Ahh yes, the fool''s mate. But you see, Chess is a Turn-Based Strategy. You can time turns if you want, but you still go in turn, so you can abandon the Fool''s Mate when you see that it''s not going to work.

With a Real Time Strategy, TIMING is Key. Let me walk you through the typical Starcraft game I''d occasionally play against 3 other players. I''ll take Terran.

Game starts.
First 50 resource goes toward making another SCV, remaining SCVs go straigth towards mining mineral. At 50 Mineral, I make another SCV, which they all go straight towards mineral. About my 4th built(8th) SCV, I make him go build a supply depot, and as soon as hes done, 2 new SCVs go into the Command Center''s queue and the remaining SCV goes towards building barracks. Barracks Finish, SCVs release, the Barracks fill up with Marines, while the 3 SCVs get broken up into building a second Barracks, more Mineral mining, and another Supply Depot. So, before that depot is made, I have maybe 7 SCVs mining, one on Depot, one on Barracks, and 3 or 4 marines with a 5th on the way, 6 and 7 in queue. About here comes the first rush from the opposing force. You see, where I built SCVs and Supply Depots, they went straight for a Gateway or a Spawning Pool. The 3 or 4 marines are outnumbered and killed, SVCs can''t defend, and I spend the rest of the game watching my base get slowly pummeled.
Game Ends at 5 minutes in.

Now, maybe if I had not made that extra SCV, I could have had an extra marine or two ready. But you see, thats not important. Whats important is that I was strategizing for a major rush (making sure I could match the numbers) and got wiped out by a pathetic rush. I had **NO** Defense. A critical error in my strategy caused by the immense risk involved in working my way up for a bunker.

This happened a lot. You an accuse me of being a low-skilled player, but it always happened this way, I made an inappropriate decision on what was more important and was overwhelmed by the better of the Rock-Paper-Scissor argument. What we have here is a major game of CHANCE. There is no strategy in chance. There is chance in strategy, yes, but when your very first decision decides if the game will go 40 minutes or 5 minutes, I may as well flip a coin because I have no other means for figuring out what decision to make.

Scout? I waste a valuable resource in the start of the game, which if there is a rush coming, he wont be able to stop it, AND I lose the resource that could have been used to help defend the rush.

So, this thread isn''t about how to survive a rush. This thread is how do we adjust future games that we may be involved in so the player doesn''t have to gamble as soon as the game starts. Of course, some people like the game, and I offer video poker machines, now availiable in my good ole'' hometown, New York City. Come one come all, lose all of your cash to Mayor Bloomberg.

Didn't you know? RTS stands for: "R ush T ech S trategy.

Seriously though the rush is what makes most RTS games so exciting. Take the rush away and then you have a one sided stomp fest and not a trading of battles. Myth I and II let you buy units by point value and then deploy them on the battlefield. The games typically lasted 40 minutes and usually the war was over as soon as someone gained the high ground.

Granted RTS games are becoming HARD these days. Being a good WC3 player on battlenet means you have to be sharp and quick. Ok I'll end my useless commenting here.

quote:

---

Original post by Inmate2993
So, this thread isn't about how to survive a rush. This thread is how do we adjust future games that we may be involved in so the player doesn't have to gamble as soon as the game starts.

---

Ok, I lied. In almost every game as soon as you start playing the other player(s) have to conpensate for your moves. Even in Chess the first move (the start of the game) is vital and can sometimes dictate the rest of the game. Maybe RTS are not your sort of game. Even if you made a turn based game of warface you will have your "rushes."

If nothing happens in a game after the first move, are you really playing?

[edited by - Critical_Waste on May 7, 2003 2:08:59 PM]

Hey, thought I''d just throw this in. Something I''ve been thinking about regarding RTS early-game strategies.

Basically, almost every RTS early-game strategy falls into one or more of the following categories.

Expander
Quickly moving to secure resources. Renders you very vulnerable to rushing, but can often secure the middle and late game for you, unless you''re up against...

Techer
Someone who focuses on simply getting the most advanced technologies / most artifacts, relics, whatever. Also vulnerable to rushing, but can secure the middle and late game almost as well as the Expander.

Rusher
You all know what this is. Attempting to eliminate the opponent before they can execute their own strategies. However, if this rush fails, they''ve fallen way behind in game time.

