IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
I just noticed the trend of RTS recently in term of gameplay and mechanic., My own though about RTS trend in term of gameplay and mechanic
OrikoMikuni
post 30 Apr 2019, 11:37
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 12 February 2019
Member No.: 19478



There are plenty of changes of the RTS through time which give me the mixed emotion about how the future of the RTS going to be. Here is a list of trends I think about the recent popular RTS:

-The removal of naval combat. For a long time I have came across a few RTS or mod with naval combat and I have to say it's rather a little dull (except RA3 but it's still not reached it's full potential in the tournament as I still see the majority of the combat are land based unit or air force, naval unit still play only a smaller role in the game). Although I already read a few posts about it I think the real problem come from the fact it lack the same depth of land based combat (more unit variety, more terrain variety, require an entire type of naval units which doesn't blend well to the land based combat which often happen even more ton the land than the sea).

-The simplify of jet or the removal of airfield. Act of War/Act of Aggression, Company of Hero series, Generals 2, they all removing the traditional formula of manually controlling your own jet either by easier mechanic or call-in support ability.

-More abilities to use, it's a double edged sword for the one who love more depth and the one who dislike too much micro (this is the part I got the most mixed feeling about this). The C&C during EA era also follow this path by giving each units their own special ability.

-More 'conventional' feel. Act of War series, Generals series, Company of Heroes series all getting closer to the realism of technology and less room for high tech or weird tech weapon. (I don't want to bash or anything but it's just my though about it)

-More depth in term of urban combat and infantry use. Act of War series give you more interaction with the infantry by using object as the covering or the building rooftop. Company of Heroes give you the cover mechanic of infantry along with many interesting mechanic to promote infantry play (which I loved the most for this concern of infantry combat).

-More symmetry design. I think the symmetry is necessary for the sake of balancing and a much easier time for designing new unit. Although some people said Starcraft reached it's famous due to the asymmetry design I think it won't happened in the future after seeing how much problematic to balance such kind of design.

-The turtle style are being more discouraged in the multiplayer while it's a big favorite thing in the casual and single player. CoH British is a good example of how polarizing the people opinion is, either they love it in the casual play or they hate it in the multiplayer and competitive. Although I love the turtle design of CoH British, Rots ECA and Brood War Mech Terran I know it will cause a very huge clash of two opposite playstyle in casual and competitive compared to the other common design like Powerhouse or Subversive (brute/heavy unit vs horde/mobility tactic).

-Different type of gameplay. Endwar and World in Conflict give you 3D style view along with other RTS which give you are different kind of design than these points I said earlier.

Although I know I'm not having the most knowledge and experience like you guys here but I would love to hear you guys opinions about the trend of RTS recently (pls don't give too much salt into this post since I want to see a healthy debate instead of another meaningless flame war again).

This post has been edited by OrikoMikuni: 30 Apr 2019, 11:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
X1Destroy
post 30 Apr 2019, 20:23
Post #2


Guardsman
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2077
Joined: 22 October 2012
From: Terra
Member No.: 9379
Armageddon is here..............



I do hate the fact that the new strategy games are going overboard in terms of overdone "real but not realism" and ones with insane scale that make having good graphic useless.

The games like steel division and wargame is the one that go extremely overboard with making the player a general. You have lots of units, they all look great but you almost never look at them because it distract you from the actual game of planning stuffs and out-witting your enemy on the giant grid map.

People keep hating COH for small maps and unrealistic limited gameplay but it's the one that make the most sense. You pay attention to your king tiger because it will vet up and destroy everything, the game actually reward player for looking at things upclose and directly controling it. Come back to games that favor economic, productions and strategic maneuvering with entire divisions, I don't feel attach to my unit as much because it became more like a number crunching math rather than a immersive war experience.

