/v/ - Video Games

>>16381345

If you really want manage economy and shit, maybe it's best to play a city builder.

>>16381374

That's a bad argument against RTS. In a typical city builder I can't go to other dudes base and fuck his shit up.

>>16381384

The whole siege bit is actually done better in Total War/RTT.

>>16381390

Sieges in Total War have been trash ever since Warhammer 1. You can't even call it a siege anymore, considering how little of the castle you're actually fighting in.

>>16381345

Slower, more intricate gameplay if you mean almost always a stale meta of building certain units and playing in a certain way at the start or get shat on by midgame.

>RTT

I really liked World in Conflict and S.W.I.N.E.

>>16381450

>World in Conflict

Was it me, or did everyone and their mothers in hollywood rip off that game's OST, you know the one.

I prefer RTT with management aspects, for example I think Civil War has a superior campaign to Gettysburg due to the mild management aspects, and my favorite mod for Men of War is Dynamic Campaign Generator. There's nothing quite like fighting with hand-picked men in the fields of France and then Tunisia until both a Tiger I is available and you have the points to buy it.

I really hope Ultimate Admiral has better management aspects than Civil War did though, because it's still going to have a semi on-rails campaign instead of a sandbox campaign, which is a big bummer for me.

Anyways, >>16381374 is fucking retarded. Citybuilders often have trivially easy economies, and the options that having an economy gives for the way a match plays out are immense in number. Go play Supreme Commander if you think economy detracts from a strategy/tactical game.

>flux-based economy so you have to balance constant-rate income and expenses of building units, powering some buildings/units, repairing, etc with all resources gained over your storage cap being wasted thus driving you to always be expanding something even whilst fighting

>destroyed units being salvageable for resources giving the side that wins the field a major advantage, meaning that even if you loose significantly more resources than your opponent in an engagement, if you can hold the field you can recover a significant portion of yours and his' losses

>resource buildings providing natural territorial conflict instead of the typically abstract "victory points" or other such in RTT

>>16381441 is also retarded. RTT are the king of this because you can clear the map with a single unit if it's a meta unit. I remember comical amounts of butthurt amongst my friends playing I think Robz for MoWAS2 due to a 40mm AA vehicle the hungarians? had that could pen the sides of medium tanks, wipe out infantry and cover near instantly due to the moderate HE shells it fired at a rapid rate, and its great mobility.

>>16381427

>Anyways, >>16381374 (You) is fucking retarded. Citybuilders often have trivially easy economies, and the options that having an economy gives for the way a match plays out are immense in number. Go play Supreme Commander if you think economy detracts from a strategy/tactical game.

Economy just prolongs the match and turns it into a war of attrition.

>>16381427

That's for Warhammer 1 yeah, but other TW titles apply, as well as some other RTT like Knights of Honor.

>>16381427

yeah but the sieges in rome/rome2 are fuckin cool

>>16381522

And Warhammer 1 was after Rome 2.

>>16381516

I'm going off footage here, but Warhammer 2, Bretonnia and that china game looked like the same shit when it came to sieges.

And shit ai.

>>16381514

It can, or it can provide opportunities that do not exist in RTT.

Striking at the enemy's economy basically does not exist in RTT, and can end a game in RTS.

To simply say it does nothing but extend the length and reduce the winner to who can make more units is idiotic and makes me think you're arguing in bad faith.

>>16381532

China game they have come back to regular castle siege with the whole castle, still looks like shit either ways.

>>16381533

For a RTT, the destruction of all enemy unit is enough.

RTS complicates this matter by allowing the production of unit.

>>16381532

yeah but in the context of this thread sieges being shit in everything after TWW1 is irrelevant, it reads like you were attempting to use that as some sort of "gotcha" that sieges in TW just suck ass period.

>>16381547

>For a RTT, the destruction of all enemy unit is enough.

Which is fine, I enjoy RTT. Generally there is some abstract objective, like holding more points for longer.

>RTS complicates this matter by allowing the production of unit.

Yes. That isn't a bad thing, it's simply different.

