused sonar buoy launcher bone, just look at its script file for developer commentary.
-The Cybran mantis script has an iridium rocket launcher backpack commented out of its code.
-The Cybran strategic bomber has TWO bomb dropping bones, the second is unused.
-The UEF frigate has three unused vertical missile launcher bones on its stern.
-The Aeon destroyer has a total of 9(!) torpedo/depth charge launching bones, 4 on each side and 1 on the back, and only 4 of the side ones are used.
-The Aeon Frigate has an additional torpedo defence launcher bone that is not in used in FA.
-The Aeon and Cybran sub hunters have two additional anti-torpedo launcher bones each that are not used.
-The UEF titan siege assault bot still has Flayer SAM and a missile launcher weapon loaded in its script, even though the missile rack backpack was removed in the demo.
-The two back ramps on the Seraphim quantum gate have no unit-traversable elevated platforms in their .bp files, and I have not been able to add any in.
-The AdjacencyBuff definition file has a typo in it so that only T1 power generators (not hydrocarbon plants because it uses the same buff list as T2 power generators) can provide adjacency related fire rate bonuses. This can be fixed easily by simply adding the buff names to the respective buff lists.
-The Novax station was originally supposed to have its two animations played on different events. Now they are both played on launching it's one satellite, but originally it would play one animation while building the satellite and one while launching it.
-The Aeon AA gunship missile launcher bones are ACTUALLY supposed to be quantum fizz flak guns. This becomes apparent when comparing them to the Czar flak turrets, which are exactly the same. Changing the missiles to flak pulses might help with balancing it, too.
-The Aeon cruiser's two zealot missile turrets are set 'Turret = false', but have turret yaw and pitch coded in as if they were originally supposed to track targets like on the launchers on the Aeon carrier. When 'Turret = true', the firing tolerance must be increased by at least 50 degrees because the turrets have such a small swivel range.
-The Czar missile launcher turrets, according to the Czar script, were originally supposed to be sonic pulse batteries. The even have turret yaw and pitch rates/ranges coded in the .bp, but 'Turret' is set to 'false'.
-The Aeon Galactic colossus has two AttachSpecial bones under animation bone armor plates on its shoulders in addition to an unused 'Projectile' bone in its chest. More interestingly, however, is a now unusable script that was commented out by the devs that would have the galactic colossus's death explosion throw its bones (arms, chest, eye, tractor claws, etc.) all over the place, dismembering it. I added the script back in, however, and it doesn't work anymore, presumably because the file that handled this feature was removed.
-The reason all anti-aircraft weapons are more accurate in Forged Alliance compared to vanilla Supcom is that all aircraft have larger, spherical hitboxes instead of their original small, box shaped hitboxes.
-In 'luauihelpunitdescription.lua' there are help texts for units drl0102, the Cybran light naval unit 'Sleeper' spy sub, and dab2102, the Aeon tech 1 'Offering' gatling mortar station. Both of these units only exist in the Xbox 360 version of vanilla Supcom.
RTS can't make a comeback because "RTS fans" don't agree on what they like and most of them won't play anything new. At best you'll get a good remake of an old game everyone has nostalgia for.
>Total War 40k
Maybe it would have, but i really like the base building element, which the total wars don't have, but nonetheless a total war 40k would have been a dream.
>Total war 40k
I could have seen CA making a 40k game but it wouldn't have been Total war.
Total war is all about formation warfare, 40k is loose squads.
It's just that shit producers in pursuit of trends have completely forgotten their father's face.
No one wants to just make a good, good game that you'll want to play over and over again. The industry has finally sunk into multiplayer cancer and the attempt to squeeze an extra penny from the player.
>It's just that shit producers in pursuit of trends have completely forgotten their father's face.
The investor in black fled across the desert, and the Gankerirgin followed.
I wish there more factions like the Zerg/Undead from blizzards games because it's cool as frick
Ones that visual and mechanically "spread" across the map. Only other game I can think off that did something similar is Armies of Exigo and was straight up a warcraft clone.
God I fricking loved the Men of War 2 Beta, setting up (dynamic) interlaced and supporting trench lines, dropping HMG's into overlapping fields of fire, units moving to actually do their job in the trench without ten billion bits of micro, the pathfinding making them USE the cover I gave them while they move up. AT troops crouchwalking in their trenches slowly towards the closest point to an enemy vehicle as it comes nearer only to pop up just when needed.
Actually being able to use Field Guns and AT guns because they already come with their prime movers attached and ready to tow from the second you spawn them. The only thing I didn't like was that the invite and party system was buggy as frick. I can't fricking wait for the release man. It feels so good to finally enjoy one of these games online without something ruining it.
No they won't come back. MOBA's ate the whole, are more focused on teams, and are infinitely easier to control and understand. There's a reason they died out and won't ever come back, a butterfly cannot turn back into a caterpillar.
Love those lil homies. Extremely mobile, strong against tanks, have shields and can regenerate health, all for a relatively low cost.
It's a shame Battle for Dune is not as well known as most CnC titles, though I can see why. >Also will RTS have a comeback someday?
No AAA studio will dare to pick up the genre because it's pretty fricking hard and expensive to make a good RTS, not to mention scattered tastes of genre fans. However I've seen some small indie projects with potential, namely DORF(made with a heavily modified openRA) and Dust Front(I heard it was developed by a single guy for like 10 years).
And if you want to frick around, there are always old obscure RTS that can be fun and unique in their own ways, plenty of cool mods, and people still make custom maps and campaigns for Warcraft 3
RTS is an 'everything but the kitchen sink' genre where you, the player, handle everything, and that filters most people. Nowadays, both players and devs prefer games with tighter focus on fewer elements, which might alsobe more fleshed out than in a conventional RTS. These new genres include tower defense, idle games, factory management, or autobattlers.
>spent much of my childhood just spamming swordsman in AoE2 >they were the coolest because they had the most amount of upgrades and it was just cool to swarm the enemies using them
>DE comes out and it looks great, finally decide to get into the game's multiplayer >turns out swordsman were always fricking horrible and are only ever used in rare ultra specific circumstances
why are the devs so affraid of making these bad boys actually viable
>why are the devs so affraid of making these bad boys actually viable
Because their only counters are gold units. An infantry meta would be difficult to penetrate.
that's bullshit tho. A unit doesn't necessarily need a trash hard counter, it's enough if you have multiple units that counter it decently enough. Swordsman also have other weaknesses compared to cavalry, like being worse at raiding.
you can't convince me that giving +1 pierce armor would break them when there is literally a civ with +3 FREE pierce armor to them and they still don't use swordsman over archers/knights.
>that's bullshit tho. A unit doesn't necessarily need a trash hard counter, it's enough if you have multiple units that counter it decently enough.
Anon, how would a Spanish player deal with massed Burmese longswords if they had, say, +3 bonus damage against knights? >you can't convince me that giving +1 pierce armor would break them when there is literally a civ with +3 FREE pierce armor to them and they still don't use swordsman over archers/knights.
Malian midgame longswords have always been a strong TC-buster. No one contests this. They just have the widest variety of options in the midgame, and the combination of units is much better for them than unit spam.
> the combination of units is much better for them than unit spam.
why the frick infantry civs in general shouldn't have this same option of militia line being viable to them midgame
>but it would be bad unfair against this one civ
then give that one civ a buff against infantry if this is an issue
Hyperion II from Empire Earth.
Could walk over mountains and through the ocean and was both tanky and strong. If I got into lategame I spammed him and flanked the enemy.
why the frick does this remake attract so many complaining alt-rightcel posters every frickign time
I mean one of the protagonists of the game is already a nubian black woman and the egyptains already had a pretty dark skin tone. Are you literally paranoid that devs will remake the game faithfully or what?
we can't not talk about that if anyone wants to talk about retold because the same people are involved thus there is no hope from anyone who has been paying attention
Why do you want RTSs to "have a comeback" just so it can get injected with the same bullshit that's in the more mainstream genres? Seeing what's happening to CRPGs is absolutely something I don't want for RTSs and I'm fine with them not being mainstream.
New RTS games do come out, though. It just turns out the people who care enough about RTS games are the ones that search them out. Same with tactics based games and others.
>Also will RTS have a comeback someday?
As a SupCom fan, this looks pretty promising:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1699050/Sanctuary_Shattered_Sun/
I genuinely believed that the future of RTS games was going to be a Real Time Tactics game in the vein of World in Conflict and/or Wargame series
I felt like it was only a matter of time for someone to 'crack' the formula and it was going to be a huge hit like DOTA / LOL was
I thought this because it seemed to me that the pure focus on combat with no base building made it much more streamlined, and the larger scale and variety of units possible added a lot of fun variety and replayability
I guess it is still possible but >We never got a WiC sequel and WiC was too simple in its unit design to really take off >Wargame series too autistic and controls are too clunky for mass audience >Eugen are insanely incompetent and fricked up their own formula massively since WG:RD, having not released a sequel in 10 years, and the current spiritual successor Warno is just not very fun >All the other imitators (i.e. Regiments) are also horrible
I guess Broken Arrow could still be 'it' but I think it's over, who knows
>pure focus on combat with no base building
That's where things went wrong. RTS without base building isn't even an RTS game anymore. Total war is the closest thing to RTS successors right now although the building management is separate from the RTS battles.
I used AoW as an example because of 4X building with a separate context for battles, a bunch of others in the genre just do battles automatically on the same map.
>eugen
eugen really could have had it all if they had made a really good wargame sequel after red dragon
they were on a roll and had a cult classic hit
if they had taken their time, gotten it right, and made a new wargame with a really good single player, custom map / game mode / mod tools, lots of new content, and made the controls work, i think it could have been huge
eugen is moronic though so that didn't happen
eugen fanboys are the biggest morons on the planet, only blizzdrones are worse
imagine being abused by a company and giving them money when their last good product is 10 years old lmao
>I genuinely believed that the future of RTS games was going to be a Real Time Tactics game in the vein of World in Conflict and/or Wargame series
The biggest weakness of RTS games is that controlling armies in real-time is difficult and imprecise
Traditional RTS games mitigate this by giving you a base and allowing you to build units, which means you have a continous supply of a small amount of units to control, and micromanagement mistakes aren't the end of the game because you can always build more
Anyone who thought that removing bases and switching the focus to pure micro was a good idea doesn't get RTS
this is just straight up wrong, you're moronic lol
base-building, economy, and resource mechanics have never and were never about 'mitigating the imprecision of controlling armies'. name one game, name one developer, who ever said they did that. give one example of that being the case. prove that. you cant.
you are straight up so moronic you should stop posting
if anything, the RTT sub-genre makes controlling armies easier by not having to have you constantly cycle between base management, production building management, and army management / fighting.
and, you imply there that you cant make more units in an RTT game. you imply that by saying 'traditional rts games mitigate this by allowing you to build units.'
in WiC you have infinite units, they just are on cooldowns / have point costs. in the wargame series, units are not infinite but you can make trade-offs of how many / type of units to bring.
did you even consider that? is your brain capable of even conceptualizing that? do you literally have the IQ capable of imagining an RTS game with no base building where the units are not hard-limited?
jesus, what a moronic post.
I didn't say they did it intentionally, maybe they did or maybe they didn't, but that's why the RTS formula worked
"Base management" in RTS games isn't really a thing, you don't need to micro your base much
If you have a continuous supply of units then it's not an RTT game, it's just an RTS game
>I genuinely believed that the future of RTS games was going to be a Real Time Tactics game in the vein of World in Conflict and/or Wargame series
The biggest weakness of RTS games is that controlling armies in real-time is difficult and imprecise
Traditional RTS games mitigate this by giving you a base and allowing you to build units, which means you have a continous supply of a small amount of units to control, and micromanagement mistakes aren't the end of the game because you can always build more
Anyone who thought that removing bases and switching the focus to pure micro was a good idea doesn't get RTS
The mistake here is conflating 2 entirely different genres just because they have a similar camera and control scheme, RTTs are their own thing; they focus on the tactical level of war, where positioning, facing, small changes in terrain have a meaningful impact in the outcome of engagements.
Their lineage comes from games like the Myth series, Close Combat, Men of war, Commandos etc.
There's no mistake or misunderstanding here, my post is very clear - I was saying that I believed at one point that the RTT sub-genre was going to become the most popular / most dominant form of strategy game, usurping the traditional base-building RTS
I was wrong about that as I say, but there's no 'confusion' here, I know exactly what each genre is
Commandos and Men of War are completely different genres
Men of War is what I'd call an RTT and suffers from the problems I talked about
Commandos is basically a stealth game
>Also will RTS have a comeback someday?
no
too niche and too expensive
it is possible to make a nice, trimmed down low budget one, but rts players wouldn't touch it
they can keep playing C&C Generals or WC2 for the next 4 decades until death
This is what started it all for me. I think the factions/visual design was top notch. I enjoyed this game way more than SC. Get me some of them Triple Rail Hover Tanks!