Men of war is also wrong in a completely different way. You have to babysit just about everything, inluding every tiny infantry man need to mannualy resupply theirs ammo. And yet it didn't change anything when a tank come. They all die, worthlessly unless you love doing monkey work to an extreme level. This kind of realism is really bad in any RTS game that isn't about a small group of infantry going commando. Logistic is important in RL but is fucking boring to watch in either movie or game.

While it's true that C&C might be the same boring ridiculous looking mechanic like SC, it's mostly because it was from an ancient era and even then the old game was more about having fun blasting things up. And it changed over time too. Have the first C&C been made in 2010 we wouldn't have this tradition of stupid house color, infantry tearing tanks apart with rifle or raptors spam in hundreds. It would mostly play the same but a bit more logical at least aethestic wise. The coldwar crisis mod is the perfect example.

Turtle play is disliked because the new games are more and more MP focus than skirmish, camp and coop. Games like DOW and COH greatly discourage this playstyle due to the fact that main game mode is victory point capture and hold rather than annihilation. It cause alots of frustration when up against player that do nothing but stay at the same spot building turrets and mortar bunker while theirs team mates help them to get back everytime you bombard them with artillery. Those that watch gaming stream hate long games, and they want to see tacticool actions. Turtling is all about making your enemy feed theirs troop to the grinder while you stall for a superweapon to make a counter offensive. Unless you like WW1, this is a waste of time in the mind of most people.



This post has been edited by X1Destroy: 30 Apr 2019, 20:35


--------------------
We Die Standing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OrikoMikuni
post 1 May 2019, 11:04
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 12 February 2019
Member No.: 19478



Agree. Managing stuff like logistic, ammo, etc.. would be truly boring even if I haven't play Men of War. It's doesn't feel fun when both side have to reload or run out of bullet when they are in a middle of a fight. I think that's why logistic often got simplified into gathering resource with money then you won't have to care much about your unit ammo or supply after you buy them.

But there is one interesting thing I want to see if logistic was properly made into RTS: guerilla warfare. Like how the Russian able to cut the supply line of the German when they become out stretched. For a long time I often saw Subversive faction with guerilla playstyle (like Nod) often have to rush before the Powerhouse faction build a big army to crush you. In the Operation Barbossa in the real life they are quite the opposite, the German got the initial advantage with heavy and high quality unit but later the Russian able to prolong the war and defeat them after destroying their logistic and grind them to halt. I know RL is completely different than in-game but I want to see the role got reverse once: Subversive win late game while Powerhouse win early (especially when you got a good guy faction (like CoH USA) who need to rush fast if they are Subversive while the bad guy faction (CoH Wehrmacht) who can just turtle and defense until they got big units out, it feels a little awkward tbh).

This post has been edited by OrikoMikuni: 1 May 2019, 11:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
X1Destroy
post 2 May 2019, 9:00
Post #4


Guardsman
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 2077
Joined: 22 October 2012
From: Terra
Member No.: 9379
Armageddon is here..............



COH2 did away with bought veterancy and the Oberkommando West is similar to what you described. They have powerful infantry and vehicles but bad fuel and ammo income so they have to rely on salvaging wrecks. Any vehicle lost is a serious blow to them and unless this is a big team game the longer the game drags on the more disadvantage they get.

On the otherhand Russian and US are really powerful the later the game. Russian units are average but highly numerous and cheap. T34-85 is no joke. Theirs SU-76 and Zis AT gun can also be used as indirect artillery that can 1 hit kill your infantry squad, so at late game when they have so much ammo you're going to be in big trouble.
US even have unit withdrawal to get back fuel and manpower from vehicles you no longer need. Weapon racks allow double BAR or bazooka on every infantry squad. Yeah, bad news for everyone.

As for Brit, the Turtling got even worse. Counter artillery and bofor spam ruin the fun for everyone. People complained about OKW flak truck and they add a spammable turret for brit that can be garrisioned. Talk about trolling.


--------------------
We Die Standing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29 March 2024 - 11:38