How would you fix the RTS genre?

resource refining from Factorio
huge solar system maps from Planetary Annihilation
npc enemy waves from They Are Billions
factions from Warhammer 40k

>and 3 just copy pasted shitty races together
That's really not true. The Knights and the Empire may have taken some units from the former human faction, but they are both completely different with their own mechanics. Sssrathi, Plagelords and the Swarm are genuine new races with most of their units and buildings being completely new.
>2 had the better map
I would like the conquest mode of 2 in 3 as well, but the campaign in 3 still offers some good freedom and a lot of optional missions.

Aren't there like 8 Warlords Battlecry?

Serious answer, It needs to be faster to appeal to modern players, if by "fixing" it you mean getting it to sell decently.

For example Starcraft 2 went F2P and they made it much faster and it has been net gaining players recently

+20 global iq increase

You make it have tons of upgrades, multiple different methods of advancement so build orders aren't something you need to do exactly the same 99% of the games.
You also make them fantasy/ancient historical instead of fucking scifi for the billionth time.

There are 4 Warlords, and 3 Warlords Battlecry.

Warlords is turn based strategy, and battlecry is rts.
Warlords 1 had one map, Warlords 2 a lot of different scenarios in various genres(scifi, dracula, generic fantasy, middle-earth, anime).
Warlords 3 was a bit of a reboot and made a larger setting with the map from Warlords 1 as a base, not the specific geography, but the concepts, towns and factions, like Selentia, Siria, Lord Bane and Kor were all there.

The setting that Warlords 3 created was used for Warlords 3+4 and the warlords battlecry games.

More waifus honestly

What RTS has the most realistic units?
>Tanks that feel heavy and powerful
>soldiers that actually act like people (move around ducking for cover on their own and not tanking bullets while they stand still)
>planes that wiz past the screen instead of just slowly cruising across the map
>ai that doesnt make the all your units act like autonomous robots when selected all at once and ordered to do stuff (as is often the case in RTS example: order a group tanks to fire at a target and they all somehow manage to aim/fire at it in a completely synchronized fashion)
>units that are of a realistic scale/physical size in relation to each (not having soldiers appear so large to literally can't fit in any of your vehicles that are travelling with them or having buildings that are supposedly massive according to the games lore only to be depicted as only slightly taller than a regular foot soldier)

Sounds like Company of Heroes...

I do love me some company of heroes. Are noglords at relic still doing them surveys asking what you would wanna see in coh3?

>Focus on niche market
>Good/Interesting single player campaign
>Interesting factions/units
>Multiple modes with customization
>Map/mod tools
>Discard any possible thought of an esport

Attached: 1554830548265.jpg (1024x678, 286K)

Bring back random generated maps

In terms of player speed, Brood War is just as fast as SC2.
Modern players don't actually like games that are hard to play though.

>Warlords 2 a lot of different scenarios in various genres
>anime
What.

>coh
>realistic
>soldiers missing each other when shooting from 10 meter range

>Focus on niche market
You would fix the genre by doing what doomed it?

You advertise your game to people who like the genre ? Avoid hardcore SC players.

focus on visuals and balancing it so there aren't any bullshit autistic asians running around trying to win games in under 10 minutes, make it so the games will be long slogs full of close calls for both sides that keep growing into larger and larger engagements, maybe make the maps ridiculous sizes

Are there any good RTT ala Myth nowadays?

what hasn't been done yet?

>man, I keep losing in 10 minutes, the game must be super unbalanced

Kill off eSports
Slow down the genre to not be a chinese click cirlcejerk
Emphasize base building
Games should last for hours and be epics.

Warlords 2 scenarios can use completely different army sets, stats and look.
One scenario was called Nippon Babylon or something which was a wild mix of japanese pop culture.
So there were various anime units, godzilla, magic foxes and whatever.

Sec I'll see if I can boot it up and show, turns out I have it installed.

Rush killed the genre.

RTS rape simulator

What is your suggestion to prevent "rush"?

Remove the shitty goldmine economy and replace it with actual resource gathering.
Remove the stupid unit cap and make armies huge.
Make units die faster instead of tanking damage for 30 seconds.
No fucking heroes.
Less micro and more macro focus.

Basically, stop copying the absolute shit that is blizzard games and copy command&conquer instead.

Oh it is another
>waaaaaah RTS is dead thread, no I won't play any RTS that is still around

Warcraft 3 and Starcraft are hardly alike. Seems you only played the former if you ever played any RTS at all.

ITT: turtlekin

>waah we want cooperative RTS, none of that gookclick bullshit

>AI War 2 releases
>Nobody cares
>The first one only got popular because TotalBiscuit drooled all over it, and now that he's dead, there's nobody to dig up decent indie strategy games

Please buy Chris's game. Arcengames will go bankrupt if you dont ;_;

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 176K)

Attached: warlords2.png (2592x4928, 3.26M)

>How would you fix the RTS genre?

Basically
>remove intensive micro, it should not be required
>make systems and mechanics more intuitive and make it easy to learn, while still having depth
>there shouldn't be optimal builds or strats people always fall back on, it makes playing the game very repetitive
>in mp, make it less reliant on your ally (i.e., if one of your allies aren't that good or screw up, it shouldn't almost always lead to a loss for the entire team, for a number of reasons)
>focus on creating distinct factions that are appealing for a lot of people and not just interesting for a few (as in, don't make a race of blobs)
>focus less time on building and harvesting, have gameplay feel more active from the getgo
>focus on creating a strong campaign with a good narrative, it will hook people, make them care about the factions more and also learn how to play the game. the lack of this is actually what kills most rts games.
>avoid rock-paper-sciccor structure for units
>avoid making all mp maps 100% balanced (mirrored), it makes it less interesting
>try and make it harder to be snowballed/overwhelmed
>possibly go the route of DoW/CoH in having units automatically form squads instead of microing individual units

>Why yes, I think the reason RTS died is because they don't exactly adhere to my tastes. Every other RTS should be deleted from existence. Variety is what killed the genre, not the people who bitch about the death of the genre instead of actually playing it.

