If you''re controlling individual units, then that is pretty much tactics. Just because you can''t say anything more useful than "go here" or "shoot this" doesn''t mean it''s not tactics; it''s just incredibly limited tactics

I think it''s a bit harsh to suggest that anyone who thinks RTSs are often won with the amorphous mass is just a turn-based player I have played both turnbased and real time for years, and I still haven''t found an RTS that couldn''t come down to the good old tank rush in the end. Sometimes it wasn''t the most effective method: in Red Alert, I found myself constructing an amorphous mass of tanks first for defence, then an amorphous mass of helicopters second to bomb the base, and then an amorphous mass of whatever I could churn out quickly at the end. This worked every time for computer opponents and more often than not for human opponents. And when it failed against a human, it was usually because they had 20 more tanks than I did. I do feel that this is because of a lack of being able to assign real tactics to your units without having to control them all individually. I should be able to tell tanks to stay in a tightly packed line when fired upon, or to spread out, etc.

The problem is that a small advantage is leveraged to become a bigger advantage, until eventually you can beat them by weight of numbers. I believe that the only time that strategy/tactics/whatever has a Real effect is when both players are so good at the game that they both will be developing at the optimal rate and therefore material (to use a chess term) is even. Which is possibly why the ''more experienced players'' claim there''s a lot of strategy or tactics, when for most people, there simply isn''t; it''s not worth the effort.

Perhaps the argument could be more tactfully phrased as "the economical aspect of the game is often disproportionately important compared to the combat aspect", in that someone who knows how to get the resources and what to spend it on is going to do far better than someone who is a slow developer, but has some good ideas for how to use the units effectively (assuming the game supports this).

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost ]

Posted by Sandman :

quote: Yet there are examples in history of victories being achieved against seemingly impossible odds. So if it can be done in real life, but not in starcraft, there is something missing.

It''s quite possible in SC (for instance with cloned ghosts, a lot of psi storm, plague scourge dark swarm). There are a lot of people who _are_ what you would call ''awesome'' at micromanagement. But what I am really disagreeing with is that at the same time as admitting you aren''t a good player of an RTS game, you are passing judgement on strategy and tactics in the game and using that to base claims about other RTS games.

I prefer to use the terms micro and macro to differentiate between what some term as tactics and strategy respectively. There is no real distinction between the two because it is a slippery slope from one to the other. For most people, tactics is accomplishing a goal on a small scale while strategy is accomplishing a goal on a large scale. But where small meets large is undefined.

Posted by Kylotan :

quote: Sometimes it wasn''t the most effective method: in Red Alert, I found myself constructing an amorphous mass of tanks first for defence, then an amorphous mass of helicopters second to bomb the base, and then an amorphous mass of whatever I could churn out quickly at the end.

Yes I see your point - in the very same game I produced an amorphous mass of light tanks (3-4) to raid harvesters, an amorphous mass of gap generator(1), an amorphous tanya and APC for raiding, a few amorphous pillboxes and turrets, an amorphous mass of machinegunners and rocket troopers to support them, and an amorphous mass of destroyers and 1-2 cruisers to defend my amorphous mass of buildings along the shoreline. Now do you see my point?

Formations would be nice. I believe RA allowed one to scatter troops. Age of Kings has some formations and does allow for some conventional strategic maneuvers. As does Myth.

I''d say there''s some measure of truth in that the economic aspect of most RTS games is "disproportionately important compared to the combat aspect", but I''d say they have about equal importance. Choosing what kind of troops to build and how to use them is a big part of most RTS games, especially those based on a paper, rock, scissors style of balance (although I personally hate that unless it''s very intuitive.). The economic aspect does add a measure of strategy to the game as well.

RTS games aren''t normally pure military simulations. You have decisions to make within a limited timeframe. They aren''t easy games to win or discover dominant strategies in even if you are quick with the mouse. I''m just trying to point that out.

quote: Original post by Argus
Yes I see your point - in the very same game I produced an amorphous mass of light tanks (3-4) to raid harvesters, an amorphous mass of gap generator(1), an amorphous tanya and APC for raiding, a few amorphous pillboxes and turrets, an amorphous mass of machinegunners and rocket troopers to support them, and an amorphous mass of destroyers and 1-2 cruisers to defend my amorphous mass of buildings along the shoreline. Now do you see my point?

I was conceding that sometimes a single unit type was not sufficient, but stressing that I never needed any more than 2 or 3 types for anything but the most specialised missions (ie. the ones that explicitly required me to use specialist units to complete them). The boat missions involved making lots of boats and tanks. The ground missions involved making lots of choppers and tanks. If I ever made as many different unit types as you specified above, it was because I was bored of making the same old ones and felt like having something new

One example (admittedly from a poor game as far as enemy AI is concerned) was the computer''s use of SAM sites against my helicopters. A little experimentation showed that I could take out 1 SAM site with 3 helicopters and not lose any of them (or something like that). If they added more SAM sites, I would just send more helicopters. The game''s attempt to force me to use more diverse units was useless, as I could just throw out another 4 or 5 helicopters to counter its ultimate anti-air defence. And once those SAM sites were gone, so was pretty much its entire base (in 10 minutes, anyway). They attempted to balance this game with the paper/rock/scissors method by making SAM sites extremely effective vs. helicopters, but helicopters still worked out far more cost effective in the long run.

Maybe your tactics (word used loosely here) are effective against another player of skill equal to yourself, but I still believe that against 80% of opponents, and most computer AI opponents, numerical superiority is an easier and more effective ''tactic'' to adopt than any complex set of interactions between units. There are good reasons why "tank rush" is quite a common term when talking about this type of game.

Total Annihilation is the worst... I just click on the build buttons randomly, cos it makes absolutely no difference which ones I make. They all do almost exactly the same thing anyway. So I just make a lot of everything, to be sure. Very disappointing game.

You said to MKV that playing against "serious opposition on bnet" would show the need to use strategy. I agree with this, but I think it agrees with my earlier point where I asserted that, for the average player, it''s far more effective to just learn how to build stuff quicker and send it all out in one go. The games rarely reward quick-thinking except where the military mass is about even, in which case the tactics are the turning point that breaks the deadlock. This may be satisfactory gameplay for some people, but it is unsatisfactory for others.

quote: I''d say there''s some measure of truth in that the economic aspect of most RTS games is "disproportionately important compared to the combat aspect", but I''d say they have about equal importance.

And again, I would say this depends on your relative skill levels. If you''re better than them, you may as well just churn out 4 units for every 3 of theirs, and you''re gonna win unless they know some kind of trick. Sending a large clump of varied units usually works wonders, as they tend to compensate for each other.

quote: Choosing what kind of troops to build and how to use them is a big part of most RTS games, especially those based on a paper, rock, scissors style of balance (although I personally hate that unless it''s very intuitive.). The economic aspect does add a measure of strategy to the game as well.

You''re right, it''s a big and important part of many of these games. I don''t mind that, although I would like to see some games that did focus more on the actual combat itself. I just think that, too often, the resolution of these games just comes down to who can build the most units the fastest, as opposed to any special kind of tactical play. Removing the economic side would be one (admittedly heavy-handed) way of evening this up a bit.

(Apologies to Treknerd for getting off his original subject.)