Definitely weak for gameplay but they captured a very strong atmosphere in that game and I am baffled to this day that they did not continue to expand upon it. C&C 3 had no reason not to go 200% all in on this yet they abandoned it instead
both of these games were released around a similar time with similar visuals, specifically the lighting as shown in the two pics above
7 months ago
Anonymous
Tiberian Sun killed Westwood, the company got bought by EA and most of the employees left. RA2 was made by a different team
Tiberian Sun sold well because it was the followup to C&C, but it caused a lot of problems for the studio (I can't recall what they were) and it wasn't recieved well, people preferred the modern military asethetic of C&C to the sci-fi channel one. The game was also full of terrible gameplay ideas
7 months ago
Anonymous
>, the company got bought by EA and most of the employees left. RA2 was made by a different team
Fanfiction. Tibsun and RA 2 were published by EA after they were acquired by them in 1998.
7 months ago
Anonymous
TS was made by the original Westwood team that made C&C and RA
RA2 was developed by a new team, with Dustin Browder, which would go onto become EA LA
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Tiberian Sun killed Westwood
Nope. Command and conquer renegades ended Westwood.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>conflict of interest? no, i've got an interest in conflict
7 months ago
Anonymous
>conflict of interest? no, i've got an interest in conflict
from what i understand this is pretty much true
renegade was a huge bomb and it cost a shitload of money and that was the point at which EA basically stopped giving westwood total autonomy to do what they wanted
EA started getting involved and meddling, which on one hand got us C&C Generals (EA dictated they wanted a modern war RTS game basically to capitalize on 9/11 and the Iraq War LOL), but on the other hand got the westwood guys so bothered they basically all left during / after Generals
7 months ago
Anonymous
[...]
from what i understand this is pretty much true
renegade was a huge bomb and it cost a shitload of money and that was the point at which EA basically stopped giving westwood total autonomy to do what they wanted
EA started getting involved and meddling, which on one hand got us C&C Generals (EA dictated they wanted a modern war RTS game basically to capitalize on 9/11 and the Iraq War LOL), but on the other hand got the westwood guys so bothered they basically all left during / after Generals
Tiberian Sun, Renegade, and Westwood's terrible MMO killed the studio
Westwood wasn't even around when Generals came out
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Westwood's terrible MMO
They made an MMO?
7 months ago
Anonymous
I totally forgot about their planned MMO, you are totally right. There was also a bunch of other games Westwood did in addition to the mainline C&C games, which I think were middling in terms of sales as well.
>Westwood's terrible MMO
They made an MMO?
It never came out, it was shitcanned
Tib Sun was profitable though AFAIK, maybe a bit of a disappointment but it definitely sold well
7 months ago
Anonymous
Tiberian Sun sold well but it took way longer to make and cost way more than they expected to which made EA take over the company
7 months ago
Anonymous
I think this is partly true, but as I understand it the bigger deals for Westwood was Renegade being a total flop and their cancelled MMO. I think if TibSun was the worst they did they would have remained in the good graces of the higher ups for a lot longer at least
>Tib Sun was profitable though AFAIK
From Wikipedia: >In the United States, Tiberian Sun sold 419,533 copies by the end of 1999,[18] for revenues of $18.62 million.[19] This made it the region's sixth-best-selling and fourth-highest-grossing computer game of 1999.[19] It sold another 283,544 units ($8.08 million) in the country during 2000.[20] In the United Kingdom, it remained the sixth-best-selling computer game of all time by 2006.[21]
That's worse than I remember, but ~700k+ copies is not so bad by the standards of the time. It probably topped a million eventually.
That doesn't tell us how profitable it was though, that's just revenue
7 months ago
Anonymous
Tiberian Sun made EA take control over the studio
Renegade made them close it
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Tib Sun was profitable though AFAIK
From Wikipedia: >In the United States, Tiberian Sun sold 419,533 copies by the end of 1999,[18] for revenues of $18.62 million.[19] This made it the region's sixth-best-selling and fourth-highest-grossing computer game of 1999.[19] It sold another 283,544 units ($8.08 million) in the country during 2000.[20] In the United Kingdom, it remained the sixth-best-selling computer game of all time by 2006.[21]
>TS ended Westwood
No. It's because EA wanted every single game of Westwood to be a hit. Westwood founders had a difference of opinion that without experimenting they will definitely fail and fail they did because of EA
Tiberian Sun didn't fail because of EA
It was full of experimental ideas, they sucked
7 months ago
Anonymous
The point is they tuned those ideas much better in games like generals zero hour, for example, which couldn't have been possible without tibsun in the first place.
7 months ago
Anonymous
All of the shit ideas from TibSun were scrapped, not iterated on
The engine itself was good though, which they reused for RA2
>gameplay wise it was one of the weakest in the classic run
Sadly true. IIRC the game was very rushed and there's a lot of plot holes in the story and interesting cut content:
Also it's crazy how much the games mechanics improved only after 3 years in Generals. One of the biggest leaps in gaming IMO
I was actually thinking of inconsistencies. Like how in the GDI end Umagon is suddenly captured by Nod, or in the Nod campaign end, Jake McNeil captured by Nod (again). Or in the Firestorm Nod campaign one of the Nod generals says they have the Tacitus and the next mission you do is you steal the Tacitus from the Forgotten, as if the mission and the cutscene are played in wrong order.
I used to make .ini edit "mods" when TS came out and it was super fun. I was a kid so they weren't that great, but at the time it was pretty well known.
LOL, I made my own MS Paint art for it and everything.
>spam click 200 horse archers in stronghold crusader >begin patrol next to the opponent's castle >build pretty gardens and moats around my home while everybody dies
unit built >Honor Guard, ready for duty! >Honor Guard, deployed!
left click >Stand ready kameraden >Achtung, prepare for orders
move order >We are moving into enemy territory, mantain sound discipline >Move quickly, defensive fire only behind the enemy lines
move order (under fire) >UP! MOVE! >GET THE MG MOBILE, MOVE!
stop order >Hold position
stop order (under fire) >HALT!
attack move order >Combat patrol, close ranks, double check your weapons >Get ready for fighting patrol, if contact is made, envelope and neutralize
attack move order (under fire) >CLOSE RANKS, ASSAULT! >MOVE, ENGAGE ANY TARGET!
order to capture point >We must push behind enemy lines, capture and hold the point >Enemy territory needs to be captured, ready the squad
order to capture point (under fire) >I WANT THAT POINT SECURED, NOW! >SCHNELL, STORM THE AREA!
capturing a point >Once the position is captured, be ready for possible counterattack >When the point is captured, I want flank security established
capturing a point (under fire) >DISPERSE AROUND THE CAPTURE POINT >STURM AND HOLD
point captured >Capture complete, standing by. >Target secured, gruppe holding.
point captured (under fire) >POINT SECURED! >TARGET SECURED, STILL IN CONTACT!
Using the suppressive fire ability >Set the mg for sustained fire
Using the suppressive fire ability (under fire) >GUNNER, I WANT SUPPRESSIVE FIRE NOW!
unit attack orders >Suppress and eliminate that squad >Concentrate all fire on that squad >Assault formation, target the enemy squad
unit attack order (under fire) >ENGAGE, WIPE THEM OUT! >FIRE! CUT THEM DOWN! >SUPPRESS AND ATTACK!
target eliminated >ENEMY GRUPPE DESTROYED
retreat >Kameraden, fall back to Battallion HQ
retreat (under fire) >BREAK CONTACT, FALL BACK
squad reinforce >Gruppe back to full strength
left click left click left click >STOP WITH THE INCESSANT CLICKING! >ENOUGH! YOU ARE NOT FUNNY >IF I COULD I WOULD REACH THROUGH AND BREAK YOUR FINGERS >NO OFFICER OF THE GERMAN ARMY WOULD BEHAVE THIS WAY
For gameplay, Generals. For being a 20 year old game it feels very fresh and the themes are still current. Not much of a story in that game though. My personal favourite is Tiberian Sun though, the atmosphere in that game is unmatched.
For gameplay, Generals. For being a 20 year old game it feels very fresh and the themes are still current. Not much of a story in that game though. My personal favourite is Tiberian Sun though, the atmosphere in that game is unmatched.
No.
RTS games are real PC games for people that actually care about games.
That market has been systematically destroyed.
There is no room left for anything that isn't casual console garbage, and the few exceptions left are endless content pits for youtubers to specialize in.
devanon here, I'm trying to capture that 90's C&C vibe, I only got one cutscene so far, I need to get better at blender. Music is on point imo. Terrytorial Disputes steampowered.com/app/2232650
Man, there's so many good ones. Hydralisks are so versatile, Marines are so cheap. Shamans in WC3 are great, purge and bloodlust go so hard. Dryads for their magic immunity and slow poison, Goliaths for their strong AA, Vultures for their ability to fast respond between skirmishes and Spider Mines, the list goes on.
For me it's the RA2 conscript. He's weak, he's sad, he wants to go home, but he's 100 bucks for a 2 pack and you can't go wrong at that price, flood the enemy with them and pray for no genetic mutators.
>will RTS have a comeback someday?
Probably, but it will be some kind of indie resurrection where an indie game does something totally new, instead of old school RTS coming back.
No it won't, Indie will still feed on rats and breadcrumbs. The starting shot will probably be when Microsoft aquires Blizzard and resurrects Starcraft 3.
No. RTS games are all the same now. Microsoft isn't gonna change that by coming up with something new. If they were capable of that, they wouldn't need to be buying up every studio on the planet.
dorf RTS with its light logistics system seems pretty interesting, the other ideas they have floating around also seem nice
This.
As technology and tools advance, driven and talented autists will be able to create what was only 10 years ago considered AAA on their own. Great example being the Astartes video project.
Really hoping Factorio's expansion will introduce more RTS elements; you can already do a hell of a lot with the Spidertron in vanilla, but expanding that concept to different units would be amazing.
Get the automation part done by hand in the early game, only to unleash full-scale RTS warfare at endgame. What a dream.
they better make Halo Wars 3
>rts
>indie
rts are hard as frick to make. there are a few indie rts games and they super buggy and lacking in content. it's not happening
God I love Tiberian Sun so fricking much.
>What's your favourite RTS unit?
You just posted it. And also the Disruptor.
>Also will RTS have a comeback someday?
I hope so. But Zoomers are moronic unfortunately.
>But Zoomers are moronic unfortunately.
This. Can vouch for this as a zoomer.
To this day I am still stuck on AoE2's Saladin campaign despite having 90 hours on the game and stuck on the Dr Mobius mission in C&C despite having 15 hours in the game.
And I am too moronic for Civ as well.
I remember playing this multiplayer and realising how absurdly strong attack ground with disruptors was, you could level multiple buildings in like 3 seconds with that. Heli-dropping disruptors in the middle of a base could mean an instant game over for them.
>Also will RTS have a comeback someday?
The RTS concept has to be reworked to keep people entertained. I am pretty sure Tempest Rising will die a quick death.
Horrible takes
RTS games declined because rising game development costs meant that a genre that only works well on PC and requires a lot of launch content to be developed for it has a harder time making a profit and devs/publishers are discouraged from spending a lot on it.
RTS games don't have less innovation between series and sequels than what other popular genres have
RTS games have no issue with "turning too competitive focused" either. Even SC2 has a stupid amount of high quality single player and casual friendly content, far more than what older RTS games had
RTS games simply no longer get a big variety of big budget releases. The genre is just not as financially viable with how the gaming market is now.
an impressively ignorant post
elaborate or shut the frick up
there is no "RTS games moved to focus only on competitive scene that caused the fall of RTS games" phenomenon, this shit literally never happened and I have no idea why the frick do people here keep spamming this same shit.
my only theory is that you got mad that these games ALSO have a high skill competitive scene that you are shit at and the games not having that at all would make you feel better which is why you are advocating for them not having them
Because it did obviously happen and you're either stupid or insane to think how you do. Shit like Iron Harvest and Gray Goo didn't fail because of it's fricking name, they were shit because they felt shit to play because they were designed to work for 1v1 ladder first and everything else second but 1v1 MP players are a minority in every strategy game there is. At no point did any unit in those games fulfill a thematic fantasy or feel enjoyable to use.
anon, Gray Goo literally tried to be an oldschool CnC throwback in every fricking aspect including controls or the cinematics where probably most of it's budget went.
the game is just fricking unremarkable with none of the designs, graphics, music etc. standing out, but that's already an issue with the game just being lower budget overall for it's time, not being able to attract as many and as high level devs.
also, games like Stormgate trying to focus on multiplayer is a symptom of RTS games having a hard time in the market and trying out different routes recently, not what caused the decline of the genre.