Attached: 1554212652537.jpg (1068x601, 65K)

Many of the things people ask for in these threads already apply to SupCom.

TETSUOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Is this satire?

Warcraft IIII.

>avoid rock-paper-sciccor structure for units
>there shouldn't be optimal builds or strats people always fall back on
Contradictory. If units don't have hard counters and dedicated roles, one of them will inevitably be better than others number-wise and fielding nothing but that unit with minimal support will become the optimal strategy. Rock-paper-scissors is unironically good design, it encourages more interactivity and adjustment of your strategy to counter your opponent's, scouting to see what the enemy transitions into, etc.

This is based on not only what most players feel (as in the reason they don't play anymore, or at all).

The kind of RTS a bunch of people on Yea Forums wants wouldn't sell well at all. In other words it would need to be lower budget and more niche, which would severely limit the kind of content you could create (most likely, no campaign, bunch of modes, etc).

RTS games are pretty complicated to make. It's not like making a dime-a-dozen platformer or something.

>Contradictory.

No it's not. With rock-paper-sciccors there ARE always the best options for dealing with something every single time, because the game is designed around it.
RockPaperSciccors is fucking garbage and one of the many reasons I avoid shit like Fire Emblem.

Men of War Assualt Squad.

Please stop posting.

That entire post is made up of contradictions and vague statements that mean nothing. I really hope the user who posted it is just baiting and didnt actually type that out.

I think Rock-paper-scissors can be implemented well or badly. Units should certainly have strengths and weaknesses in their interactions, but the counters shouldn't be super hard. I think it's cool when you counter a unit with a mixture of units or by controlling your units in a certain way, rather than by just building the one unit that hardcounters them.

No esport focus at all. It kills games, and almost all "new" rtss have tried to take on SC2s esports scene.

>With rock-paper-sciccors there ARE always the best options for dealing with something every single time
Yes, and those are DIFFERENT options for different things. Even if you know spamming helicopters counters infantry, you still need to know in advance your opponent is spamming infantry and you need to know if far enough in advance that you can produce your helicopters before you are overrrun.
Without unit counters you would just be spamming your faction's best unit and I would be spamming my faction's best unit, and every single game would be exactly the same because there's no reward for deviating from the optimal strategy.

If you want me to write a detailed essay of instructions and elaborations on every single point then you're not very bright. No one with a brain would waste their time doing that on Yea Forums of all places.

Just got back from playing AoE2, can't wait for AoE2 DE, what are you losers doing, still not actually playing games?

You seem to misunderstand. Different units are good at different things and don't just have 1 strategy or tactic applied to them.
Sticking to a shallow RPS structure dumbs the game down immensely and makes it incredibly dull. Because you basically shut your brain off because there is always a tailor made counter, offering no flexibility unless you slap in even more of those RPS counters in for some reason.
It's dumb.

>the counters shouldn't be super hard
Meh, it's up to the personal taste. TibWars has one of the hardest counters I've seen and it's one of my favourites.

TTD + C&C

>If units don't have hard counters and dedicated roles, one of them will inevitably be better than others number-wise
They can and should have dedicated roles, just not "this dude wrecks armored shit", "this armored shit wrecks robots", "this robot wrecks dudes".

There are other ways to balance things, like
>terrain dependence
>mobility
>scaling with army size due to AoE and similar
>special abilities with cooldowns

You can have two units counter each other depending on setup.
For example, samurai bisects knights with a simple vertical slash that has a long animation, but then needs to wait a while until doing it again. So at small numbers, samurai will always win, but once both are massed, samurai are killed before getting the ability to hit.

>AI War 2 releases
>Nobody cares

That's just wrong. The game is still in early access AND it doesn't feature multiplayer yet. Good luck playing a cooperative RTS that is single player only at the moment.

Where do you think we are? We only complain and shit on games here.

I'm surprised AoE2 hasn't been mentioned yet. AoE2 is close to being a 10/10 and I can't think of any fixes that wouldn't ruin the game for others. I'd love it if each civ had an imperial age only team-bonus or more units which you can only build if a certain ally is on your team, the DE's adjustments like auto-refilling farms is nice but I don't want too many changes.

You lack basic understanding of RTS and game design in general.
He's not asking for a detailed essay, he's saying your points are stupid.

Also excellent (though actually an RTT). And holy fuck the devs are being a bit niggardly about it.
>devs can we please have 64bit version of mow?
>no faggot it would divide the player base, what about all those poor goys who still actually use the 32 bit version (all 9 of them)?
>instead go buy our new game call to arms, its just like mow except its 64 bit and definitely not just a reskin with worthless first person thrown in, we promise!
>they then proceed to remove all mow related material from the call to arms workshop and give no explanation for it (including an actual complete port of all AS:2 campaign missions and vanilla assets creating literally a 64 bit version of single player assault squad 2)
Despite their excessive niggatry, the last bit could be a possible sign of something good far down the pipeline. perhaps they don't want people modding moh:as 2 into call to arms because one day there will be a new mow? Nah, more likely the fucking faggots just want people to buy both the fucking games.