Defender
This is the most effective way to stop rushing, but it often comes at a price. Money you''ve spent on base defenses often costs you in the long run; it''s money you haven''t spent teching or expanding.

For example, the WC3 method of "creeping" is somewhere between expander and techer; while a more conventional RTS often ends up Rusher/Expander vs. Techer/Defender.

So, rushing''s a gamble that can often win a game, true. But I often find that the most effective rushes aren''t the ones that throw all your eggs in one basket; they''re the ones that are managed and allow you to simply keep your enemy contained while you expand or tech. A large rush can damage your early game economy, but a smaller, well-directed one can make your opponent wary to expand, and forces them to put resources into defending.

There is of course the direction of what to tech, where and how to defend, expand, what to rush against and with what, etc. but those vary so much from game to game that it''d take forever to adequately cover. :-)

It''s unfortunate the custom StarCraft maps only send one or two attacks at you from the computer, and after that, depending on the success of those attacks, the computer keeps attacking you OR just expands around the map and does nothing to build up against your attack.

I think you make a good point about sending in repeated attacks to keep the player from feeling safe about expanding. I guess I prefer to learn my gaming by facing a machine than another player. I''m more a coop player myself. Unfortunately, the computer always plays the same way. Attack a couple times then sit there and let itself get stomped. After a few games, it just feels old.

Anyway, I''m off topic. But that is an important distinction, between the beginning game rush, and the steady pounding of their defenses.

The assumption that the only valid counter for a rush is a counter rush is wrong. In Total Annihilation a little creative use of terrain and you could effectively nullify any rush tactics your opponent might come up with early in the game. Often leaving his base undefended (as most rushers do) and vunerable to some major damage or, if you prefer, giving you enough breathing space to make sure he doesn''t try anything like it again.

In the end, just like in the fools mate(chess) example, it''s simply a question of how long it takes you to come up with an effective counter to it.

The truth is the effectiveness of your strategy is always dependent on that of your opponent. And it is an often fatal flaw to overlook your defense now in order to prepare for a big attack later.

In a game with a wider scope you could consider making allies with all those around you early in the game but then that is no longer an RTS.

Personally I never rush but I feel anything that removes the choice from a player, especially when the choice is actually a valid strategy, is not a good move

quote:

---

Original post by Inmate2993
There is no strategy in chance. There is chance in strategy, yes, but when your very first decision decides if the game will go 40 minutes or 5 minutes, I may as well flip a coin because I have no other means for figuring out what decision to make.

---

Many strategy games are based heavily on chance - the strategy comes from risk management.

I''d class the build order you describe as a very high risk one - it''s great for getting an early production boost, but it leaves you vulnerable to the rush. It''s not a build order you should be trying unless you are very confident that you won''t get rushed or you have allies who can cover you for the early stages. In any other case, the risk/reward tradeoff probably isn''t worth it.

quote:

---

So, this thread isn''t about how to survive a rush. This thread is how do we adjust future games that we may be involved in so the player doesn''t have to gamble as soon as the game starts.

---

Or perhaps, how can we adjust the risk/reward tradeoffs so that anti-rush defence isn''t a dominant strategy for so many players? How can we make these early stage decisions even more interesting?

Here is the problem as I see it...

Counter-Rush strategies, while not necessarily being rushes themselves, focus on maximizing attack units in the early stages at the expense of maximizing resource gathering. This hampers long term strategies if your opponent went for maximizing resource gathering.

This means that you can choose to maximize early stage protection at the expense of long term resource gathering, or vice versa. If your strategy doesn''t match your opponents, you lose. If it does, you actually have a game to play.

Scouting really doesn''t help here either. First, you take a unit away from the equation (and 1 unit in the early stages is indeed important) And second, by the time your scout has provided any useful recon, it''s too late to affect any early stage decision. This sort of decision must be made almost immediately (no later then by the time you''ve made your second or third unit)

So you are either vulnerable to a short term rush, or you are vulnerable to greater resource gathering capabilities, and you need to decide which avenue to choose before you know which will be the better choice.

I am not sure, but I think it might be time for this:

http://www.darkpark.com/gfx/retarded.jpg


Then again if not please continue.

quote:

---

Original post by jRaskell
So you are either vulnerable to a short term rush, or you are vulnerable to greater resource gathering capabilities, and you need to decide which avenue to choose before you know which will be the better choice.