>Shit like Iron Harvest and Gray Goo didn't fail because of it's fricking name, they were shit because they felt shit to play because they were designed to work for 1v1 ladder first
Iron Harvest failed because they made a game about cool mechs fighting and instead the gameplay is focused on infantry running around the map and capturing sites
The mechs just felt like Tanks+ to me and not a unique type of unit.
they're weak as shit too, I have no idea why you'd use any Polanian mech except the biggest one. Only the biggest gigamechs dealt somewhat decent damage and survive more than 3 anti-vehicle shots.
>mortar mechs are good though!
I can get 3 infantry teams that will do their job better and faster AND they can capture shit too.
Polanias best mech was to first one with the sniper PZM-7 "Smialy". You stack 3 or five of them and flank the enemy or you snipe them out of range as the enemy unit AI does not react to getting shot out of their range. But i must admit that Polania was the most balanced faction. Each Mech had a good purpose.
>You stack 3 or five of them
see that's the problem, stacking 3 or 5 of them requires you to skip infantry and map control. And if a competent player puts 2-3 anti-vehicle teams against your 5 stack, you still won't get to accomplish much, you ceded map control, and you lost more resources because Smialy dies in 2-3 shots unless stuff changed a lot since launch
Doesn't Smialy outrange the anti-tank squads? And you had 5 of them to one-shot any infantry squad. And sure you need also Infantry.
Only ruskies had no reason to build mechs, when their power armor melee infantry is an all purpose rape squad.
Depends, the Smialy can counter them if there are 3-5 of them as they are fast as frick.
Ruskies had the walking fortress which was absurde as it had MG against infantry and a big as cannon against anything else. It was a no-brainer allround mech.
No, it failed because it had barebones pathfinding, non existing Unit AI and combat boiled down to either Rock-Paper-Scissors or only using the Allrounder Mechs.
Everything else was exceptional, from the unit design to the Campaign and the Cutscenes which were a blast from the past so to say.
>exceptional unit design
>infantry function identically for all factions
>only thing different is unit portrait
>most mechs are useless and hard countered by a gust of wind
>not to mention all the mech designs are ripped from some polacks paintings, at most you can admire the animations and they're not exactly impressive
>are ripped from some polacks paintings
they ARE the mechs from those paintings.
There are Mechs that counter Infantry and these are especially good.
>ripped
The Painter is Jakub Rozalski had he was completely involved in the process of making this. Even the story and characters are based on his works. The game would not exist without him. So ripped is just wrong, moron.
yeah you have no idea what the frick you're talking about because you pay minimal attention to what RTS games have released in the past two decades
take your drivel back to l*ddit
again, elaborate or shut the frick up with these no-argument replies
there's nothing to elaborate on, every single one of your points is blatantly wrong for well known reasons given in the posts you originally replied to
the fact that you argue against them show that you're a moronic homosexual that is why the genre stays in the shithole its in
>I have no argument but you are just wrong
amazing post anon
please keep explaining it to me how SC2 totally has less effort put into making casual content than what older RTS games had that "prioritized single player over esports", or how fleshed out multiplayer modes totally weren't a staple of the genre since fricking SC1, AoE1 or CnC1
hes moronic gay who posts that in every rts thread then gets destroyed, ignore him
more evidence you're a fricking moronic newbie who has no idea what you're on about
all the classic games that grew into having decent multiplayer games were designed as functioning games first with multiplayer being an afterthought in design
that is not how RTS games today are designed and its why they fail to create any interesting design because from the start the game is meant to be sterile and "balanced" in order to ape what shareholders see as successful
hence you need to go back and fricking have a nice day because your opinions are worse than worthless they're actively damaging to the thing you allegedly love
SC2 ladder was routinely sabotaged by balancing the game based on what the pros were doing. Made pvp awful as it was full of stupid shit like constant queen micromanagement.
The only thing that kept SC2 alive was arcade.
SC2 has the most fleshed out single player campaings and pretty fleshed out casual coop modes, along with the most fleshed out custom game scene in the genre
saying that the devs only cared about competitive scene (which was also part of the series since it's inception) is so fricking objectively wrong.
Also you keep b***hing about the game requiring micromanagement but I bet you don't even play games like Halo Wars1-2 either that require little APM
Coop commanders wasn't added until LotV. For the first 5 years of the game the only thing to do after campaign was arcade or tryhard in ladder.
So take your "objectivity" and shove it up your ass.
RTS games only became cheaper and cheaper to make. The shift to consoles hurt RTS for sure, but that's not the reason they died. They died because of game design. The classic RTS gameplay has some serious flaws which were never adequately addressed by developers, they just kept making the same thing, so people moved onto other more interesting game genres
If that's the case why are SC2, broodwar, AoE and so on still popular today?
>broodwar
lmao
>SC2
Custom games
>AoE
Custom games
That supports my point, people have no interest in the new RTS games being made, because they fail to improve upon the old. So the diehards keep playing the old games. SC2 is an exception there because it's an exceptionally well made game even if it doesn't really offer anything new
>pic related
I miss RA2.
Nobody's here but us trees!
The Titan is cool but it's just so damn slow if you're not playing with gamespeed cranked up.
Just the best RTS artillery unit coming through.
Ground Control was so cool and I doubt we'll ever see its like again
Good shit
More games need to let you go full gypsy on enemy units
The Dragon Knight from Warlords Battlecry 3.
>only melee cavalry in the game that can attack flying units
>extra resistance against the most common element
>affordable, can be massed to become the main unit of your army
>yet, all the hallmarks of the high elf faction: high combat skill, fast, good armor, strong against psychological effects
Love these guys.
>Also will RTS have a comeback someday?
No, it already peaked, nothing will surpass Starcraft 1, WC3, and AOE2, best you'll get to see in your lifetime is Starcraft 3 with Blizz pumping oodles of money into marketing to keep the playerbase afloat for its first year or two
[menacing noises]
Imagine being this menacing and then a mobile space station just floats above. When it stops within viewing distance spontaneously your skin begins to peel from your flesh as you've been doused with lethal radiation and you cook to death.
You are supposed to use science vessels irradiates against defilers, which are 1000 more dangerous than lurkers
*comes out of the ground*
*spits at you*
*rawrghhhs*
*buries itself and leaves*
How exactly do lurker spines work?
Same way a duck penis does.
EVOLUTION COMPLETE
SERVE THE HIVE
I CONTROL THE WAY YOU MOVE
How you like my groove, Daggoth?
love these homies
Lately it has to be some of the BAR units
Every unit in this game shoots an actual proyectile, which makes a crater and impacts wherever they land. So big tanks=big holes and splash damage
RTS haven't gone away, but aren't the hot stuff right now. I think they're in a fine spot for people who like them. BAR is free so whoever wants to try something good can do so right now
Why do people shill this garbage? Both TA and SupCom fricking shit on it in every possible way.
BAR sucks ass though
>I think they're in a fine spot for people who like them.
are you moronic? there hasnt been a major RTS release worth talking about in over a decade
Deserts of kharak?
is trash (and ruined the lore of homeworld)
AoE 4?
>Let's make AoE2 again but ugly, slower, with bad music, worse campaigns and less intuitive gameplay
At least the servers work
For me it's the Sumo
Sumos are cute actually
For me is the Tzar. Its kinda bad to be honest for 8v8 frontal assaults when there's just too much concentrated firepower for their slow ass. But when the big shell fires and hits a clustered bunch of units it's more about the terror damage it does.
I can hear it
For me it's
?list=PLrwWaT3GWAEdMVCnJr-Q-TVwRtKm8GQ9M
afaik its a first video game with professional orchestra music, it definitely sounded a lot better compared to everything else from that era
It's also very unique in the fact that it's a more traditional orchestra music, rather than the themes that other games have. I'm not really saying it's right or wrong. For example starcraft creates a faction identity by having different themes for each faction, but at the same time a grand orchestra really sets the theme for the grand scale of the war that is going on screen
fricking love jeremy soule
>when you played TA for hundreds of hours but it was on a ripped copy without music
feels strange man
There's a ton of good ones out there in all kinds of great games, but if I really have to pick one I'd probably go with the ACU from TA/Supcom. It's just the concept of a massive walking tank that can build an empire that's just so cool
jesus christ man I'm so sorry
You are not alone, had a ripped copy with no music as well
jeremy soule's back catalog is impressive
Not for a very long time. People are getting dumber by the year.
Fricking pulverize everything with 'uge hammers
I miss DaW2
play it then
>yoinks them with Tome of Subjugation
just as planned
I see your tier 3 unit and raise you a tier 1
>Counters set-up teams
>Counters jump infantry
>Light counters vehicles
>Tanky as hell and good piercing damage
>Power-melee bayonets
>Squad leaders die last, so at least 3 will always survive out of 7
>Can go invisible and hide invisible explosives
If they didn't drain power supplies to reinforce, they would be too powerful for mortal minds.
>luv me gauss cannons
>luv me flak
>luv me autocannons
Simple as
Placing Basilisks around the map. It's a building but it counts because it's just too fun/good
Favorite unit gotta be Flash Gitz (Dawn of War: Dark Crusade). Actually elite shootas for the greenies with chad lines and giant, rapid fire guns with bullets bigger than a twin size mattress.
Hot take: Orks were always a better shooty faction than melee.
A fully kitted out Nobz squad is still pretty good.
And those looted tanks are fricking inaccurate as hell
what's going on with storm gate or whatever the frick the game made by ex blizzard people is called? is it going to be doa?
Its gonna be like that wannabe left 4 dead game that came out last year iirc:
From the creators of (insert genre defining game that was a success) to get morons to buy it, actually it was a game created by a team almost composed from people that had little to no experience making said genre, except 2 or 4 actual veterans making those games, so the game becomes pure shit,which is what is gonna happen to stormgate, also why anyone would be interested in a sc3 reeskin that looks literally the same if you already have large experience playing a game that came out 15+ years ago and is still great?
marine in broodwar, handcannoneer in aoe2, riflemen in coh2, space marine squad in dow1. i like my basic infantry with guns.
>instantly fills your yang pool past what the game can display
Broken Battle Realms build was so fun
Not until they allow more 'campy' and slow playstyles in RTS games.
There's no way for classic RTS to ever evolve beyond APM and optimized build order and the purists will always invent a new term for games that don't have these elements
It's actually extremely easy SC is the only one that has difficulties with it because it's build orders go for so long relative to the game length and even basic builds can end games before they're even over. An all-in for a C&C game means actually crippling yourself rather than sacrificing 4 potential workers.
Terrans in Starcraft could force a stalemate followed by a slow moving forward of their lines seven or eight years ago. No idea if it's still that way.
This kinda playstyle ended up being the basis for stuff like Age of Darkness, They are Billions and Conan Unconquered IMO.
Very turtle and base building heavy games.
>Favorite unit
For me, it's the Armored Hoplite from Rome Total War. It would be the Aventuros from Medieval 2 if pikes in it worked properly though
>Will RTS have a comeback someday
I hope so, but probably not. The average person legitimately does not have the attention span to actually play RTS, and the ones who do try to play it like it's the esports garbage they see on twitch, and only care about APM and timings. On that note, I fricking hate people who give a shit about APM when 99% of the time, it's just the dumb Black person playing selecting a worker unit and opening the build menu over and over just to bloat his APM, and that other 1% is just him switching between units and right clicking during fights
>Will RTS come back
do people like Age of Empires 4? It seems like it was mostly successful but no one ever talks about it
Played it quite a bit a launch. AoE2-like enough to have made it, but the balance between the factions was shit and didn't get fixed in a month+, so the game was doomed to obscurity.
Fricking soulless nu-Lelic piece of shit game shouldn't even be mentioned here.
There is no better feeling than making this fricker work, especially when you combine it with 2HS/Champs to shred anti-cav. Second favorite is the Ratha, but the Bengali midgame is absolute shite and the Ratha fails as both a cav archer and a knight, so I've been playing other factions. Tatar 19 pop archers is absolute kino.
AoE4 players like AoE4. It didn't siphon off from AoE2, but it got a dedicated crowd of people who wanted something AoE2-adjacent.
It's not good, but it has players, and they're now selling an expansion pack.
They do. You genuinely just suck and don't want to improve.
Aoe4 is bad because civ are designed and balanced with a build in mind
X should be better at Y so we buffed their unit
meaning that you always want to do the same things that uses your civ advantage, which is fricking boring.
Not bad but the hardware requirements and the price tag filter a lot of potential players.
>do people like Age of Empires 4?
Some people do, there's a relatively small but stable community around it.
The issue is the game was 4 years in the making and used a Diablo-level mainstream IP to generate... basically no sales at all, as far as AAA leagues are concerned.
aoe4 is good
>Also will RTS have a comeback someday?