Attached: FFFFFFFFFU.gif (200x267, 858K)

They already said that they won't change much of gameplay
youtube.com/watch?v=OnfLoHIL0Dg
Good video about new features

Ok, whatever helps you sleep at night. You prove that I'd be wasting my time on you anyway by giving typical braindad Yea Forums shitposting replies such as this one.
Thanks for letting me know I made the right call.

also that other user said "remove intensive micro". Mow, in case your not very familiar with it is packed with it and its actually pretty cool (in some ways, not when it comes to dealing with the fucky path finding).
>units have a finite ammo and fuel supply and you need to call in specialized supply units for them to keep firing

>How would you fix the RTS genre?
By not spamming.
>How come rts is not popular anymore?
Because it's dumbed down and streamlined, AKA MOBA.
>Warlords battlecry 3.
It seems like it.
>Warlords Battlecry 3. Another forgotten gem. There is a free stand-alone mod called The Protectors that adds 1920x1080 support, balance changes, new units and missions.
Didn't know, didn't care, stop spamming this image.

This, Starcraft at minimum removes the last 3 points, and possibly the second if you're okay massing tier 1 units

Meanwhile AoE4 lurks in the shadows...

>Because it's dumbed down and streamlined, AKA MOBA.

That's not the reason. It's actually the exact opposite reason. You can't sell a niche game to a large audience. Only way to do so would be to pump a lot of money into production value and a strong campaign, which is expensive.

If you made an accessible, polished and visually appealing RTS game it would sell.

>REEE why doesn't this company of several dozens of people spend a few weeks of their lives working for ME and what I want without any monetary gain to them

Shit I didn't know there was this much information about it already. I only read the QoL updates before and it looks great as far as remasters go. Hopefully it's popular because I felt like AoE2 HD was slept on for how good that game was, it's one of the most accessible RTS's too so there's no reason for it to bomb

War game or steel battalion

Zero-K is the best RTS I ever play, perfect balance between Total Annihilation and Forged Alliance. It would literally fix the RTS genre if it had a bigger playerbase. The only default which prevents me from going back at it is the lack of players...

Attached: zero-k.jpg (800x350, 284K)

fuck the hell off user people have wanted a 64 bit version of mow for YEARS. and did you even read my post? for starters, call to arms is really rather shit and the only real reason (at least that i could see) for actually buying it was the aforementioned mow:as2 mods which they removed. Unless of course you bought the game before it was even launched (as is it would seem based on your dev-cock sucking post)
>either that or you clearly no nothing about or give a fuck about mow

Attached: gassed.jpg (808x1024, 101K)

>don't try to make it an e-sport
>less focus on micromanaging your units while in combat, more on macroscale tactics and strategies
>economy less focused around mines/resource fields ala c&c, blizzard games, or aoe and more around controlling resource nodes like in dow or coh
>most units come out in squads of couple dozen individuals (numbers of decrease depending on the quality of individual soldier/vehicle or creature in unit) units can only reinforce themselves if they're not in combat and either within friendly territory or within the supply range or supply unit
>include a multi-staged morale system for squads: eager (gets attack bonus) -> normal (no bonuses or minuses) -> shaken -> broken (automatically tries to retreat from combat) /kamikaze (will fight to the death) depending on unit mixed with random chance and circumstances
>include multiple non-morale related statuses for squads (diseased, suppressed, leaderless, etc.) that can affect their effectiveness
>fighting should include terrestrial, aerial, and naval forces
>have multiple factions that both look and play differently from each other
>each faction should also have couple different subfactions (chooseable once the match begins) with each of these subfactions having their own further specializations to chose from further down the line (for example: the player choose faction A [focuses around ranged units and harassing enemy with expendable units], once the match starts he subfaction A-z [focus on using stealth units sneak around] and further on into the game he ops for specialization A-z-3 [focus on sabotaging enemy structures and laying traps]
>each faction gets a decently long single-player campaign designed around showing the various ways to play it, its full unit range, and work as a tutorial to help people familiarize themselves with it and its unique strength and weaknesses

Warlords Battlecry 4 would fix all the problems.

Yeah, I'm thats a pretty based post.

How do you control morale and other status?

RTS genre is already great, it's just hard to create an audience for (arguably) the highest skill cap genre available

Does wargame: red dragon work with windows 10?

I want to make my own 2D RTS like the ones from the past. My art skills aren't really good enough though.

CK3

Sounds like you'd be trying to pull off way too much at the same time. Some ideas just seem needlessly convoluted, like having multiple stages of morale and having subsubfactions.

>>less focus on micromanaging your units while in combat, more on macroscale tactics and strategies
How do you do that? The old RTS games never "focused" on micro, and yet it became a major part of them.
How exactly do you "not focus" on micro, and focus on other parts?
>include a multi-staged morale system for squads: eager (gets attack bonus) -> normal (no bonuses or minuses) -> shaken -> broken (automatically tries to retreat from combat) /kamikaze (will fight to the death) depending on unit mixed with random chance and circumstances
How do you stop me from micromanaging my units to get the biggest advantage of the morale system?

>fighting should include terrestrial, aerial, and naval forces
How do you make them interact in organic way that doesnt make one aspec completely overshadow the others?
>have multiple factions that both look and play differently from each other
How do you make sure none of the factions is objectively stronger than the other?

>having subsubfactions
The expansion pack for C&C 3 had them in multiplayer, and it was perfectly fine. Obviously without the sub-sub-subfaction autism, but you can argue different upgrades available for research fill that niche because it's almost impossible and always impractical to have them all at the same time.

I tried getting into supcom fa recentlly but have been turned off by the shortcuts and the UI, the unintuitive way the cost/consumption of units and buildings is represented in general.
I literally had to google for the shortcuts because there is no manual and its not ingame either. I get that its old but its just amateurish.

