TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- spilled over from the gaming forum :D
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

spilled over from the gaming forum :D

What makes a strategy game?

North American release of Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance has occurred, and the rest of us are waiting with ebay accounts desperate to get into the action before the worldwide release on the 22nd November. Forged Alliance is the game that supcom should have been, and here I will discuss a few of the BIG reasons FA is the single greatest RTS currently available.

tactical and strategic depth

The most important criteria for ANY strategy game. How many ways are there to win? How many different strategies does the game allow for and reward? With the scope of the game and the sheer number of versatile and diverse units, FA offers more depth than any other RTS. Include in this all the different strategic buildings and you have a wealth of play styles, and a wealth of tactical options.

For instance:

Let's say you are being harassed by a Tier (T) 1 bomber. What can you use to counter it?

You have: T1/T2/T2 fighters. T1/T2 Anti Air (AA) ground units. T1/T2/T3 static AA defenses. And 2-4 naval units that come equipped with AA defenses. that's 10-14 different units to combat that particular unit. No other game allows for such versatility. Sure some are better than others (as you would want and expect) but that's the strategy- what are your goals going into the mission and how do you achieve that goal with the units you have at your disposal? there are simply a million different ways to play with the combination of units. No other RTS has the same freedom, especially since they all use "hard counters" of 1 or 2 units.

simulation

It is rare to find an RTS that is a simulation, indeed the only other big name is total annihilation (I know there is one other but I do not know the name of it). never EVER underestimate the gains in gameplay dynamics that you receive from playing a simulation. If someone doubts the veracity of the argument that a simulation improves gameplay, they simply do not understand how much of a difference it really makes. If your aircraft flies too close to artillery, there is a (small) chance it could get taken out by a shell intended for somewhere else on the map. I saw an amusing video recently where a player flew his fighters too close to his flying experimental unit, and when the experimental fired, it managed to hit half his supporting fighters- you simply cannot get this type of dynamic in the purely maths-based rules you find in all other games. If units walk in front of other units they will get hit instead of the unit that is now behind.

What does this all mean?

DYNAMIC battles. They are unpredictable. There is no more "oh I have 5 footmen he has 4 grunts, im going to lose". A unit might simply be microed behind a legde so that unit X cannot fire on it. Not because there's an arbitrary rule stating "units in area of X get +50% to armour bonus" -unit X cannot be hit simply because there is something in the way. This allows for real strategy when placing buildings too. Put your static defenses in a "ditch" and artillery will have a harder time hitting it, again, not because of any bullshit rules. Bubble shields are great for protecting those IN the bubble, but ALSO those that are stationed BEHIND the bubble, because enemies firing at them will hit the bubble first. You cant get that kind of dynamic without a simulation.

This also changes balance. Any unit that can hit any other unit will hit that unit, no penalty! There are no silly rules to remember "oh, magic does extra damage to heavy armour". What this means is that you don't get ridiculous things happening, like in empire at war where an ATAT had been coded to be useless against ground troops. I mean, we all saw them tear humans up in empire strikes back didn�t we? It means enough of unit X will beat unit Y, no matter how powerful. This adds to tactical variety "oh, he's got that super duper unit, but if I mass enough of my average unit I might just get over the top of him".

It allows for artillery to be useless against units, as well as being AWESOME againt units AND buildings. How? Simple. Artillery projectiles are relatively slow, meaning a good player can micro his troops out of the way. BUT, if the artillery still manages to hit, then it does its full, regular damage. No need for bonus damage against buildings and reduced damage to units. It just happened NATURALLY and fluidly, and again, makes sense!!!

It means real tactics come into play and you get real rewards- forcing a well-executed pincer on an opponent works because dynamically. Again, there are no "if you execute a pincer you get +50% to attack rolls", it works because you have come into behind (or to the side) of an opponent, and it takes valuable time for the unit's TURRET and/or DIRECTION to shift to face the new threat. It means that if a group of units such as aircraft retreat, they can no longer fire on you because their turret's rotation is limited.

Again, all of this rewards a player that can use their troops well, and makes it more of a its how you use your units rather than what units you have moreso than any other RTS available.

freedom

This kind of ties in with the other two topics, but what the hell. Because of its rich tactical nature and the fact that it is a simulation, there are no hard and fast rules to victory. In many other RTS's its all about buildings heaps of troops and sending them to your opponents base. Repeat. But in FA you really need to be aware and prepared for anything. Tactical missile strikes, hidden bases behind your lines of defense, troop drops behind enemy lines, stealthed fighter-bombers, mobile bombs, navy bombardment, having your bases captured and used against you, amphibious units sneaking up on you unprotected etc etc etc. I have watched dozens of replays and I rarely see the same tactics twice. Thus intel plays more of a role than any other game that has come before, which is cool because you then have to worry about jamming, stealth, and cloaking! If you lose the information war you'll probably lose the game. Again, this really rewards sound strategy.