No, the industry and the most vocal parts of the genre's playerbase have been irreversibly mindbroken by the design philosophy of Star/Warcraft and the lure of chasing that esports dragon
They must be designed to be as sterile a game environment as possible because variance and fluctuation in interactions is perceived as antithetical to strategy
Your only hope for anything that feels like a comeback is a small indie dev trying to make something original which means more often than not it will end up janky and shit if it ever leaves an early access stage at all and isn't barraged by negative reviews because it isn't designed like a Blizzard RTS
Add onto the fact that you cant effectively port an RTS onto console without it either feeling like absolute shit to control or having it be dumbed down dogshit like halo wars means devs are even less likely to bother trying to make an RTS game much less a decent one that doesn't fit the safe mold to ensure sales
>and the lure of chasing that esports dragon
Except this entire upcoming generation of RTS has almost unilaterally admitted to going after casual play first.
>upcoming
guess we'll have to wait and see then
the only upcoming RTS game that isn't fitting the pre established mold is Homeworld and that's monkey pawed by Gearbox smearing itself all over it
Tempest rising has shown mostly campaign
Dorf has made no attempts to even try and pretend it's a tight competitive experience
Sanctuary is trying to fit in some wacky shit with its weather and terrain while being another supcom, a team game by default
Stormgate has made a big deal about it's coop mode since everyone liked sc2 coop
Hell, Zerospace is putting frickin mass effect companions in as a big feature to shill the SP to oversocialized normalgays.
The 2010s were publishers trying to ape esports success, the 2020s devs are going to fail for different reasons if they do but almost certainly not because of a 1v1 ladder match focus.
I hate when people say rts can't work on console when C&C3+ kanes wrath work great on Xbox with the radial interface. Yes micro is harder but everything else works like a charm
If you make an RTS with consoles in mind you're making a game with intrinsic limitations in mind as well, like the controls, no modding, shit interface and overall gay shit. It will never be updated, improved and built upon.
So frick that and frick you. Frick Iron Harvest, frick Halo Wars and frick any other bullshit you can think of.
>Also will RTS have a comeback someday?
Incredibly unlikely this genre needs innovation and its fans hate innovation with passion. So the industry tries to make the next starcraft or age of empires clone and the rtsgays hate it because it's not exactly the same thing and the cycle continues.
why isn't this shit on steam
nvm didn't realize it was freeware
one day maybe if they do a Red alert 2/Tiberian Sun remake
tought dunno how much the Red Alert/Tiberian Dawn one sold
>Red Alert/Tiberian Dawn one sold
enough that they put up with post launch support costs like patching. EA is really weird in that regard in that they can be pretty relaxed when it comes to small budget niche stuff like indies or nostalgia ridden remasters like the ra1/td1 remaster. But absolute corporate hatchet men when it comes to big budget AAA
Biggest issue stopping tiberian sun and re2 remaster is that they lost the source codes for both of them
Petroglyph is up for it, but EA owns the rights in the end.
My beloved
Akkan was my main but Kol was close second. Good to see my TEC bros
This, Akkan just made the early colonization game so much easier while still being more than capable of dealing with early groups of frigates. Second one was always a Kol, love the Battlestar Galactica look.
>36GJN
36GJN
>36GJN
36GJN
50 GJN EOW LOSATCHADS HERE WE FRICKING GOOOK
Can I have some shoes?
>do not hurt me
>ow! i will work
>you change your mind often
>why must it be so far?
>i like my new shoes
These little guys must have the highest concentration of good quotes in a game where almost every unit is quotable.
Aw shit homie you done posted it already
I just love the entire concept of these fricking ghouls teleporting in from nowhere and forcibly removing people, vehicles and even entire buildings from the timeline by deleting them before they were built/born, and the fact the victims are caught in some sort of stasis for a little while, completely conscious as they fade away. Absolutely horrifying.
>ALREADY THERE
>DECONSTRUCTING
>NEVER EXISTED...
I always thought he just moves everything to space
I love doing sea or air landins in RTS games.
>use nukes to clear landing zone
>drop units in
>??????
>profit
Amen brother, No game gave me that feeling as much as SupCom did.
Try out LOUD AI if you haven't already, much larger battles.
Prism tank. Even more so a prism tank in Yuri's tank bunker.
>Also will RTS have a comeback someday?
i hope not. traditional rts games were cancer and the fantasy they delivered on was shaky at best
too many nofun tryhard Black folk and devs are blind to their real audience
The real audience wants fun power fantasy campaigns to play through.
Everyone knows that the best kind of RTS is the one where the devs made a campaign and made the units specifically for the missions, and then just going "Oh i guess we should add a multiplayer mode as well, throw everything in there" without a thought for balance or ebin competitive e-sports
It is known.
this "le wacky broken balance is fun" doesn't work in reality
you will quickly figure out what's OP, then you will either use only that and ignore literally everything making the game more boring, or you have to make up rules for not using them (aka just making your own balance patches)
Warcraft 3 proves you wrong. It is possible to make a game where everything is viable if it is designed competently enough.
Nobody uses dryads, sorceresses, banshees or wind walkers.
>Nobody uses dryads, sorceresses, banshees or wind walkers.
as expected you are clueless homosexual
What, sorc is the backbone of human armies. I don't know what you're smoking, but slow spam can absolutely smoke you early game, a single sorc can ruin your day and dryad massing is incredibly fricking strong.
anon, WC3 had a stupid amount of effort put into it's balancing, with it still getting balance patches 20 years after it's release.
like literally, it is the RTS with the most amount of effort put into it's balancing, more than what SC1/2 had
It's the exact opposite of an example where devs just make wacky OP shit with little care for balancing the game
WC3 TFT was pretty much fine out of the box, the tweaks were very small. It was RoC that was an unbalanced mess. And I don't see what sort of a point are you trying to make? Devs got better as they continued to support the game so they improved it? How is that exactly an argument against competent design? They laid a solid foundation and built upon it. Warcraft made blizzard.
>Warcraft made blizzard
WoW killed blizzard
No, wow killed itself, a victim of its own success.
I wasn't making that claim and I'm not the guy you were talking with originally.
I replied to you claiming that the best RTS games are the ones made and I quote "without a thought for balance"
I literally replied that broken balance doesn't work in reality because if you figure out that something is OP then you will either just use only that, leading to less variety, or intentionally ignore using it at which point you just applied your own balance patch
you replied that but WC3 proves me wrong, but it did not, WC3 was always a game with a lot of effort put into balancing it's units
I would love it, but i fear they would panders to e-sport homosexuals too much.
There's another reason why making a new RTS game is unappealing to backers.
RTS games are somewhat unique in that the pillars of the genre, as in the old classics, never really faded away.
I know it got remade twice but AoE2 is still AoE2. and SC2 has been kicking for 13 years now, Broodwar never stopped being popular either.
FPS doesn't have this. Quake is dead, CoD is only relevant to it's latest title.
Sports games, by design tho, are the same. Even fighting games which still see the older games played are influenced by new releases.
the reason is consolgays cant play them
This is also a factor yes for big AAA pubs but there are PC centric pubs.
Hooded Horse has a fricking throbbing erection for smaller, more niche strategy games for example.
Hooded Horse is an underrated publisher. They've been putting out some great stuff lately.
>AoE4
Frick off. It's literally the dullest, most soulless game that was quite literally designed by and for e-sports c**ts.
Look at the major AoE names. All of them still play 2, or even 1. Nobody plays 4 despite how hard they pushed for 4. Even 3 is a better game. Hell, 3 is a good game overall.
>game that was quite literally designed by and for e-sports c**ts.
you people are getting ridiculous with these accusations
how in the frick is it more designed for e-sports than any other AoE
If anything it had far less multiplayer features than what AoE2/3DE had
Probably a split between Whirlwind artillery tank from DoW 1 and the drone cruiser from Homeworld. I love highly specialized units that are incredibly effective in their chosen roles. Honourable mention for the salvage frigate from Homeworld as well, you can't not love those little shits that can steal literally anything. And the Flak 88 gun in Sudden Strike, that thing could kill anything.
Morning Glory.
>dropping a fat nuke general cannon shot right into the GLA player amassing angry mobs
>everyone drops to 0 frames and the USA player disconnects
...mmmmmmMMMMMMMMM
Z A P
Brotherhood
Unity
Peace
total Nod death
Tiberian Sun's atmosphere and unit design is 10/10
I want a remaster but that's such a goddamn monkey's paw because they'd inevitably change shit, misunderstand the atmosphere and design, or frick it up somehow.
The C&C+RA1 remake was loyal to its core, wasn't it?
Wouldn't know, I only got into the series with TibSun and RA2 so I missed out on the originals and never got around to going back and playing them.
these mf'ers always did it for me.
Good choice my boy, oh yes.
I PUT THE LAUGHTER IN SLAUGHTER
Learned to love and fear them on the IG conquest mission. Having your doods pinball around from just 3 cannons firing at them was a nightmare.
Seems like I'm the only one who played Populous:the beginning
Anyway i think budget to profit ratio is a big problem for RTS games.
Also gameplay. Normies don't want to micromanage everything.
I had an idea where your buildings would just automatically produce units for you which meant you still needed to be conscious of your economy but game designers and the (moronic) RTS fans are so sunk into the idea of pressing hotkeys and clicking with the mouse as much as possible as a measure of how good they're playing.
I'm an RTS fan and after spending some time away from the genre and coming back to it to see most of the gameplay look like busywork makes me rethink the staples of the genre.
Played that, but it was ages ago. Fireball throwing dudes in balloons was the shit.
>populous the beginning
Started to replay it along community campaign with Multiverse launcher
Such a blast
this game has custom campaigns?
neat
yeah you go download the launcher here :
https://thebeginning.uk/multiverse/
then once done you go download the campaign on the campaign tab of the website and they will install on the launcher immediatly
Thanks
haven't played the game yet actually, this might finally get me interested
well enjoy then , and believe me , when the website tell you a campaign is difficult they arent laughing , some are fricking brutal
I last played it in like 2000, and besides liked Close Combat 2 better as RTSs go
I was surprised to see AoEIV actually had less automation than Dawn of War, which came out all the way back in 2004 and had the same developer
Overwatch production is completely gone and unit stances are back to AoEII levels
>I had an idea where your buildings would just automatically produce units for you which meant you still needed to be conscious of your economy
I'd instead considered something where units can manage themselves somewhat if left idle.
>Order a squad to a point on the map.
>Forget about them for a minute.
>They automatically seek good cover within a half-screen range.
>Keep ignoring them because you're a normalgay building a pretty simcity base.
>They begin constructing sandbags and digging in without being ordered to.
>An enemy squad comes past and they take injuries.
>A medic unit you've also been ignoring that's nearby automatically moves to the squad and starts patching them up.
>A tank shows up and you don't notice because you're slow even for a normie and distracted reading the flavor text in every tooltip.
>Squad and medic have no anti-tank weapons so they begin falling back towards the nearest anti-tank unit on the map.
Basically the longer a unit has gone without being clicked on the more it begins automatically coordinating with nearby units and reacting to things, to the point a poor player could just build units, order them to the general vicinity of where they want them, and let them handle themselves from there on out.
Able to be toggled at the click of a button on a per-unit or mapwide basis OFC so people who can keep up and know what they're doing don't need to deal with squads acting on their own when it isn't wanted.
Perhaps with an additional system to set general orders the units will take into account: a 'hold this position' marker will make the squad run to the medic at that marker location instead of vice versa, for example, and make the units there less likely to retreat when outnumbered or facing something they're not equipped for, instead rallying other nearby units to that position. Or an 'avoid this point' so they don't run past spots where you know the enemy has shit.
you can almost get a taste of this in multiplayer games like Hell let loose, in that as a commander or squad lead you can be like "squad attack here" and because it's other players they all take care of themselves to achieve a common goal, but following your general direction.
I understand it's completely different, but I too have had your idea and this is the closest real tangible thing I've ever found.
That's neat, but the entire point here isn't the system itself, but a way to make the RTS genre more accessible in entry-level play (Without it being intrusive to or dumbing down things for more advanced players) so that it's less alienating to normalgays and thus more profitable/viable for companies to make RTS games.
Make low APM turtling a really good strategy. Base defenses should be powerful if invested in and should deter cheesy rushes from even higher skilled players.
The pros can still rush/cheese/harass eachother and circlejerk their 2 minute matches while noobs can turtle and amass huge armies that they A+click into eachother for some phat fights
The issue here goes beyond RTS games and game design as a whole and into actual battle tactics.
Initiative wins fights and being a raiding sack of shit that prevents the enemy from ever getting comfortable or establishing themselves is and always will be a preferred tactic.
This isn't an issue that can be fixed easily because it's a basic principle of conflict across literally everything, be it sports, combat or vidya.