One of the strangest things I see in these threads are antimicro/build order proponents proposing these complex systems that would invariably be optimized by the same two boogiemen. Even TBS has openers and optimization.

how many of you are going to buy wc3 remastered? you know you will
and how many will actually play it?
me I'll probably just do the campaign

i thoguht you meant WBC3 and almost got excited for a minute...

Not really, my CDs for WC3 and TFT still work perfectly fine.

This desu. 64bit Assquad2 would be a god send. Fantastic game but devs are next level retard
>packaging multiplayer ai into a dlc
What the fuck?
Just give 64 bit so I can play Robz mod with the lads without crashes every time someone uses more than one nebelwerfer.

>me I'll probably just do the campaign
Why do the one thing that reforged is fucking up the most?

>wc3
Imagine playing a game where you control 2-3 heroes and no more than 10 other units and claiming it's an RTS lmao.

I feel like Starcraft 2 did a great job in creating an RTS game for everyone.

Singleplayer campaign, coop mode (highest playerbase), 1v1 esports, 2v2/3v3/4v4 for casuals, custom/arcade games like in Warcraft 3. Its really in a new golden age.

>Even MOBA chess is more popular
Pathetic

RTS is a FLAWED genre that should be buried long time ago

What happened to that free sequel the devs were working on of wbc3? I remember playing dev builds a few years ago and it seemed pretty good. The campaigns were alot more fleshed out

>RTS is a FLAWED genre that should be buried long time ago
Wrong
Popular demand doesn't indicate quality.

RTS has evolved to glorified Tower Defense games.

Tell me about those pre-Battlecry games. I played a demo of one of them (3 I think) but can't remember much, was combat always auto-calculated by the PC? Are they worth getting into?

devolved*

Massing towers in WC3 was more fun than one would think.

pokemon RTS
>central trainer unit like the commander in SupCom
>can catch pokemon and add them to the army, start with a few, lots of wild pokemon scattered around the map, including legendary pokemon which need better pokemon and pokeballs to catch
>build buildings with "worker" pokemon, construction animation includes machop stomping the ground flat
>base buildings include pokemon center, pokemart (item shop), daycare, etc.
>items can be held by pokemon or used by the trainer (potions and the like)
>money is first gathered from beating NPC trainers in the map, then growing berries and converting them to money
>every player has an NPC rival trainer in the map who relocates and becomes stronger every time you beat him, after you beat him for the last time he joins your army
>later on low level pokemon can be hatched from the daycare or fished for almost free trash units
>superweapons include: legendary pokemon, AZ ultimate weapon, battle frontier (if it's standing after 20 minutes or so, you win automatically because your army has the best postgame)

I still love the Economic campaign in Stronghold.

Attached: stronghold.jpg (1920x1080, 1.42M)

>make it so the games will be long slogs full of close calls for both sides
That is what happens when two players of equal skill meets.

>win games in under 10 minutes
This is what happens when one player is better then the other

actually in originally coh + blitzkreig mod that seems to have been totally remedied.
>squads can gun each other down in no time at all without even closing the distance (especially if one has a machine gun)
>even without a squad machine gun a squad would usually need to be outnumber them 2 to 1 to bum rush them if they are defending from cover and the attackers are crossing open ground (assuming there arent any infernal knights cross niggers)
bit of a shame that modders behind blitzkrieg had such goddamn nazi boner though (and that they don't seem to give a flying bag of cat cum about coh 2)

CoH Blitzkrieg is goat. I play it with the historical accuracy mod and it's difficult to go back to vanilla. I love gunning down squads in seconds, that's definitely something the original lacked.

not a chance nigger-bag fuck off with your wizards and dragon shit
>oh sorry i forgot you cant fuck with your wizard and dragon shit, being a wizard yourself lmfao

It's just shitters who refuse to put any effort into learning how to play.

Yes you move units into eachother and the combat resolves through calculations.

The basics is a d20 is rolled for each unit engaging in combat, if they roll under their strength they have a success. When only 1 side has a success, the other one loses a hit or dies. Then units have various abilities that affect the strength, #hits, and have other effects during combat.
You can stack armies with up to 8 units.
There are up to 100 cities on a map, units take between 1-5 turns to make for a city.

If you liked the setting of Warlords Battlecry, then you can enjoy the various scenarios and two of the campaigns of Warlords 3 Darklords rising.
The two campaigns are Banewars and Drakdum.
All the scenarios have bits of pieces of lore for each ruin, site and city so it can give you some more insight to the different areas of the world.

Warlords 4 does take place in the same setting, but it has none of the good stuff from warlords 3, just bland and no lore.

Play it in virtualbox, you can play it outside of virtualbox, but the window needs to be active for it not to pause and the AI turns are long. So you want to be able to alt tab to do other stuff, virtualbox lets you do that since the window can remain active.

In warlords 1-2 everyone has access to the same units, every unit in the army set for that map. In w1 there's just one map.
So if you conquer an elven town, you can create elven archers there.

In warlords 3 you need to have elven archers in your personal army setup to be able to produce them.
You can either play as the standard army that faction has for that map, or a custom army set.

Attached: DwarfArmySet.png (1028x768, 529K)

>custom/arcade games like in Warcraft 3
SC2 custom maps aren't even comparable to WC3's.

>be playing coh 1 vanilla
>faggot has the knights cock holders at level 3 veterancy
>oh boy here we go.jpeg
>im playing britbongs
>drop an arty strike right on their godless fucking heads
>smoke and dust clears
>they are still there but now hiding in the crater

Attached: fuck you allies.jpg (565x394, 65K)

total war-style games are the future

this. i know this idea gets thrown around a lot in these thread but a ww1 total war could be absolutely god tier and revive the shit out of rts.
>but god please no more pure fantasy (no matter what legendoftotalwhores says) shit we have enough of that shit as it is
>also side note legendoftotalwar once called me a faggot on stream lmfao

Attached: 1551583541813.png (243x212, 79K)

>movie games are the future
dark future it is

Problem Englisch?