The diversity of all the new units makes play really interesting, and adds more to the tactical depth and the freedom of how you choose to play. If you found map control unimportant in supcom, you will be VERY pleased with how important map control is in forged alliance. It means you are fighting over the entire map for the majority of the game! The action is better than anything ive played or seen. Hundreds and hundreds of versatile, diverse units all shooting the shit out of each other. And because there's no bullshit hard-counter rules, it is MUCH more satisfying.

build templates

Ok, this might not appeal to some but I think it is fantastic.

Load a sandbox game (testing to just play with yourself).

Build any combination of structures. Save.

Load a multiplayer game and BINGO! There's your saved group of structures ready to be built in the order you originally built them. no more fucking around in your base building economy or defenses. You simply load a saved template and you're away! I love this because it really allows for some creative, sexy & functional base designs and forward firebases without you having to spend the time designing them!! It saves SO much time! And that's more time you get for moving your troops around.

Nobody says you have to like FA more than other titles in the RTS genre, but I am simply stating that FA is easily the best in the categories I have briefly outlined. Tactical/strategic depth, simulation & freedom are the most important aspects of a strategy title however, and there can be no argument that FA wins hands down in these departments. Make no mistake, FA is the strategy title for adults that want as much freedom from their gameplay as possible. And gameplay > all.

Pick up the standalone expansion for about $30US and try it for yourself.



COR version: forged alliance is the greatest RTS title ever made, buy it.

what do the expurts say about this?

Getting this.

Love the original.

Did you seriously write all of that yourself?

quote:

Originally posted by Boomer187 what do the expurts say about this?

ive been gaming for 26 years, i AM an expert um, don't pay attention to the gamespot review, he made some very bad errors in his commentary. i suggest you wait for the IGN one, they know their shit more often than not.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Did you seriously write all of that yourself?

yep it IS the greatest RTS title ever made after all

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yep it IS the greatest RTS title ever made after all

I might just pick it up one of these years.

I DEMAND A COR VERSION!

Re: spilled over from the gaming forum :D

quote:

Originally posted by XoxidE I DEMAND A COR VERSION!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN COR version: forged alliance is the greatest RTS title ever made, buy it.

i doubt you have the capacity to play it, so i bought you some of these intead.

there is a gaming forum?

Re: spilled over from the gaming forum :D

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Physics owns warcraft 3 tft sucks

Well I'm Supreme commander forged alliance is a great game. Haven't got a good enough CPU to play it but anyway.

What is wrong with counters? In warcraft 3 tft intelligence plays just as much a role... if not more because you can actually predict what the enemy is doing. Not... well they could be doing one of 5 things (probably much more) it's more one of 2 (and one of 4 of their unorthadox).

Warcraft 3 tft isn't terribly complicated but it is pretty deep

Supreme commander FA is certainly rather complicated... is it deep though? Sounds like it is.

Re: Re: spilled over from the gaming forum :D

quote:

Originally posted by Darkarbiter What is wrong with counters?

HARD counters reduce depth, soft counters do not.

quote:

In warcraft 3 tft intelligence plays just as much a role... if not more because you can actually predict what the enemy is doing. Not... well they could be doing one of 5 things (probably much more) it's more one of 2 (and one of 4 of their unorthadox).

yeah, but the difference is that WC3 had nothing to do with map control, other than creeping. you basically knew where your opponent was and the goal was to smash that base into the ground. since there are so many bases in FA, as well as a number of different counter-intelligence units, intel becomes far more complicated and important. not to mention that you're fighting on several fronts at the same time and that many units can shooter further than they can see, so intel plays another role here too. intel is far more important in FA than WC3 (and i loved TFT).

Re: Re: Re: spilled over from the gaming forum :D

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN HARD counters reduce depth, soft counters do not. yeah, but the difference is that WC3 had nothing to do with map control, other than creeping. you basically knew where your opponent was and the goal was to smash that base into the ground. since there are so many bases in FA, as well as a number of different counter-intelligence units, intel becomes far more complicated and important. not to mention that you're fighting on several fronts at the same time and that many units can shooter further than they can see, so intel plays another role here too. intel is far more important in FA than WC3 (and i loved TFT).

Expansions? That was the main point of map control.

Re: Re: Re: spilled over from the gaming forum :D

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN HARD counters reduce depth, soft counters do not. yeah, but the difference is that WC3 had nothing to do with map control, other than creeping. you basically knew where your opponent was and the goal was to smash that base into the ground. since there are so many bases in FA, as well as a number of different counter-intelligence units, intel becomes far more complicated and important. not to mention that you're fighting on several fronts at the same time and that many units can shooter further than they can see, so intel plays another role here too. intel is far more important in FA than WC3 (and i loved TFT).

100% agree on first point. A huge weakness of WCIII TFT, since it's mostly hard counters. Or in the case of the Demon Hunter + Bears + Dryads, an everything counter.

On your second point: it can become map control, but that's usually late game and map dependent.