The idea is to provide entry level players a set of training wheels that can slowly be taken off as they learn the game and improve in skill, not changing the balance of the genre to pander to their playstyle. This is also why I mention the automation ramping up slowly as units are left idle rather than turning it on full bore immediately at a button click. So they still need to learn to respond to changes on the battlefield, but it narrows how MANY units they need to manage at a given time to the most recently produced/moved ones rather than all of them.
Also occurs to me it'd probably tend to steer them away from the 'select mapwide, move-attack' kinda shit because that would turn automation timers back to zero for every unit, which would hopefully organically get them thinking more in the terms of 'What do I need to use to deal with this' as they should be rather than just throwing everything they have at everything they see.
You wouldn't want it TOO advanced/efficient because if the automated units alone are more effective than they can be when used by a player of average skill there's little incentive to develop that skill instead of just relying completely on the automation. Perhaps I overstated things with 'a shit player can just build units, right click the minimap, and ignore them'.
As neat as this sound you are describing a player driven RTS essentially morphing into a AI run simulation in real time.
I don't think that's possible while also keeping it any kind of fun or engaging tbh.
>AI uses over-engineered stance system
>Player forgets to set "Don't engage enemy" stance and loses his infantry before the medics arrive
>Medics get torn apart
>Tanks arrive with no infantry support and get torn apart
>Player complains online
>Player goes too long without telling his infantry what to do
>Runs back from an advantageous position on a resource to a nearby production building
>Enemy reclaims territory
>Player complains online
>Player sets units to huddle on a set position
>Manually sets them to the correct place
>They don't engage the enemy because they don't know when it would be appropriate
>Idle units do nothing until the enemy's deathball approaches
>Player complains online
>Player uses "General" unit with an AI that does everything for you so long as it's near an army it can command
>General's AI weights are shown on Youtube
>Other player plays, knowing how generals manage units
>General loses
>Player complains online
The problem is just in the community. Veterans will always drive away new players and then wonder why their favorite game hardly has a playerbase.
>Get the frick out of my vidiya board newbie!
You didn't read a thing, did you?
Veterans make content that lets newer players know what they should be doing in a given scenario. They provide comprehensive breakdowns on factions, units, techs, etc. AoE2 is thriving, as usual, because veterans invested in keeping the game alive, even becoming devs for the game, and used third-party platforms to support it.
Not always.
I kinda wonder if the almost universal push to limit player communication to avoid people being mean to one another is part of the problem because it also prevents veterans actually talking to and by extension teaching new players what's up
>Veterans actually talking to and by extension teaching
Not once in my countless hours of AoE/Starcraft and Warcraft skirmishes has this ever happened to me even once. And I'm quite possibly the worst RTS player in the universe.
I doubt the inevitable removing/limiting the chat will really do to much. Or perhaps I just got really unlucky.
>player loses
>player complains
no fricking shit, it's been that way since zoomers got adopted and parented by apple engineers and designers
Complicating things won't make it easier for slow players to manage. It'll just make it more difficult to get the result you want.
Point taken. At the end of the day it's still RTS and the genre certainly isn't for everyone. And there's a LOT of morons out there who will complain online any time they face any kind of adversity rather than looking at what they did wrong and how to learn from that mistake.
Still, one of the biggest barriers to us getting more of them with decent budgets is the learning curve looking more like a learning cliff. They're never gonna have the mass market appeal of many other genres, but that doesn't mean they can't have a broader appeal than they do now without ending up completely casualized in the process.
Anon, people don't want to watch 40 hours of youtube and read an encyclopedia before launching the game. The only people who'll engage with that are the ones who are already invested in the genre.
This kind of instruction should be built into the game itself, ideally in a way that teaches organically, not lazy ass infodump popups
>Still, one of the biggest barriers to us getting more of them with decent budgets is the learning curve looking more like a learning cliff.
>Anon, people don't want to watch 40 hours of youtube and read an encyclopedia before launching the game.
AoE2 can be learned quickly. It has a very well-designed tutorial made to prepare people for multiplayer, with supplementary material for anyone curious. SotL IS AoE2's biggest marketer, easily, so no, it's not an issue of it being too difficult to learn.
>just study 60 hours of SotL hidden game mechanics and spreadsheets so you can get a better understanding of when to engage with your crossbows!
>how to survive to crossbows? Well just study 60 hours of SotL "first 15 minutes" editions for each race so you can get a better idea of how to advance from Dark Age to Castle and further...
anon you picked a game with a frickyouhuge amount of content and hidden mechanics, just stop being so fricking autistic and understand people aren't like you
SotL's content was popular before he ever looked at MP. Just making civ overviews was enough so people could decide which civ they wanted to waffle about in low-elo unranked play with.
You don't have to know any of that to start with the game, and it's easy to play casually. Learning the fundamentals, however, will make you a better player, and you have plenty of resources to learn with.
Long time AoE2 player here, what the frick is SotL?
Spirit of the Law. The guy who makes civ overview videos.
I'm talking about the genre as a whole, not a single instance. Besides which, a tutorial can't do everything, no matter how well designed. You don't go from attack-moving a couple units or a muderblob around the map to good situational awareness of multiple groups and the battlefield as a whole by playing a tutorial. That requires experience and for the game to be enjoyable at your level while you're getting that experience.
Keep in mind I'm approaching this from the perspective of finding ways to make RTS games an appealing experience to people who may have never played one in their life before and making it easier for them to stick with it as their skill grows, assuming they're the type of person who will end up enjoying them if they give them the chance instead of being driven off in frustration early on.
>Besides which, a tutorial can't do everything, no matter how well designed. You don't go from attack-moving a couple units or a muderblob around the map to good situational awareness of multiple groups and the battlefield as a whole by playing a tutorial.
That's what skirmishing and unranked are for.
>That requires experience and for the game to be enjoyable at your level while you're getting that experience.
No, you're thinking of how you "win". You can enjoy the game, even if you're on the losing side of a moronic slapfight.
>That's what skirmishing and unranked are for.
Yes. I never said anything at all about multiplayer exclusively, much less ranked multiplayer.
>You can enjoy the game, even if you're on the losing side of a moronic slapfight.
Unfortunately this simply isn't true for a lot of people. They don't enjoy losing. Not much that can be done about that.
Personally I usually see it as an opportunity to learn from whoever's kicking my ass, but pretty sure people like that are a minority.
>Unfortunately this simply isn't true for a lot of people. They don't enjoy losing. Not much that can be done about that.
Then play with the dumber AI for a bit.
reminds me of Zero-K and BAR with a bit of Men of War
honestly, Zero-K has most of these
like you can set areas for fall back zones and set stance for units to retreat on given percent of HP
there are also auto repair zones for engineers, units also try to juke out shots without autistic high APM micro, they try to not overkill enemy targets, like if there are three units that can kill a target with one shots, then only one will fire
Huh, never even heard of zero-K before.
At a glance, looks like it's the kinda game full of experimental gameplay shit that I absolutely love but never seem to find anymore. Definitely gonna check it out, thanks anon.
sadly it has never been too popular and been on a decline in the past years especially with BAR being the new fancy thing out there nowadays
but it's still a very good game, one of my favorite RTS games
I could give less of a shit how popular it is, I just love anything that tries something that hasn't already been done by a hundred other games before it.
BAR is pretty good tho
You want to play Graviteam, but with base building instead of a turmbased campaign map.
People still thinking this is something I wanna play and not a half baked ideaguy about how to make RTS more accessible in a semi-decent way.
Still, why can't I hold all these gamerecs.
Tooth and Tail has that system, just finished it.
Total goyim death
I like that game.
Also Battle Realms did a similar thing with Peasant alchemy.
RTS is a shit anachronistic genre for morons that is rightfully dead and buried with RTT replacing it almost entirely.
Sudden Strike, Dawn of War 2, Mech Commander, Company of Heroes, Total War battles > Starcraft, Supreme Commander, Warcraft, Red Alert and all other move-attack nobrain asiatic clicker dogshit.
>What's your favourite RTS unit?
>not blademaster and his silly japanese accent
TASTA MAI BUREID
*dying peasant noises*
THERE GOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
Honestly how can you not love a manically cackling walking hiroshima.
Love those Black folk.
>casually is the best TMD in the game
>casually gets stuck on the stairs
vrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Vince had the funnest units, but I liked that elite guard unit the most. An infantry unit with a charge attack.
RTS threads prove how casual Ganker is
And for me it's the baneling
If you know you know.
READY TO ROLL OUT
Yo since when did they make a sequel to the War Planets RTS?
I love these little dudes.
I'LL MAKE THE SACRIFICE
>will RTS have a comeback someday?
soon
it's okay, but feels a bit sluggish and slow
I also don't like losing control over units like how melee engagement works
>Sigmarines
>comeback
More like hack-fraud-redcon to sell more plastic to manchildren.
They learn their mistake the first time, they just need to force it again, but doing so like they did with the primaris.
And they can still just frick themself. They and their gay ass heresy Marines they pumped out of the ass of a fricking Heretic. Anybody who buys into the "modernized" Marines, Sigmar or not, is a mouth breather not understanding they erode the fundamentals of their game. It shows they can just redcon everything they ever wrote or made and people still buy into it. This results in the last bit of meaning the hobby had is just replaced by empty consumerism.
>Helljumpers, in the tubes
Played it, its shit
It sucks
this poor game is DoA, it's so fricking slow and the AI is braindead
I really wish devs would just make RTS games with KB+M in mind even if they want to release their games for consoles. Modern consoles support KB+M already, and they could still add pad controls like AoE2DE has, with the game doing some of the microing for you.
Making RTS with controllers in mind from the getgo just ruins every longetivity they could have. Will check this game out since I'm desperate for good looking RTS games but I don't expect more than a single campaign playthrough from it.
I just wish they had copied HW2, but after playing the demo, I think the game is a disaster regardless of how it controls.
>Order faction is Stormcast, the most bland option they could go with. Even Lumineth would have been more interesting.
>Destruction faction is Kruleboys instead of proper Orcs
>Death faction is Nighthaunt. Not a bad choice but Ossiarchs would have been better
>Chaos faction is Tzeentch, probably the only good decision in terms of faction choice
>Set in Ghur, the ugliest and arguably one of the more boring Realms
>Gameplay is screwy and made for consoles. Units in melee can't take any orders besides falling back, units feel slow and clunky, attacks don't feel responsive
It's a bit disappointing all around.
No, RTS is "dead". They don't have mass appeal and they can't leverage 3D graphics to dazzle casual consumers into thinking they're cool. Deal with it and enjoy your games.
Black arrow go brrr
?list=PLCF6ACD0618F0879D
Grandiose game. I hope we will never get a remake.
A simple boy, cheap boy, but he gets the Job done.
is this coh2?
NTA but yeah
Tough choice between Dwarf Guardians from bfme2 and Attack Trolls from the same
God i loved that game, frick EA for making it unavailable forever
There is still BFME reforged that exist, a small community that try to keep the game available while giving a way to get the game for free.
Shit ive gotta look into this, bfme 1 and 2 were my favorite childhood games and started me on pc gaming just for them
https://www.gamereplays.org/community/index.php?showtopic=1000430
I got this link from a similar RTS thread ages ago.
There is a french and a english website, i know the french have the installation/key cd/etc.. for the game, reforged is still in developpement but it want to be a big overhaul of the game, up to date graphism, new units, and more, but if you just want to game as it was you can download it there https://www.laterredumilieu.fr/tuto/bfme
Thank you so much fellas, cant wait to play war of the ring again
New RTS games will always have trouble because they're competing with AoE2 and SC2.
Imagine having to make a new game with 43+ factions, stellar balance, and art using a style that fell out of fashion 20+ years ago, before most online tutorials were made.
>43+ factions
You say that as if the "factions" in AoE has the same asymmetry as Sc2. When in fact it's just copy-pasted with 5% here and 10% there in differences.
Zoomer spotted. Symmetrical faction design is ideal for games.
Symmetrical factions are fricking boring.
Starcraft, Warcraft 3, Dawn of War, C&C Red Alert 2 and C&C Generals are all really fun RTSes that, in part, are fun because the factions are so different.
t. Someone who gives zero fricks about multiplayer
>Symmetrical factions are fricking boring.
ZOOMER
OUT
>t. Someone who gives zero fricks about multiplayer
How do you confidently type that like you aren't showing off the shit in your diaper?
>More content is nice, but copy-paste is lazy shit.
And if you knew anything about AoE2 civ design, you'd know it's not "Copy-and-paste". They've diluted all of the "Special" features and differences you'd see in an asymmetric title down to the things that matter, so they can be easily communicated.
You cannot compare Spanish with Bengalis or Khmer with Cumans. Even though the civs look similar, they have drastically different gameplans, builds, and progressions throughout a match.
This surface level, "They're all the same" talk comes from genuine idiots who need sparkles to guide them through a product.
>How do you confidently type that like you aren't showing off the shit in your diaper?