Yeah Blitzkrieg does a lot to resolve shitty situations like that. Just can't go back to vanilla and don't really want to get into CoH2. Brits are great fun in Blitzkrieg.

I reinstalled Europa Barbororum 1 recently. Early TW is the way to go desu.

>Brits are great fun in Blitzkrieg
Only with royal commandos tree

moddb.com/mods/historical-add-on-for-bk-mod

Brits get a lot of love in the Afrikan theatre desu.

user wtf are you talking about?

Rush is massively subjective and it will always exist. Even your dreaded MOBAs have the concept of rush based on character and item choices since some characters are better early game and some items are slot efficient whereas others are gold efficient, i.e. if you pick an early-to-mid game character and build gold efficient items you're rushing. And this is with severely limited choices. Now bring RTS macro into the game and rushing has an even wider margin.

>Remove the shitty goldmine economy and replace it with actual resource gathering.
I don't know what that means and you don't know what that means. I guess you might be referring to upkeep in WC3 but this is more of a supply lines mechanic rather than an actual economy mechanic and is tied to macro as you have to make a choice on whether you're going to be replacing units or go all in.
>Remove the stupid unit cap and make armies huge.
Not only does this change nothing other than remove skill from the game it is also pointless since if you focus on macro games you're just going to be throwing the army at the enemy cause why keep it and thus never amass anything.
>Make units die faster instead of tanking damage for 30 seconds.
Even more contradictions with muh huge armies cause what do huge armies matter if they get reduced to ash in a matter of seconds
>No fucking heroes.
Fair enough but this is even less player choice, skill and micro but it is valid criticism nonetheless as WC3 games revolve around hero choices too much
>Less micro and more macro focus.
While the less micro was obvious from all the other suggestions you just show that you've never been good at RTS and shouldn't comment on it. If the game is macro then you have more towers, which leads to more siege units which leads to trying to micro a fast unit to kill the sieges. Or durdly stalemates which ain't fun.

user, you suck at RTS and you don't understand the genre.

Nuke South Korea.

It's already fixed
>Interesting campaign
>Great multiplayer
>Map editor
>Unique controls

It's p good

Attached: toothandtail.jpg (1280x720, 302K)

By releasing Dawn of War 3 already

Seems like RTS discussion threads on 4channel.org/v/ discuss multiplayer most of the time.

oh shit i forgot about that game. i might just check it out. Convince me it isnt gay and I shall proceed with torrenting and MAYBE even purchase it (provided the mods are good enough)

It's what total war games are.
It's for people who want to see pretty battles unfold with minimal input and with no mechanical or strategical ability.

What Total War games have you played?

No multiplayer.

Attached: 1555778675533.jpg (792x596, 153K)

medieval total war 1+2

nigger have you even played fall of the faggurai?

world building not 1v1 building okay praise unfairness

People in WW2 were far less trigger happy then in Vietnam and so on.

Well sure if you want to lose.

People, observe this being of immense faggotry! Degenerates and men bestowed with skin akin to the night sky without moon herald his presence, for he sullies mans genitals and forgoes any woman! Revile him and spit upon him whenever or makes his presence known!

Good post desu. Not a big fan of some newer entries like Warhammer where it boils down to spellcasting heroes but older TW games are goat.

based tosis likes it
unbased incontrol shits on it

simple as

Attached: theboywhocriedtoss.jpg (2478x2484, 2.74M)

Simple just actually progress the genre to something other than Starcraft/Warcraft clone. Stuff like.
>Facilitate defensive playstyles
>Implement actual elevation into maps
>Make building a economy an actual factor
>Control squads of units instead of individual soldiers
>Multiple win conditions
>Actual points of interest to fight over
>Tech trees that do more than just "+ X% to being gay"
>AI that is not blatantly cheating

Or you know you could just keep the genre dead.

Attached: 5684750721b7b1269e3a50c4ea0a336ca5f58dbb9d09aeeafb04b96cc0ed76a5.jpg (1758x432, 230K)

>Facilitate defensive playstyles
In what ways do you mean and how are they presently lacking?

Anyone else fondly remember Battlerealms?

Ah yes, of course. Tosis and Incontrol.

Campaign
>Don't make it a glorified tutorial
>Set up unique scenarios and challenges for the player to overcome
Multiplayer
>Don't force an e-sport scene
>Seriously don't. It's a huge red flag.
>If people want to play competitively let it happen naturally
Maps
>Make the tools to create maps public and relatively easy to use.
>Encourage the community be recognizing good maps and make them official
Sound Design
>More voice lines for units is damn near always better.

Attached: 632076054958.png (2517x203, 45K)

Voice acting goes a long way, no doubt about that.
youtube.com/watch?v=uKHOL-EIGCY

>pic related
To be fair, at least for 2011 and to an extent for 2015 as well, there is the "Game of the Year" edition containing all DLCs, though that's usually 1-3 years afterwards.

>Facilitate defensive playstyles

Turtling has been a keystone of RTS play since its inception.

It's a nice game with a lot of personality and a sweet campaign, but the gameplay is way too simple and as a result it has little replay value. It gets old fast.

>>Facilitate defensive playstyles
>>Multiple win conditions
This is how I know you're retarded because your entire post meant
>lemme play tower defense

Ah you don't know them.
They're relevant to starcraft 2 and broodwar.

tosis=Artosis is a caster who's pretty good at broodwar on a foreigner(non korean) level, and he happens to like Tooth and Tail as well.
He has a podcast with a sc2 caster named incontrol, and he teases him about playing his rat game.