>>16381549

I'm talking about TW post Warhammer, which in it's own is irrelevant.

I actually really enjoyed the multi tier sieges of Shogun 2. It was a really nice idea that I had hoped to see fleshed out.

>>16381562

I agree, on both points, I'm really hoping they unfuck sieges in TWW3 (considering its going to be the final game in the trilogy I think now would be the perfect time to do so) but I doubt they will. One of my fondest memories of TW was the siege of Kyoto during my shogun 2 co-op campaign.

>>16381314

RTT is pure multitask micro stress. I don't understand why anyone likes it.

>>16381632

I enjoy micromanaging clusterfucks

>it's another "muh city builder" autist episode

this thread was doomed from the start

>>16381703

What's wrong with city builder?

>>16381632

Not really. I think RTT is unironically less micro.

this thread is bait by the same autistic shit that labels genres wrong.

remember kids rts = realtime strategy, key word real time.

tactics games were always squad level games that what tactics are.

Also get the fuck off this board.

>>16381883

Supreme commander has its own issues, though it is leagues above and beyond any and all competitors.

I would like a supreme commander with more scale. A lot of the time supreme commander does get very down in the weeds of positioning and economy where even at the 90 minute mark individual fights are shaping the out come, and there isn't as much grand scale.

This reminds me, is Ancestors Legacy any good?

>>16381871

What are you even trying to say?

>>16381314

>I really hate that the first few moves of RTS are about making as much workers as possible in order to build up your economy.

>RTT gets you into the action right away.

The role of ego-control, ego-resiliency, and IQ in delay of gratification in adolescence.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2614657

When can we stop pretending disabilities are perspectives and start killing these "people" in the streets?

>>16381946

Yeah, it's pretty much medieval Company of Heroes, with 4 campaigns now.

>>16381981

When I want to fight, I fight.

>>16381883

I think RTT where you can customize units and choose what units to deploy (i.e. Total War, Ultimate General, Battlefleet Gothic) > macro-focus RTS > normal squad based RTT (Myth) > micro-focus RTS.

>>16382031

There's exception of course, like Mount and Blade and Freeman: Gorilla Warfare.

Being able to control your own character while leading the squad/army is good for immershun.

So how do people around here feel about WeGo systems such as Combat Mission? For those unaware, CM games are usually played in one minute intervals. One player gives their units commands at the start of the minute before passing the turn to the other player. That player then issues their commands, again at the start of that minute. The computer then simulates the results of each players orders, a "replay" of that minute's simulation is generated and the process repeats.

>>16382262

I believe at some point they added in a real-time feature to CM games. I wouldn't mind CM games so much if the camera controls weren't awkward as shit and the infantry aspect of the game was better

>>16381466

>enemy doesnt respond to your AA properly and that means the game is stale meta shit

You're just proving my point, even a well place infantry unit can turn the tide in MoWAS2 and inversly retardedly placed best "meta" units in the game are useless if you're putting them in stupid places.

Thats pretty far from what I said in my first post but feel free to go NUH UH some more fag.

>>16382285

Try to control anything beyond platoon or limited company scale games in real time is impossible. I can't say I've noticed any real camera issue, my main problem comes from spotting, which is entirely bipolar.

>>16381883

Correct opinion.

>>16382313

Yeah I noticed spotting to be fucked up in CM games, many times when a unit is in a good position and should easily spot things in front it just doesn't, I'm sure there's another factor to it but man it's hard to tell

>>16382262

Am I incorrect in assuming what you had just described was Frozen Synapse/Atlas Reactor?

>>16382318

Nah, see >>16382031

>>16382322

I've had plenty of really strange things happen, like a soldier unable to see a tank until he was quite literally touching it, or a random rifleman somehow spotting a concealed sniper 500m away.

>>16382322

Never played either, but FS gameplay sounds very similar. A CM round plays out roughly like so:

>Minute 10 begins

>Player 1 watches results of Minute 9

>Player 1 gives orders to units

>Player 1 passes turn to Player 2

>Player 2 watches results of Minute 9

>Player 2 gives orders to units

>Player 2 ends the round

>Computer simulates the results of Minute 10

>Minute 11 round begins

>>16382472

Yeah, that's basically Frozen Synapse except Player 1 doesn't pass the turn to Player 2 they both get to plan during the same timeframe.