Because the roots of RTS are in their single player campaigns, and not the multiplayer.
>Because the roots of RTS are in their single player campaigns
RTS is essentially just a control scheme and camera angle. It's not rooted in SP or MP, but SP campaigns are crippled by the opponent's inability to play the game. It only becomes a proper game when there are two players facing each other.
If nobody plays its multiplayer, then it's a failure as a game.
>If nobody plays its multiplayer, then it's a failure as a game.
I find it incredibly funny that someone who calls others zoomers has the audacity to type a sentence like this. Holy shit I haven't seen a worse opinion in ages.
Honest truth. It's why Mahjong is still one of the best games around. People actually play it. Not just a few pre-made hands as "puzzles" you can look up the answers to in 5 minutes, but an actual game with strategy, counterplay, and a pseudo-religious layer of strategy that amounts to using hype itself as a weapon.
>If nobody plays its multiplayer, then it's a failure as a game.
Wew lad, is that your genuine opinion or are you just baiting us?
Friendly reminder that the most consistently successful big-budget RTS-like series still chugging along in the current day is the one that throws balance completely out the window, goes all-in on factions being wildly different from each other, and frickall nobody plays the multiplayer.
this
The renaissance for the genre will come when everyone finally realizes that the real audience for RTS is autistic people painting maps, not sweaty nerds.
>And if you knew anything about AoE2 civ design
Perfectly willing to concede that I absolutely do not. But I'm typically more interested in the individual units/buildings/play in terms of both visual and mechanical variety, not in the autistic meta spreadsheet stuff. Only time I care about that is when I get very, very into a game, and AOE2's large amount of what seem to me to be mostly interchangeable factions is one of the big things that prevented it from being such a game.
So, you refuse to open your eyes to the vast differences between factions because you're not already aware of their differences?
Is this bait?
M8 I'm not saying it's a bad game, I'm saying it's not the type of faction design that appeals to me personally, and that prevents me from appreciating it on the level you clearly do.
You know different people can have different taste, right?
That's fine. I misread you.
I have nothing against civs that only do small but meaningful changes, but most AoE2 civs differences are so fricking underutilized because of the game's balance, the civs almost always just end up being about spamming the same generic units (mostly archers and knights) with only minimal changes in power spike timings.
like I would be all over maining War Elephants and trashbows with persians, but in reality you will be just spamming knights with them
it would be cool to make some Serjant/Donjon build with Sicilians, but again, in reality you will be just spamming knights.
It would be cool to make a slow moving teutonic knight army, or swarm the enemy with karambit warriors zerg rush stlye, but shit doesn't work, you will just make knights/archers
etc.
devs are affraid of meaningfully buffing anything that would shake the game's archer/knight oriented meta
but anon the intense micro involved with getting the most out of those units is so engaging!
>the civs almost always just end up being about spamming the same generic units (mostly archers and knights) with only minimal changes in power spike timings.
And you have the other tools to reverse momentum. You want to spam power options if your opponent lets you get away with doing so, but if you play knight spam into Hindustanis, you'll be destroyed. If you try to run an archer-heavy comp when your enemy walled off and then made mangonels, you'll have a rough time.
>like I would be all over maining War Elephants and trashbows with persians, but in reality you will be just spamming knights with them
Yeah, because Persians are a cavalry civ with top-tier Paladins. War elephants and trashbows are supporting units you use to push in against archers and infantry, respectively.
>it would be cool to make some Serjant/Donjon build with Sicilians, but again, in reality you will be just spamming knights.
One of the recent meta-breakers was a Serjeant spam build. It's an easy escalator to 2k+, just playing Sicilians with their version of a Hoang.
>It would be cool to make a slow moving teutonic knight army, or swarm the enemy with karambit warriors zerg rush stlye, but shit doesn't work
Of course those don't work. Teutonic knights are a defensive option to stop Paladin and Champion charges, and Karambits are an aggressive trash-breaker. Both are better-off using barracks infantry to push.
>devs are affraid of meaningfully buffing anything that would shake the game's archer/knight oriented meta
You say that, but Hindustanis and Gurjaras were at the top of the ladder until recently, and Romans are currently the best civ in the game.
I won't reply individually to every point but will generally say this that's true to pretty much all your points
a unit that is only viable very rarely is not a well designed/balanced unit, especially if it's clearly meant to fill a popular power fantasy role
I don't care how "but there was this one moment where all the stars aligned and someone could actually make a couple War Elephants work", when this shit just isn't how overwhelming majority of your matches will play. You will pick into Persians and over 9/10 times you will be spamming knights. This is how most unique units or even basic militia line works in AoE2.
having to evaluate your options is cool, but most of the time the situation doesn't even come close to you having to do this, because knights/archers are just so overwhelmingly better choices for most situations. This shit isn't good balance.
>a unit that is only viable very rarely is not a well designed/balanced unit, especially if it's clearly meant to fill a popular power fantasy role
It's not that it's "rarely viable". It's that you actually have to pressure your opponent into making the choices that lead to that unit being used. If you want to use trashbows, rush with knights. If you want to use War Elephants, use light cav/cav archer or camels during the midgame. If you want to use teutonic knights, build a siege workshop. If you want to use Karambits, play M@A-skirm or rush with battle elephants and support with siege.
>having to evaluate your options is cool, but most of the time the situation doesn't even come close to you having to do this, because knights/archers are just so overwhelmingly better choices for most situations.
This is false. You do have to respond to things your opponent does, and you will have to condition their responses to win.
>why the frick infantry civs in general shouldn't have this same option of militia line being viable to them midgame
Because the entire Malian civ is a Castle-age powerspike. Everything falls off in the lategame. That's their identity.
>then give that one civ a buff against infantry if this is an issue
Not just one. Anyone missing both Arb and Bracer now deals exactly 1 damage to FU Champs with your suggestion. Even being limited to 4 is palpable. Archers are the bespoke counter to infantry for anyone lacking hand cannoneers, and certain matchups get absolutely ruined by this.
More importantly, this is just a dumb way to buff infantry. They have a momentum issue because longswords and unupgraded spears get crushed by knights, and their utility is unclear, not because they need even more resistance to archer fire.
I bet you are one of those apologists who keep saying how it's just impossible to buff militia because then they would break the game
then the devs release like 6 fricking buffs through the course of the next couple of years and they are still fricking shit, rinse and repeat
>I bet you are one of those apologists who keep saying how it's just impossible to buff militia because then they would break the game
Wrong. I also wanted buffs, just indirect ones to better suit their use as an offensive supporting unit.
Teutonic knights are also supposed to be used to smash defensive buildings, castles, etc.
They come out too late to be used against towers, and actually attacking a castle with infantry is such a hassle, especially once murder holes is researched, that you'll, in 95% of cases, be better off playing trebs instead.
It's what their bonuses are for, I don't personally prefer them. Incidentally, I believe they're supposed to be supported by siege weapons. They're really slow, but they're strong.
>It's what their bonuses are for
None of their bonuses point me in the direction of Teutonic knights being used to fight enemy defensive structures. They have the same problem rams do, in that they get crushed by mangonels effortlessly, and can't take out units trying to kill them.
>Incidentally, I believe they're supposed to be supported by siege weapons. They're really slow, but they're strong.
It's the other way. They support siege weapons very well.
>it would be cool to make some Serjant/Donjon build with Sicilians, but again, in reality you will be just spamming knights.
>He doesn't know about YouPudding upsetting the entire meta of the game overnight
AoE2 factions are certainly not interchangeable, albeit the differences are not as extreme as something like in WC3. No archer faction for instance plays the same. Some have better options from feudal starting onwards, other only really in the late game. Some have good infantry to complement them, others have better cav. Different economic bonuses, tanky archers, faster archers, cheap archers, good or bad defenses, good or bad water - there is a lot. Purely from a mechanical standpoint, they might seem the same, everyone gets most of the same buildings and most of the same unit types, and you can play them relatively the same. But if you really dig deeper, then there is a lot to uncover.
Guess what AoE2's campaigns are fun as well.
I'm on the fence about symmetric or asymmetric faction design, but a well-made campaign is simply fun because it's well-made.
More content is nice, but copy-paste is lazy shit.
Would rather have 5 factions that all have unique units than 50 that are 90% identical myself.
And SupcomFA shits all over both of them
I have never once seen a MP match for that game, and SupCom fanatics on /vst/ lose it when you suggest MP is a usable gauge for a game's quality.
I liked CoH but I am so fricking sick of everything being CoH now.
This guy. I'm not sure why the tanker is Russian in hw2 but still cool.
Are there any other RTSs that have a PVE mode like skirmish? I'm ultra casual and don't really want to put 400 hours in mp to be able to play a game.
Very nice gentlemen, very nice. But I noticed you posted the wrong photo by accident
>I'm not sure why the tanker is Russian in hw2 but still cool.
I can take a pretty good guess at it.
The mecha from Metal Fatigue
>What's your favourite RTS unit?
pic rel
>Also will RTS have a comeback someday?
no ppl are too dumb for it these days
To this day I still have nightmares of their impossibly accurate shots.
>shells literally unavoidable homing on your units
>does enough damage to kill inf in 1 shot
>can prevent you from building because of cratering
Even after the nerfs in the Firestorm expansion they were on the best units in the game
Is that a TibSun reskin mod, or just someone's little art project?
Tiberian Odyssey IIRC
is that the artillery from TS that left a hole in the ground so you couldnt build there anymore?
yes
I rather liked the Tempest Rising demo.
Pathfinding could and did get a bit stinky on longer move orders but overall I felt it was a pretty solid C&C homage.
>those tier 3 uef walkers with rocket pods
>those anti-air launchers on the ex submarine
They really been cutting content back even then, huh?
-The Cybran sACU has 3 torpedo launchers on its stomach called Dart01, Dart02, and Dart03, two engineering beam muzzles on its chest called Reclaim01 and Reclaim02, jetpack called Rez_Protocol with two exhaust bones connected to it, and that the AA gun is actually a tactical missile defense turret.
-The UEF sACU has a jetpack that is visible when you upgrade it with the jammer, but that jetpack has an exhaust bone. The thing on its left shoulder opposite the engineering pod is a SAM launcher that is never used as a weapon.
-The Aeon sACU's 'turbine' backpack also has an exhaust bone pointing downward and a tactical missile launcher muzzle on the top.
-The Seraphim sACU has no unused bones.
-The Cybran ACU has no unused bones, either, but it does have an unused personal shield mesh definition file in its file folder.
-The UEF ACU has no unused bones.
-The Aeon ACU has no unused bones.
-The Seraphim ACU has an unused shield mesh its folder.
-The UEF destroyer has bones for an additional AA turret on the rear platform, that has no skin, and is unused and invisible.
-Most of you already know that the UEF atlantis has attach points for pop-out SAM launchers that were removed from the game, but it also has an additional two attach points the top-rear platform behind the loading doors that are also unused.
-The UEF battleship and nuclear sub both have unused torpedo launcher bones.
-The UEF spy plane has an unused sonar buoy launcher bone, just look at its script file for developer commentary.
-The Cybran mantis script has an iridium rocket launcher backpack commented out of its code.
-The Cybran strategic bomber has TWO bomb dropping bones, the second is unused.
-The UEF frigate has three unused vertical missile launcher bones on its stern.
-The Aeon destroyer has a total of 9(!) torpedo/depth charge launching bones, 4 on each side and 1 on the back, and only 4 of the side ones are used.
-The Aeon Frigate has an additional torpedo defence launcher bone that is not in used in FA.
-The Aeon and Cybran sub hunters have two additional anti-torpedo launcher bones each that are not used.
-The UEF titan siege assault bot still has Flayer SAM and a missile launcher weapon loaded in its script, even though the missile rack backpack was removed in the demo.
-The two back ramps on the Seraphim quantum gate have no unit-traversable elevated platforms in their .bp files, and I have not been able to add any in.
-The AdjacencyBuff definition file has a typo in it so that only T1 power generators (not hydrocarbon plants because it uses the same buff list as T2 power generators) can provide adjacency related fire rate bonuses. This can be fixed easily by simply adding the buff names to the respective buff lists.
-The Novax station was originally supposed to have its two animations played on different events. Now they are both played on launching it's one satellite, but originally it would play one animation while building the satellite and one while launching it.
-The Aeon AA gunship missile launcher bones are ACTUALLY supposed to be quantum fizz flak guns. This becomes apparent when comparing them to the Czar flak turrets, which are exactly the same. Changing the missiles to flak pulses might help with balancing it, too.
-The Aeon cruiser's two zealot missile turrets are set 'Turret = false', but have turret yaw and pitch coded in as if they were originally supposed to track targets like on the launchers on the Aeon carrier. When 'Turret = true', the firing tolerance must be increased by at least 50 degrees because the turrets have such a small swivel range.