I can neither recommend nor advice against it.

Make player control small number of HUGE squads (mini-armies basically) instead of bajillion of independent units to limit clicks per second faggotry while keeping sense of scale. Total War does this right. I'd go for even less, more massive units.
Some nice base building autism. Less emphasis on the tech tree, more focus on practical side of buildings. Layers of defense, infrastructure etc.
Make playable factions as different as possible.
Control Points from DoW/Ground Control 2. They were better than gold mine shit.
Hire army of 2000 IQ sci-fi writers to come up with setting as cool as Command and Conquer.
No ASSFAGGOTS shit (hero units with abilities).
Make terrain and environment matter.

Attached: 1555616541334.gif (826x647, 622K)

>Multiple win conditions
I think that he might have something interesting there.
Though AoE2 already has that and people tend to dislike wonder victories.
Regicide is fairly popular.

>Mentioning DoW voice acting
Say what you want about DoW 2, some voice actors did absolutely stellar jobs
youtube.com/watch?v=nb6cSEI1FLk

Attached: scott-drive-me-closer-i-want-to-hit-them-with-15232782.png (500x402, 87K)

I'm not opposed to multiple win conditions in general but in this mongoloid's case it would just be an excuse to let him durdle around in a glorified tower defense. The irony here is the casual crowd hate rushing but tower rushes are a thing in AoE2, WC3 and SC, with AoE2 having some other niche strategies like castle rushes and town center rushes.

It's hilarious that everyone thinks mobas are the enemy because they 'casualized and streamlined the genre' yet their galaxy brain suggestions all boil down to 'less micro, no rush and less player control in general, more colony building' which clearly isn't casualizing and streamlining the genre in a more boomer way.

I never got the hate for rushing, don't you want to get down to business right from the get go? Rise of Legends had some really interesting gameplay where almost every match would have players fighting right from early on, it didn't quite work for the whole game because fortresses were a bit OP but it was a lot of fun to actually be engaged with the other player a majority of the time.

This makes me so mad considering how good the SC2 editor is

The fact that either of them have an opinion on it is reason to avoid.

It's just because RTS is probably the hardest genre to master yet it used to easily be the most accessible alongside RPGs, except until MMOs RPGs had no multiplayer and you could always 'legally cheat' by overleveling and metagaming, so when the majority of people got their assess handed to them in a MP setting, they blamed everything but themselves and rushes tend to be a pubstompy/cheesy tactic. Apparently the result of that is whiny niggas that have no clue what they want but they fondly remember building huge numbers of Carriers/Battlecruisers/Kirovs/your local equivalent of a giant fuck you unit so when you ask them what they want from an RTS revival you get contradicting answers mixed with profused sweating and multiple random confused blurts of muh macro. e.g. they want rock-paper-scissors balance of units but at the same time playing a long macro game should clearly have no downsides.

Here's what I'd like to see personally. A larger scale persistent world to build in that is also being built in by other factions with a focus on detailed stages of progression balanced between diplomacy economics and military conflict with aspects of subversion and specialty tactics. The focus would be on a satisfying arc of development through early middle and late stage gameplay, with each offering dynamic challenges that keep it from feeling stagnant or a straight line of growth. It would have to have a lot of hero units and rpg elements.

I would want the map to be massive and highly detailed but only make up a small piece of land comprised of several neighboring city states and other factions.

Attached: 1560629117279.jpg (1280x876, 238K)

>How would you fix the RTS genre?
Command and Conquer 3/Red Alert 3 Definitive Editions with proper 21:9 support

Attached: 1556897195441.jpg (2133x1200, 1.57M)

Too many Timmies out there. For the brief period I played Hearthstone in 2014-5 there were so damn many people complaining about cheap aggro decks, all those shitters wanted to do was to stall and play their supercool expensive legendaries.

Attached: 2019.jpg (1758x935, 287K)

>but in this mongoloid's case it would just be an excuse to let him durdle around in a glorified tower defense.
Yeah you're probably right.

>The irony here is the casual crowd hate rushing but tower rushes are a thing in AoE2, WC3 and SC, with AoE2 having some other niche strategies like castle rushes and town center rushes.
I never played aoe2 online so I luckily never suffered through a persian douche.
photon cannon rushes or tower rushes in wc3 though sure

Yes. Now fuck you for making me remember it.

gtfo blizzard fagot.

WBC has many rpg element that make the game unique.

All I want are more fun RTS that aren't focused 100% on being competitive simulators. Stuff like the deck system for Age of Empires 3 made picking one faction so much more diverse, because the random resource/unit/tech bonuses smattered throughout the game meant I could plan for having access to a specific resource even in a map that doesn't have it, or to exploit the hell out of another if I'm aware we're playing on one that will have it. Each time a match starts, you aren't going to be ready for what to deal with, but almost every RTS I play anymore has the same flat X-player layout built solely for 1v1 focus where each "resource pool" is cleanly defined and placed precisely where it would be the most balanced for esports focus, rather than having any identity, surprises, or demand for a player to diversify their immediate tactics beyond "Build A unit to probe for if they have B, C, or D unit, in which case counter with E, F, or G", which makes every single map as sterile as possible.

Attached: 1315253970745.jpg (325x436, 17K)

Because of the unique control scheme, mastering the micro is where the game really shines (talking about multiplayer). There's actually a decent amount of depth in the gameplay for you to learn

Blizzard killed the RTS genre when it made unit caps and goldmine resource gathering the standard.

Always fucking hated it. C&C went to shit after they tried copying it in RA3. Rushing also made the genre crap. Early units should be auto stomped by defensive structures and make maps massive again.