Honestly, the main issue with TFT is balance and overall flexibility of play. IMO, TFT's true source of imbalance comes not from particular units or Heroes, but the fact that certain races have a distinct advantage (read: Night Elf) in that they have a larger pool of strategic "options" to choose from. This is the opposite of say a Human player, who will go Archmage first 90% of the time, and have 1-2 viable strategies at high levels of play if he is to have a hope of winning. Night Elf on the other hand: Demon Hunter, Warden, PotM (mirror), Dark Ranger, Naga, etc. and a plethora of useful units, and the "solve all" Bears+Dryad combo if all else fails.

So as an analogy: the advantage a Random player has is that, at the start of a game, the enemy will not know what race he is and thus will not know what potential strategies he will be facing. This will delay the Random opponent's initial "confidence" in strategy. The disadvantage is that even the best Random player will, in theory, not be the best at any of the races he does get, while the set-race player will be the best at that race.

Problem is, when you play a race with more options (like Night Elf), you have a "randomized" effect in addition to the fact that you are playing your best race.

TFT in a nutshell is: learn the few strategies that work, and practice them nonstop until you perfect the most minute of details so that you can get that 5% advantage that will result in you winning the game. Result? It gets boring, and very frustrating when you lose because of the smallest detail, despite the near-perfection of the rest of your game.

CoR version: TFT had potential, but it's inferior to StarCraft as a true RTS. Hopefully the upcoming patch will fix that, but I doubt it. As for FA, I can't judge it, since I haven't played it before.

how about a CoR version of this whole fucking thread?

Re: Re: Re: Re: spilled over from the gaming forum :D

quote:

Originally posted by Turbonium 100% agree on first point. A huge weakness of WCIII TFT, since it's mostly hard counters. Or in the case of the Demon Hunter + Bears + Dryads, an everything counter. On your second point: it can become map control, but that's usually late game and map dependent. Honestly, the main issue with TFT is balance and overall flexibility of play. IMO, TFT's true source of imbalance comes not from particular units or Heroes, but the fact that certain races have a distinct advantage (read: Night Elf) in that they have a larger pool of strategic "options" to choose from. This is the opposite of say a Human player, who will go Archmage first 90% of the time, and have 1-2 viable strategies at high levels of play if he is to have a hope of winning. Night Elf on the other hand: Demon Hunter, Warden, PotM (mirror), Dark Ranger, Naga, etc. and a plethora of useful units, and the "solve all" Bears+Dryad combo if all else fails. So as an analogy: the advantage a Random player has is that, at the start of a game, the enemy will not know what race he is and thus will not know what potential strategies he will be facing. This will delay the Random opponent's initial "confidence" in strategy. The disadvantage is that even the best Random player will, in theory, not be the best at any of the races he does get, while the set-race player will be the best at that race. Problem is, when you play a race with more options (like Night Elf), you have a "randomized" effect in addition to the fact that you are playing your best race. TFT in a nutshell is: learn the few strategies that work, and practice them nonstop until you perfect the most minute of details so that you can get that 5% advantage that will result in you winning the game. Result? It gets boring, and very frustrating when you lose because of the smallest detail, despite the near-perfection of the rest of your game. CoR version: TFT had potential, but it's inferior to StarCraft as a true RTS. Hopefully the upcoming patch will fix that, but I doubt it. As for FA, I can't judge it, since I haven't played it before.

That's not a cor version thats just a summary.
Sif starcraft didn't have hard counters?

Re: Re: Re: Re: spilled over from the gaming forum :D

quote:

Originally posted by Darkarbiter Expansions? That was the main point of map control.

not really. expansions only occured at specific parts of the map that are easily accessible by everyone (the mines). there is no need to "hold ground" anywhere. and by holding a mine you are merely generating more income, you're controlling the mine, but not really the map.

whereas in FA you can build "mines" anywhere for income, the more resource generating structures you have, the more map you have to control/defend.

Im not bashing TFT at all, I just used examples from it because it is the RTS ive played the most. Its an awesome game for what it is, but in terms of tactics and strategy there simply isnt the amount of freedom.

quote:

On your second point: it can become map control, but that's usually late game and map dependent.

See above, it�s a totally different concept. Map control in FA means that you can prevent the enemy from reaching say, your main base. Controlling many mines in WC3 might give you more gold, but its not the same thing as "holding" the useable terrain. Since some units/weapons have such a huge range on them, control of the map becomes paramount.

again i loved WC3 and only stopped playing it in feb when supcom was released. great game for its time and its still my fave game of its type.

yummy yum yum!

Jesus. Nice graphics That flying saucer is insane.

Perhaps I should get back into gaming

Jesus Christ. You're fucking X TREME.

TO THE MAX!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk Perhaps I should get back into gaming

come and make sweet love to forged alliance with me

quote:

Originally posted by j������� You're fucking X TREME.

like, X TREMEly helpful? thanks

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN come and make sweet love to me

Queeeeeeer!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.