-The Czar missile launcher turrets, according to the Czar script, were originally supposed to be sonic pulse batteries. The even have turret yaw and pitch rates/ranges coded in the .bp, but 'Turret' is set to 'false'.
-The Aeon Galactic colossus has two AttachSpecial bones under animation bone armor plates on its shoulders in addition to an unused 'Projectile' bone in its chest. More interestingly, however, is a now unusable script that was commented out by the devs that would have the galactic colossus's death explosion throw its bones (arms, chest, eye, tractor claws, etc.) all over the place, dismembering it. I added the script back in, however, and it doesn't work anymore, presumably because the file that handled this feature was removed.
-The reason all anti-aircraft weapons are more accurate in Forged Alliance compared to vanilla Supcom is that all aircraft have larger, spherical hitboxes instead of their original small, box shaped hitboxes.
-In 'luauihelpunitdescription.lua' there are help texts for units drl0102, the Cybran light naval unit 'Sleeper' spy sub, and dab2102, the Aeon tech 1 'Offering' gatling mortar station. Both of these units only exist in the Xbox 360 version of vanilla Supcom.
What the frick are you doing?
You can count on Osttruppen... No, really you can!
I love the spider monkey like you wouldn't believe.
>the amount of hoops i had to go through to make Total Annihilation work properly on my system
i had games from 1990 start easier than this.
Luv me arty doctrine
Luv me spotters
Simple as'
TA commanders.
RTS can't make a comeback because "RTS fans" don't agree on what they like and most of them won't play anything new. At best you'll get a good remake of an old game everyone has nostalgia for.
I want something like Dow Ultimate Apocalypse, big army of soldiers, tanks, big robots, base building, stupid and hilarous end game building/units.
>Dow Ultimate Apocalypse
I guess Total War 40k filled that niche. Too bad Creative Assembly an heroed.
>Total War 40k
Maybe it would have, but i really like the base building element, which the total wars don't have, but nonetheless a total war 40k would have been a dream.
>Total war 40k
I could have seen CA making a 40k game but it wouldn't have been Total war.
Total war is all about formation warfare, 40k is loose squads.
It's just that shit producers in pursuit of trends have completely forgotten their father's face.
No one wants to just make a good, good game that you'll want to play over and over again. The industry has finally sunk into multiplayer cancer and the attempt to squeeze an extra penny from the player.
>It's just that shit producers in pursuit of trends have completely forgotten their father's face.
The investor in black fled across the desert, and the Gankerirgin followed.
>The industry has finally sunk into multiplayer cancer
where the frick did this actual shitty meme come from
There's the big guy.
Too bad they're not as epic in the game.
I wish there more factions like the Zerg/Undead from blizzards games because it's cool as frick
Ones that visual and mechanically "spread" across the map. Only other game I can think off that did something similar is Armies of Exigo and was straight up a warcraft clone.
>Deletes your squads
was fun sabotaging bases early game with laser cheese
God I fricking loved the Men of War 2 Beta, setting up (dynamic) interlaced and supporting trench lines, dropping HMG's into overlapping fields of fire, units moving to actually do their job in the trench without ten billion bits of micro, the pathfinding making them USE the cover I gave them while they move up. AT troops crouchwalking in their trenches slowly towards the closest point to an enemy vehicle as it comes nearer only to pop up just when needed.
Actually being able to use Field Guns and AT guns because they already come with their prime movers attached and ready to tow from the second you spawn them. The only thing I didn't like was that the invite and party system was buggy as frick. I can't fricking wait for the release man. It feels so good to finally enjoy one of these games online without something ruining it.
Ex-RTS enjoyer here.
No they won't come back. MOBA's ate the whole, are more focused on teams, and are infinitely easier to control and understand. There's a reason they died out and won't ever come back, a butterfly cannot turn back into a caterpillar.
>are more focused on teams
Weird, that's not how the average MOBA player seems to see it.
Love those lil homies. Extremely mobile, strong against tanks, have shields and can regenerate health, all for a relatively low cost.
It's a shame Battle for Dune is not as well known as most CnC titles, though I can see why.
>Also will RTS have a comeback someday?
No AAA studio will dare to pick up the genre because it's pretty fricking hard and expensive to make a good RTS, not to mention scattered tastes of genre fans. However I've seen some small indie projects with potential, namely DORF(made with a heavily modified openRA) and Dust Front(I heard it was developed by a single guy for like 10 years).
And if you want to frick around, there are always old obscure RTS that can be fun and unique in their own ways, plenty of cool mods, and people still make custom maps and campaigns for Warcraft 3
Is this modded TS
Yes, but I don't know what mod. Doesn't matter though, TS mods never get finished.
figures
>our nucular missile is ready, general
the nuke tank from C&C generals
I had hoped the Tiberian Sun games would have gotten the same treatment as the C&C remasters.
I doubt RTS will return unless the formulas sees some changes. Multiplayer just isn't fun and devs arent willing to focus fully on single player.
RTS is an 'everything but the kitchen sink' genre where you, the player, handle everything, and that filters most people. Nowadays, both players and devs prefer games with tighter focus on fewer elements, which might alsobe more fleshed out than in a conventional RTS. These new genres include tower defense, idle games, factory management, or autobattlers.
>spent much of my childhood just spamming swordsman in AoE2
>they were the coolest because they had the most amount of upgrades and it was just cool to swarm the enemies using them
>DE comes out and it looks great, finally decide to get into the game's multiplayer
>turns out swordsman were always fricking horrible and are only ever used in rare ultra specific circumstances
why are the devs so affraid of making these bad boys actually viable
>why are the devs so affraid of making these bad boys actually viable
Because their only counters are gold units. An infantry meta would be difficult to penetrate.
that's bullshit tho. A unit doesn't necessarily need a trash hard counter, it's enough if you have multiple units that counter it decently enough. Swordsman also have other weaknesses compared to cavalry, like being worse at raiding.
you can't convince me that giving +1 pierce armor would break them when there is literally a civ with +3 FREE pierce armor to them and they still don't use swordsman over archers/knights.
>that's bullshit tho. A unit doesn't necessarily need a trash hard counter, it's enough if you have multiple units that counter it decently enough.
Anon, how would a Spanish player deal with massed Burmese longswords if they had, say, +3 bonus damage against knights?
>you can't convince me that giving +1 pierce armor would break them when there is literally a civ with +3 FREE pierce armor to them and they still don't use swordsman over archers/knights.
Malian midgame longswords have always been a strong TC-buster. No one contests this. They just have the widest variety of options in the midgame, and the combination of units is much better for them than unit spam.
> the combination of units is much better for them than unit spam.
why the frick infantry civs in general shouldn't have this same option of militia line being viable to them midgame
>but it would be bad unfair against this one civ
then give that one civ a buff against infantry if this is an issue
>interlacing in 2023
Hyperion II from Empire Earth.
Could walk over mountains and through the ocean and was both tanky and strong. If I got into lategame I spammed him and flanked the enemy.
I love these warbly-voiced bastards
>Being here is but a PHaassseEE of our existance
well where the frick is this?
>age of mythology with wokeified story
Why would you want this?
it's supposedly the same game in AoE 3 engine and I liked AoE 3 as well so that's why.
>supposedly
In other words it isn't.
why the frick does this remake attract so many complaining alt-rightcel posters every frickign time
I mean one of the protagonists of the game is already a nubian black woman and the egyptains already had a pretty dark skin tone. Are you literally paranoid that devs will remake the game faithfully or what?
Why are you bringing up random nonwhite characters that exist in the game?
after the trashpile were were given I have no excitement for it knowing there are still some of the same people working on it
You are talking about the Chinese expansion? we don't talk about that.
we can't not talk about that if anyone wants to talk about retold because the same people are involved thus there is no hope from anyone who has been paying attention
>same people are involved
Is it though? the developers weren't named.
They were in some press release.
Forgotten Empires (them) is doing the content.
Tantalus (AoE3DE) is doing tech support for the engine.
>Forgotten Empires
Isn't it worlds edge LLC who's incharge? I am worried if it is headed by forgotten empires though.
That's hard to believe how did Microsoft not terminate them because of how poorly the DLC was made and received.
PROSTAGMA MOTHERFRICKERS
~~*Retold*~~
What's the one with the most fun campaign?
Warzone 2100 looks kinda interesting
Down of War Winter Assault I HATE MISSION 4
>claims to start an RTS thread
>posts literally one of the worst RTS games I have EVER PLAYED. Even armies of Exigo was WAY more interesting.
>whats that? you wanna scout every gold mine for enemies and tank every fight for just a lil mana?
war 3 huntress
love my nelves (i want to have sex with them)
my favorite rts is pikmin. second favorite is warcraft 3. third favorite is starcraft.
THE SLEEPER AWAKES
Why do you want RTSs to "have a comeback" just so it can get injected with the same bullshit that's in the more mainstream genres? Seeing what's happening to CRPGs is absolutely something I don't want for RTSs and I'm fine with them not being mainstream.
>why do you want new games instead of no games
New RTS games do come out, though. It just turns out the people who care enough about RTS games are the ones that search them out. Same with tactics based games and others.
always bugged me that these things only had one cannon
I'm the instrument of Kargoths will!
>Dark Colony
Mein Black person. Total Grey death.
Siege Tanks in SC2
>many fans of WBC series
>none of you admit to cranking your dick to Balora
Wood elf general the Dryad was much better
These nightmares.
>Also will RTS have a comeback someday?
As a SupCom fan, this looks pretty promising:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1699050/Sanctuary_Shattered_Sun/
prostagma?
>a minatour to lead the unit
>8 hoplites
>archers
>ctrl 1
yeap, its gaming time
Minotaurs were so fun to use, throw a bunch at the enemy infantry and just watch them fly.
*enemy infantry bounces to death*
eisvoli!
I really wish the mini heroes like perseus, etc were more useful and had better specials.
It's a tie between Dreadlord and Lich.
I genuinely believed that the future of RTS games was going to be a Real Time Tactics game in the vein of World in Conflict and/or Wargame series
I felt like it was only a matter of time for someone to 'crack' the formula and it was going to be a huge hit like DOTA / LOL was
I thought this because it seemed to me that the pure focus on combat with no base building made it much more streamlined, and the larger scale and variety of units possible added a lot of fun variety and replayability
I guess it is still possible but
>We never got a WiC sequel and WiC was too simple in its unit design to really take off
>Wargame series too autistic and controls are too clunky for mass audience
>Eugen are insanely incompetent and fricked up their own formula massively since WG:RD, having not released a sequel in 10 years, and the current spiritual successor Warno is just not very fun
>All the other imitators (i.e. Regiments) are also horrible
I guess Broken Arrow could still be 'it' but I think it's over, who knows
>pure focus on combat with no base building
That's where things went wrong. RTS without base building isn't even an RTS game anymore. Total war is the closest thing to RTS successors right now although the building management is separate from the RTS battles.
Why didn't anyone copy TW in that regard other than mostly RPGs such as Age of Wonders and the like?
Because any RTS game is pretty much a niche centric game. even historic total war is missing more than hitting these days too.
>age of wonders
It caters to a different group of players. 4X games focus more on management than battles.
I used AoW as an example because of 4X building with a separate context for battles, a bunch of others in the genre just do battles automatically on the same map.
I don't know, some games are better that way due to their pacing and focus. I wouldn't have liked RTS battles in HoMM3.
>eugen
eugen really could have had it all if they had made a really good wargame sequel after red dragon
they were on a roll and had a cult classic hit
if they had taken their time, gotten it right, and made a new wargame with a really good single player, custom map / game mode / mod tools, lots of new content, and made the controls work, i think it could have been huge
eugen is moronic though so that didn't happen
eugen fanboys are the biggest morons on the planet, only blizzdrones are worse
imagine being abused by a company and giving them money when their last good product is 10 years old lmao
>I genuinely believed that the future of RTS games was going to be a Real Time Tactics game in the vein of World in Conflict and/or Wargame series
The biggest weakness of RTS games is that controlling armies in real-time is difficult and imprecise
Traditional RTS games mitigate this by giving you a base and allowing you to build units, which means you have a continous supply of a small amount of units to control, and micromanagement mistakes aren't the end of the game because you can always build more
Anyone who thought that removing bases and switching the focus to pure micro was a good idea doesn't get RTS
this is just straight up wrong, you're moronic lol
base-building, economy, and resource mechanics have never and were never about 'mitigating the imprecision of controlling armies'. name one game, name one developer, who ever said they did that. give one example of that being the case. prove that. you cant.
you are straight up so moronic you should stop posting
if anything, the RTT sub-genre makes controlling armies easier by not having to have you constantly cycle between base management, production building management, and army management / fighting.
and, you imply there that you cant make more units in an RTT game. you imply that by saying 'traditional rts games mitigate this by allowing you to build units.'
in WiC you have infinite units, they just are on cooldowns / have point costs. in the wargame series, units are not infinite but you can make trade-offs of how many / type of units to bring.
did you even consider that? is your brain capable of even conceptualizing that? do you literally have the IQ capable of imagining an RTS game with no base building where the units are not hard-limited?
jesus, what a moronic post.