Attached: 71DAE261-FAD4-44DE-9FB9-CEF055F2767D.jpg (960x711, 43K)

Yeah I guess the Timmy player profile is a nice fit for what most of the comments here are, spot on.

>Early units should be auto stomped by defensive structures and make maps massive again.
Why even have early units if they are going to be auto countered by someone shitting out a defensive structure you absolute lobotomite??? What purpose could they serve if they can deal no real damage and hamper your opponents in any manner?

what's a good game to help me get better at RTS games,since I was like 7 I've always done the same shit, putting enemies on easy then absolutely steam rolling them after an hour of making a fuck huge army

See >randomly generated maps (though it has some rules to avoid bullshit scenarios)
>you can only pick a certain amount of units to build
>you don't know what units your opponent will choose

This forces you to read the map and improvise your strat based on the units you have for that particular match

This desu. Being able to harass your enemies early game is great.
AoE2 is fantastic because of this. So many options including early harassment, tower rushes, specific builds, limited resources as well as all factions essentially being on an equal footing save for specific bonuses.

>All I want are more fun RTS that aren't focused 100% on being competitive simulators.
this
this a million times

To be fair, if someone invests into early defensive structures AND has a good base layout, they should have an advantage against being rushed, but it should feel like they were forced to build towers or whatever and thus at least wasted some time and resources.

baddie

Why is it so satisfying tho?

To be fair anyone with over 80 IQ can tell that there is massive difference between 'auto stomped' and 'investing in early defensive structures and a good base layout'. Yes, you should be able to fend off early rushes if you scount/anticipate them, no this definitely shouldn't be automatic in any way.

Nobody should clue you retards into the fact that good, balanced games naturally foster a healthy competitive scene and forcing it does nothing e.g. CS and SC vs OW.

>equal footing

Attached: aoe2.png (1125x315, 48K)

To be fair, you need to have a very high IQ to build 300 towers in WC3 and make the game last 11 hours.

Yup. Equal footing save for specific bonuses.
Just so happens that some bonuses aren't as good as others.

>Make the opponent rage quit out of boredom
Just as Sun Tzu intended.

humans have always been the patrician race

Never played this game, looks nice but can someone explain wtf is wrong with its ui?
>scorpion model on bottom left corner with hp bar
>angry dude farting (is it the scorpions avatar?) With hp and energy bar
>scorpion model again next to stats
>empty square
??

>game calls you mentally deranged for getting gud

Attached: file.png (497x96, 59K)

Absolutely. Few things in life give as much joy as locking your opponent inside his base with invisible units, or cutting the trees behind his gold mine with a peasant (farmglitched into the trees so he can't be reached on foot) and building cannon towers, mass TPing a shitload of tanks into his base, using staff of TP into a mechanical critter to bomb his gold mind with Bloodmage then running away with an invis or shield potion etc etc.

please stop thinking you know shit

>that good, balanced games naturally foster a healthy competitive scene
hello underage

Funnily, in 1v1 are nearly as APM-intensive as starcraft.
The army might be much easier to control, but instead you have to constantly manage multiple constructors expanding in multiple directions. And then once the midgame gets going, it becomes a huge intense battle over the territory where you have to constantly fight the opponent while still managing your production and constructors reclaiming/building porc.

Too bad the 1v1 small game scene is pretty much dead at this point. I was really that the influx from the Steam release would stick around for longer.

Attached: r3x33J.jpg (2175x1440, 722K)

Left square shows the unit your mouse is on
Middle left is the player's hero avatar, clicking it selects the hero
Middle right is the unit currently selected
Right square is where you put a unit for quick access, a general of a separate squad for example
Been a while since I played it, might be wrong

>conveniently left out games given as an example which are both 20 years old
Hello retard

More like overage.

The whole phenomenon of developers/publishers pumping huge money into competitive scene began only like 10 years ago.

Brood war is the most famous example of a competitive scene growing organically with no intentional design or promotion from the devs.

Any game that's sufficiently popular will have a competitive scene. If its strictly singleplayer, people will compete at speedrunning it, if its multiplayer, people will compete directly.

>puzzle quest's soundtrack starts playing
bros...

Remove literally every feature that Blizzard added

Fixed

>2 examples
>against hundreds of games proving him wrong

>That font
Is that some Rise of Nations?

I barely remember the side squares.

This is just the base game with a higher resolution mod. I see a Orb of Wonder(Structure) in my right square for some reason.

Attached: 1v5stabilizedb.png (1920x1080, 2.42M)

I just buy good RTS games, like Rusted Warfare.

Attached: 1513693824453.jpg (1152x2048, 210K)

How is any of this related to calling me underage when the examples are 20 years old, lmao. Also care to point out these supposedly hundreds of games that are good and well balanced yet had no grassroots competitive scene you speak of?

Are old RTS the most soulful games out there?

Attached: 17_1.jpg (800x600, 145K)

Attached: Tone-3.png (644x513, 363K)

youtube.com/watch?v=mD4GbGmvNRc

Maybe user... maybe.

Playing men of war and majesty atm

Have a proper good single player campaign like the warcraft games.

I need more

Soul overwhelming
youtube.com/watch?v=ZhsylhzBXvM&ab_channel=Thicc_E_Logg

Offworld Trading Company is pretty good too

SC and WC2/3 had some of the greatest soundtracks of all time, never gets old.

Is it possible to find Warcraft 2 online matches nowadays?

Play Men of War with my buddy from home later tonight. We're going to do some Valour mod co-op vs the ai and I can't wait. Men of War really doesn't get enough love.

youtu.be/2iJtoYKTEG8

youtube.com/watch?v=kh39AXVCGQk

RTS soundtracks in general tend to be solid desu.