---

There seems to be a fallacy here, namely that once you decide on a particular strategy, you have to maintain that strategy for the rest of the game.

Seriously, getting enough units together early enough in a game of Starcraft to stop a 6 zergling rush is not going screw you up for the rest of the game - two marines and a bunker will generally stop the really early rushes, and by the time anything much more powerful than that comes along, you''ll have had time to scout. And if you find that your opponent is teching - you have a small force with which to harass him instead.

I''m not saying that rushing isn''t annoying, or even that it isn''t a problem, but I don''t think it is anything like the gameplay destroying problem people often make it out to be.

From Kylotan :

quote:

---

That''s assuming "build one''s economy" is a single strategy. I would say that if it ever was considered a single strategy, then something about the game is sorely lacking. There should be so many different ways to develop your force and use them that you could ban all combat for the first 15 minutes and still have very different games occuring.

---

While that might be nice (although in that case why have combat at all?), there is always a best way to build one''s economy with a particular goal in mind. And if someone hits with the maximum force immediately after those 15 mins are up, is that not a rush? Essentially, it sounds like you would prefer the ''building'' component of the game to be removed entirely (or at least be farcical in the way that anything you build does not really affect the game).

quote:

---

There''s a continuum from one extreme to the other, and "rush" is an abstract term, so you can''t expect to get a precise definition.

---

You can''t keep it vague and expect to hold a position on it. In order to say something meaningful about anything, you need to define it.

quote:

---

A rush is generally a tactic used by someone who is good at micromanagement and/or who knows the best ratio of resource gathering to unit production. Often it involves learning a predetermined build queue.

---

And yet both are strategic concerns. Or are you going to suggest that someone who has no idea of a good resource to unit production ratio should do as well as one who does? And "pre-determined build queues" do not just appear out of thin air - they are strategies in their own right, and often take much analytical thought. If a player comes up with a powerful strategy and someone else copies it, does that make it any less? Should those who give no thought to their build strategy do as well as those who do (or even copy those who do)? All strategies can be copied. Your complaint is that the strategy used against you worked.

Things could get difficult in the AoE series because the races were quite unbalanced. So if your opponent is Teutons and you are not, then you''re in trouble from the start. But that says nothing about rushing in general.

From Inmate :

quote:

---

Game starts.
First 50 resource goes toward making another SCV, remaining SCVs go straigth towards mining mineral. At 50 Mineral, .... and 3 or 4 marines with a 5th on the way, 6 and 7 in queue. About here comes the first rush from the opposing force. You see, where I built SCVs and Supply Depots, they went straight for a Gateway or a Spawning Pool. The 3 or 4 marines are outnumbered and killed, SVCs can''t defend, and I spend the rest of the game watching my base get slowly pummeled.
Game Ends at 5 minutes in.

---

And, as simple as that, you give up. But some people evidently made an attempt to figure out how to beat that strategy. They noticed that in many maps there is only one entrance to their base. And build their supply depots and barracks there rather than in any old place. When the enemy comes to attack, they face a solid wall of buildings (typically 2 depots (1 half-finished perhaps) and a barracks) with marines behind them. Zealots can''t run between the buildings and zerglings can only come through one at a time. An SCV or 2 repair the buildings they are attacking. A marine stands in the way of the path through the building that the zerglings can take. The result is a massacre of the rushing force. If the rush comes even earlier, then a good strategy is to run all of your SCVs up to block off the remainder of the entrance - again giving your marines a chance to wipe them out. Alternatively, when the map is open, put buildings around your command centre to block avenues of attack and surround your marines in SCVs. You''ll win against that rush almost every time even if you do send out a scout - significantly without losing any advantage in the econ race. "a major game of CHANCE"? Or perhaps you just aren''t as good a strategist as you think you are?

If I see what appears to be a powerful strat that has a good chance of working on even the best players, I''ll try to think about how to beat it without being vulnerable to other strats. If I can''t think of how to beat it, I''ll ask others. If they can''t think of how to beat it, then I''ll use it until someone stops me cold. If no one stops me cold, then I stop playing the game. To date, I haven''t stopped playing any RTS game for this reason.