I didn't say they did it intentionally, maybe they did or maybe they didn't, but that's why the RTS formula worked
"Base management" in RTS games isn't really a thing, you don't need to micro your base much
If you have a continuous supply of units then it's not an RTT game, it's just an RTS game
The mistake here is conflating 2 entirely different genres just because they have a similar camera and control scheme, RTTs are their own thing; they focus on the tactical level of war, where positioning, facing, small changes in terrain have a meaningful impact in the outcome of engagements.
Their lineage comes from games like the Myth series, Close Combat, Men of war, Commandos etc.
There's no mistake or misunderstanding here, my post is very clear - I was saying that I believed at one point that the RTT sub-genre was going to become the most popular / most dominant form of strategy game, usurping the traditional base-building RTS
I was wrong about that as I say, but there's no 'confusion' here, I know exactly what each genre is
Commandos and Men of War are completely different genres
Men of War is what I'd call an RTT and suffers from the problems I talked about
Commandos is basically a stealth game
Men of war gives you a steady stream of reinforcements, so you are wrong about that and Commandos is just a RTT with stealth focus.
Mortar team in WC3
>Yes I will bomb your base to shit and zeppelin away
>Also will RTS have a comeback someday?
no
too niche and too expensive
it is possible to make a nice, trimmed down low budget one, but rts players wouldn't touch it
they can keep playing C&C Generals or WC2 for the next 4 decades until death
>expensive
top-down games are way cheaper to make than third of first person games
oi c**t. nice castle you've got there
let it BURN
Juggernauts couldn't keep up with the power of Nod artillery but still they looked cool as frick
nobody mentioned dr yet?
This is what started it all for me. I think the factions/visual design was top notch. I enjoyed this game way more than SC. Get me some of them Triple Rail Hover Tanks!
Tiberian Sun was peak design for Command and Conquer aesthetically
aesthetically, gameplay wise it was one of the weakest in the classic run.
Definitely weak for gameplay but they captured a very strong atmosphere in that game and I am baffled to this day that they did not continue to expand upon it. C&C 3 had no reason not to go 200% all in on this yet they abandoned it instead
>I am baffled to this day that they did not continue to expand upon it.
Nobody liked it
TS ended Westwood
Nobody liked this? Can I get some evidence for that
Now you're posting RA2, which people did like
both of these games were released around a similar time with similar visuals, specifically the lighting as shown in the two pics above
Tiberian Sun killed Westwood, the company got bought by EA and most of the employees left. RA2 was made by a different team
Tiberian Sun sold well because it was the followup to C&C, but it caused a lot of problems for the studio (I can't recall what they were) and it wasn't recieved well, people preferred the modern military asethetic of C&C to the sci-fi channel one. The game was also full of terrible gameplay ideas
>, the company got bought by EA and most of the employees left. RA2 was made by a different team
Fanfiction. Tibsun and RA 2 were published by EA after they were acquired by them in 1998.
TS was made by the original Westwood team that made C&C and RA
RA2 was developed by a new team, with Dustin Browder, which would go onto become EA LA
>Tiberian Sun killed Westwood
Nope. Command and conquer renegades ended Westwood.
>conflict of interest? no, i've got an interest in conflict
from what i understand this is pretty much true
renegade was a huge bomb and it cost a shitload of money and that was the point at which EA basically stopped giving westwood total autonomy to do what they wanted
EA started getting involved and meddling, which on one hand got us C&C Generals (EA dictated they wanted a modern war RTS game basically to capitalize on 9/11 and the Iraq War LOL), but on the other hand got the westwood guys so bothered they basically all left during / after Generals
Tiberian Sun, Renegade, and Westwood's terrible MMO killed the studio
Westwood wasn't even around when Generals came out
>Westwood's terrible MMO
They made an MMO?
I totally forgot about their planned MMO, you are totally right. There was also a bunch of other games Westwood did in addition to the mainline C&C games, which I think were middling in terms of sales as well.
It never came out, it was shitcanned
Tib Sun was profitable though AFAIK, maybe a bit of a disappointment but it definitely sold well
Tiberian Sun sold well but it took way longer to make and cost way more than they expected to which made EA take over the company
I think this is partly true, but as I understand it the bigger deals for Westwood was Renegade being a total flop and their cancelled MMO. I think if TibSun was the worst they did they would have remained in the good graces of the higher ups for a lot longer at least
That's worse than I remember, but ~700k+ copies is not so bad by the standards of the time. It probably topped a million eventually.
That doesn't tell us how profitable it was though, that's just revenue
Tiberian Sun made EA take control over the studio
Renegade made them close it
>Tib Sun was profitable though AFAIK
From Wikipedia:
>In the United States, Tiberian Sun sold 419,533 copies by the end of 1999,[18] for revenues of $18.62 million.[19] This made it the region's sixth-best-selling and fourth-highest-grossing computer game of 1999.[19] It sold another 283,544 units ($8.08 million) in the country during 2000.[20] In the United Kingdom, it remained the sixth-best-selling computer game of all time by 2006.[21]
>TS ended Westwood
No. It's because EA wanted every single game of Westwood to be a hit. Westwood founders had a difference of opinion that without experimenting they will definitely fail and fail they did because of EA
Tiberian Sun didn't fail because of EA
It was full of experimental ideas, they sucked
The point is they tuned those ideas much better in games like generals zero hour, for example, which couldn't have been possible without tibsun in the first place.
All of the shit ideas from TibSun were scrapped, not iterated on
The engine itself was good though, which they reused for RA2
>tib sun
>bad
what? only bad thing it had was the lack of polishing.
>gameplay wise it was one of the weakest in the classic run
Sadly true. IIRC the game was very rushed and there's a lot of plot holes in the story and interesting cut content:
Also it's crazy how much the games mechanics improved only after 3 years in Generals. One of the biggest leaps in gaming IMO
what plot holes are we talking about exactly ?
been a while i played the campaign
I was actually thinking of inconsistencies. Like how in the GDI end Umagon is suddenly captured by Nod, or in the Nod campaign end, Jake McNeil captured by Nod (again). Or in the Firestorm Nod campaign one of the Nod generals says they have the Tacitus and the next mission you do is you steal the Tacitus from the Forgotten, as if the mission and the cutscene are played in wrong order.
true now that you mention it , guess they had to cut one or two missions
you know whats the worst of things like this for me in the whole serie ?
SLAVIK GETTING KILLED OFFSCREEN IN 3
I find it amazing that Warcraft 3 holds up even to this day. A once in a lifetime RTS.
Old Blizzard knew how to make games.
Kirov reporting
IFVs in all shapes and sizes. I love mechanized warfare so much it's unreal
What if.
Zombie RTS
That would be cool what if there were billions of them!
That's an anti-zombie game.
I'm thinking pro-zombie
>humans in cities are the game's harvestable resource
got you covered senpai. It's going to be published by fricking MICROPROSE, from the grave.
>MICROPROSE
how the frick? but why? They should just make xcom enemy defense remastered and earn millions of dollars safely instead
are you playing as the zombies or fighting against the zombies?
I used to make .ini edit "mods" when TS came out and it was super fun. I was a kid so they weren't that great, but at the time it was pretty well known.
LOL, I made my own MS Paint art for it and everything.
I have fond memories of TS
when will RTS unit ai become smart enough to not require constant tard wrangling?
>spam click 200 horse archers in stronghold crusader
>begin patrol next to the opponent's castle
>build pretty gardens and moats around my home while everybody dies
Desolator.
No.
Will we see worthy strategies in our lifetime, brethren?
I'm so eager to paint the map + enjoy the battle, it's just impossible.
The closest thing to quench my thirst for a while is probably Starcraft in steam, and at least a little bit of casual co-op play.
unit built
>Honor Guard, ready for duty!
>Honor Guard, deployed!
left click
>Stand ready kameraden
>Achtung, prepare for orders
move order
>We are moving into enemy territory, mantain sound discipline
>Move quickly, defensive fire only behind the enemy lines
move order (under fire)
>UP! MOVE!
>GET THE MG MOBILE, MOVE!
stop order
>Hold position
stop order (under fire)
>HALT!
attack move order
>Combat patrol, close ranks, double check your weapons
>Get ready for fighting patrol, if contact is made, envelope and neutralize
attack move order (under fire)
>CLOSE RANKS, ASSAULT!
>MOVE, ENGAGE ANY TARGET!
order to capture point
>We must push behind enemy lines, capture and hold the point
>Enemy territory needs to be captured, ready the squad
order to capture point (under fire)
>I WANT THAT POINT SECURED, NOW!
>SCHNELL, STORM THE AREA!
capturing a point
>Once the position is captured, be ready for possible counterattack
>When the point is captured, I want flank security established
capturing a point (under fire)
>DISPERSE AROUND THE CAPTURE POINT
>STURM AND HOLD
point captured
>Capture complete, standing by.
>Target secured, gruppe holding.
point captured (under fire)
>POINT SECURED!
>TARGET SECURED, STILL IN CONTACT!
Using the suppressive fire ability
>Set the mg for sustained fire
Using the suppressive fire ability (under fire)
>GUNNER, I WANT SUPPRESSIVE FIRE NOW!
unit attack orders
>Suppress and eliminate that squad
>Concentrate all fire on that squad
>Assault formation, target the enemy squad
unit attack order (under fire)
>ENGAGE, WIPE THEM OUT!
>FIRE! CUT THEM DOWN!
>SUPPRESS AND ATTACK!
target eliminated
>ENEMY GRUPPE DESTROYED
retreat
>Kameraden, fall back to Battallion HQ
retreat (under fire)
>BREAK CONTACT, FALL BACK
squad reinforce
>Gruppe back to full strength
left click left click left click
>STOP WITH THE INCESSANT CLICKING!
>ENOUGH! YOU ARE NOT FUNNY
>IF I COULD I WOULD REACH THROUGH AND BREAK YOUR FINGERS
>NO OFFICER OF THE GERMAN ARMY WOULD BEHAVE THIS WAY
lots of words for a shitty post
Love this homie like you wouldn't believe
I just liked the aesthetics of the game
>they never followed up on this
it's a crime
Expendable meatshield units are my favorite in general, bonus points if they're free to create/reinforce.
*wrecks your moto push and kills all of your dismounted infantry singlehandedly*
did you really delete and repost over a missing *? you big fricking nerd
I just thought it looked weird without the second asterisk 🙁
never played C&C games, which one is best?
Generals
is this abandonware?
I don't think so?
Doesn't a game need to be really damn old for it to be abandonware?
im asking cause i cant find it on any game shop
IIRC it was on Origin?
Yeah it's on Origin, included in the C&C collection. I just install it from the disc myself because frick Origin.
you can google for Tib Sun installs, pretty certain it's freeware
Yep, C&C, RA and TibSun are freeware now
https://cnc-comm.com/
RA2 for goofy fast paced 2.5D
Tiberium Wars for campaign and aesthetics
Generals for realistic setting and diverse gameplay
For gameplay, Generals. For being a 20 year old game it feels very fresh and the themes are still current. Not much of a story in that game though. My personal favourite is Tiberian Sun though, the atmosphere in that game is unmatched.
SC2 Marauders are cool as hell
>Captcha: APMMSH
No.
RTS games are real PC games for people that actually care about games.
That market has been systematically destroyed.
There is no room left for anything that isn't casual console garbage, and the few exceptions left are endless content pits for youtubers to specialize in.
>I love a crowd
SUPREME TRUTH
I WILL MAKE A RUN FOR IT
THEY WILL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE
Viper Hoverboat Mortar Mk3
devanon here, I'm trying to capture that 90's C&C vibe, I only got one cutscene so far, I need to get better at blender. Music is on point imo. Terrytorial Disputes steampowered.com/app/2232650
this look pretty cool
my only complain is that the healthbars look somewhat intrusive and amateurish
Looks really good, I really like the HUD.
Good luck on your game devanon!
What are some good singleplayer RTS games?
I enjoyed the Starship Troopers game.
Man, there's so many good ones. Hydralisks are so versatile, Marines are so cheap. Shamans in WC3 are great, purge and bloodlust go so hard. Dryads for their magic immunity and slow poison, Goliaths for their strong AA, Vultures for their ability to fast respond between skirmishes and Spider Mines, the list goes on.
For me it's the RA2 conscript. He's weak, he's sad, he wants to go home, but he's 100 bucks for a 2 pack and you can't go wrong at that price, flood the enemy with them and pray for no genetic mutators.