Is SupCom worth getting into? Everyone praises the shit out of it, but is it easy to get into or do I have to put in hours before I can play it on an enjoyable level?

Yes, I think some ruskies made their own private online service some years ago.

I meant more of the cosplayer tard

>Why even have early units if they are going to be auto countered by someone shitting out a defensive structure you absolute lobotomite???
1. Defensive structures cost resources and time to produce. In a good game investing in them early is damaging your economy.
2. Having stronger early game presense gives you map control even if you can't harass enemy bases. In a good game there's a reward for having map control (capturable neutral structures, extra resource sources, etc)

Have you literally never player a good RTS and not some blizzard garbage?

Offworld Trading Company has so many unique mechanics that it barely qualifies as RTS in traditional sense.
Its more like, uh, a Real Time Competitive Management Sim

I couldnt get my tiny brain around it. The amount of stuff you need to absorb on every level (hotkeys, game mechanics, rought builds, long-term win conditions) is so huge i couldnt get myself to invest my time in it

Get Forged Alliance.
There's a tutorial which is pretty straight forward and you can immediately get into skirmish mode with some AIs to get the hang of the game. I only recently started getting into it myself but the gameplay is very satisfying when you get it right. Right off the bat it's enjoyable even if you don't know what you're doing. With some experience you can get into FAF which still has an active player base from what I understand.

I think I used to watch this channel a bit.
Haven't uploaded in years though.

youtube.com/user/FrostbittenWarcraft/videos?&ab_channel=FrostbittenWarcraft

Casted various games.
I remember one human(!) vs orc game where the human won.

He just ignored his paladin upgrade and when the orc player bloodlusted his ogres mages, he just ran away with his knights and didn't engage until the bloodlust ran out

not sure but maybe he got some value out of mage invisibility

not sure how this channel is:
youtube.com/user/war2combat/videos?&ab_channel=war2combat

Attached: pepil.png (163x224, 43K)

>do I have to put in hours before I can play it on an enjoyable level?
Do you want to play against humans or AI?

Against AI - sure. Just play against some easier AI while you explore the techtree, then ramp up the difficulty when you get the hang of it
Against humans - good luck. Just as with any other very old game, you will be YEARS behind your opponents in term of experience and skill. Its not imposisble to catch up with the older players, but you'll need to dedicate some serious effort to do it.

>1. Defensive structures cost resources and time to produce. In a good game investing in them early is damaging your economy.
As opposed to units who are just pulled out of the ether for absolutely no time and resource investment
>2. Having stronger early game presense gives you map control even if you can't harass enemy bases.
Controlling the map from the durdly TD player and his menacing immobile defensive structures who would otherwise wrest map control from you or sneak attack you.

I am genuinely curious, are you mentally deficient by birth or did you survive some horrific accident?

>Is it possible to find Warcraft 2 online matches nowadays?
Yes, if you buy the gog version there are still a few players here and there. Not many though.

I like it more than Warcraft 3 due to no heroes or exp farming.

It should, although the RD community is a bit of an odd beast if you're trying to get into mp. Steel Division 2 has a bunch of quality of life improvements over SD1 and WG, as well as a very active community by comparison.

I'm aware of FAF. The still active community was one of the reasons why I was interested in the game.

I'm looking to play against humans. I'm simply looking to play a good RTS that still has an active community. SupCom seems to fit the bill. I'm aware that whatever game I pick I'll have to put some effort into learning it, I just don't want to pick something that is hard to learn and requires weaponized autism to play properly.

It definitely seems like the RTS community has been fragmented in the years since WC3 and BW. You've got the monkeys who were never cut out for playing RTS in the first place who moved onto ASSFAGGOTS. The base builder autists who loved spending 45 minutes setting up their perfect defensive base moved onto dedicated TD games or something like SimCity. Grognards who want singleplayer mil sims have Graviteam Tactics. Tryhards like me have Eugen's titles, and of course Starcraft 2 is still limping along, somehow.

I'm planning on playing the campaign with 2 other friends of mine without any mod, do you think Valour mod works for the campaign ?

You could try Steel Division 2. It's new so everyone's still learning the game to some extent, although anyone with experience with the first game or the Wargame series will have an advantage over a newcomer. It fulfills a lot of and desires, although not all of them. A tank can prevent the advance of an essentially unlimited quantity of infantry across an open field, or get one shot by a cheap panzerschreck team if it drives past a forest they are hiding in.

Attached: Steel-Division-2-Review-03-Pushing-the-Right-Flank.jpg (2560x1080, 2.16M)

Game HAS to be perfectly fun in singleplayer. Creating new IP rts, or rtt or tbs and tbt even, for multiplayer is a fucking suicide. Strategy games aren't that popular, especially rts and don't have massive marketing either and are also cut off from console playerbase. If a game built around multiplayer doesn't have a playerbase it is then unplayable and forever dead. On other hand game built around singleplayer, may grow to be popular given time and perhaps even multiplayer community will emerge around it.

There is also a problem that rts alone can be done in many drastically different ways and set in various settings which makes potential playerbase even smaller. I like Fantasy, Sci-fi, Medieval and Renaissance but I won't buy anything set in WW2, Antiquity or in wacky and funny setting because I won't enjoy it.

Attached: d7fa83f3020a388ceeeac498f23a8f0d8ae548f6.jpg (1920x1080, 360K)

Just had a look. Looks like no new Valour stuff is incorporated into the vanilla campaign but it works coop.

Though Valour has a lot of its own skirmish content you can play in coop. I would also suggest getting Sirhinkel's valour missions which is a lot of fun campaign content for each faction you can play in coop.