>>16381314

I like RTT more, but that's only because I suck shit at base building

>>16381454

Don't remember any of the music, but the story and gameplay was nice. Then I tried the multiplayer part and got hooked. Usually I dont play RTS multiplayer, but I liked in WoC that you play team vs team with only fraction of the force, so you can really focus on your part.

>>16382262

I would like to play them, but sadly I could not get them to run on loonix

>>16382731

WoC is a RTT though.

>>16381871

>"key word real time"

>proceeds to then focus on the distinction between tactics and strategy

What are some entry level RTT games? I don't think I've played a single one.

>>16384111

It means idiot that any game where you control an army in realtime is an rts.

There is no such thing as "RTT". tactical games are squad level games and not rts.

Thats the difference between strategy and tactics. Army vs squad.

Why the same underage low iq morons continue to reinvent the wheel of genre terms is beyond anyones guess.

>>16382031

all the games you listed are rts. Is it the same braindead retard ip hoping and replying to himself the entire thread lmao kill yourself you handicapped tard.

>>16384703

Myth 1+2.

Warhammer: Shadows of the Horned Rat and Dark Omen.

Ground Control 1.

Total War series (Rome 1, Medieval 2, Shogun 2, Attila recommended).

Ultimate General series.

Battlefleet Gothic: Armada (naval focus).

>>16384910

>>16384922

Nigger you trolling.

>>16381314

RTS is a fake marketing name.

RTS is just subset of action games with 3rd point oif view. Mostly top down (or isometric) shooter games. Of course entire idea that you make top down shooter and make player control 2, 10, 100 characters at once is retarded and would not bring anything but frustration of impossibility to properly control such number of characters.

>>16382262

Do you mean simultaneous turns?

like these games >>16382340

>>16382731

I'm fairy sure I've heard this in a couple of documentaries.

>>16385708

Nigger what?

>>16385708

You're the same retard that tried to force STDs instead of STGs/shmups.

>>16381427

Tbh Medieval 2 and Rome are the TW games you should be playing.

>>16381314

"Traditional"? They're two different types of games, and RTT has been around since forever.

>casual

Liking RTT over RTS doesn't make you a casual, twat. Not knowing that RTT has existed before Total War does, however.

OP here, I have git gut at RTS and I still think the opening moves of forced creating workers is boring.

But then again, that might just be Starcraft 2.

The resource control point system of Dawn of War seems to be more "realistic" IMO and requires less micro.

>>16388478

>Not knowing that RTT has existed before Total War does, however.

Luckily I didn't say that nor I implied that.

PEACE THROUGH POWER

PEACE THROUGH POWER

PEACE THROUGH POWER

>>16388394

>tbh

Back to reddit, sweetie.

>>16389684

But why tho?

>>16390189

Rolling

>>16390189

>>16390189

Why do I need to roll only for one Kane? I dare to roll for all Kanes!

>>16381314

I guess the problem with RTSs is that after the meta has been established you have to always rely on three-four set pieces at the beginning of the match. I wonder if a Total War like game where you get to design in some way your settlement's defenses would improve it somewhat.

>>16391768

I reckon it would be cool to have RTSs where the opening strat depends entirely on the layout of the map which is random generated so you have to improvise entirely around what you get to start with. Maybe instead of building bases you're got to capture buildings that are already a part of a map layout.

>>16390189

Rolling.

>>16394626

>I am a one man team

>My team sucks

Always gets me

Never liked em because if you don't know the meta, you just get curbstomped every time. You can know all the tricks and techniques and be a perfectly competent player, but unless you lurk the forums you'll usually get crushed by whatever OP strat hasn't been nerfed yet.

Basically, it's just like chess. It's not really about how intelligent you are, all that matters is memorization and pattern recognition. Which are useful skills, but not something that's much fun.

>>16395526

>4 hours of making economy and starting moves

Might as well play city builders.