SC, early CNC, and AoE / 2 < TA.
SC2 and TA < SupCom.
So, the franchise is "winning RTS", even though FA is from 2007, and 2 is from 2010. Specifically, is the camera (zoomability and location-hotkeys), variety:depth (units and buildings; stats such as units' turning rates, turret rotation speeds, special effects, and other balancing aspects; options, amongst techs, such as shields, ranges, powers, production efficiency, and, e.g., "many counterplayables, and depending on the faction -- field-engies, placeable building assisters, stealth, EMP, building / unit artilleries, commander /- uniques such as teleportation, the "mazer", shoulder nanobots, tactical missiles, and income for resources..). Furthermore, comparably, is units' action-queues and attacking-while-moving, which were available in TA (1997) -- specifically, critiquing AoE..
"Buildable" variety is dense, which has it (even -- and though especially because of microing and macroing) surpassing MOBA technical skillfulness, momentary fantasy, and enjoyability / entertainment.
RTS -- *Bests* edition
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
urc.tauniverse.com
twitter.com
based schizo, i will bump your thread to say that TA style games are boring as fuck
•"SP" hasn't been a very pleasing niche of the genre. Further "advanced AI" ("than the usual") isn't some really human-esque, dynamic (-ally-intense), and thus fun "strategist", and communicator. ..Having the gamemode-quality is an oft-criticism amongst mentions of popularity, so an inquiry is what those demographics are intrigued with amongst "such simplicity".
A).
>Being OK with being "casual".
Small-maps, lobby games are already limited in their rewards vs. persistent gameplay / worlds -- and a lot of the genre's standard gameplay is competence of hotkeys and micro:macro. "Speed and some momentary strategic options are, simply, the fundamentals of the archetype" ("it's top-down and clicky") -- so "story" is, for demographics, found in more 3D happenings. ..But of what's available, SP simply isn't an example of what's been explanatory about min-maxes of popularity.
B).
>Being OK with each's minimalism and playing MP..
Speed and spontaneity are featured -- though experiences are only of innovation / optimizations amongst a few games, and in even fewer lobbies. ("Specifically: SupCom and the sequel..")
•The community of the genre hasn't been.. very much at all. There's little cohesion of accepted standards / features, or even knowledgeability of what that plausibly is. This is awry because the gameplay is an odd combination of hotkeys/clickiness (somewhat similar to top-down dungeon crawlers) with having a lot more fantasy-meets-reality momentary strategy (player events) than many games (somewhat analogous to "golf vs. basketball"). "Somehow, *much* less action and fun became popular, with MOBAs, controlling a character being intriguing; but the standing around in lanes, PvEing, isn't some intense, joyous exhibition.."
----
>[Not an argument].
Warzone 2100 is the best single player campaign in rts genre.
SupCom2 was a travesty.
the riddler is back
"It wasn't"; popularity isn't a valid criticism: the gaming demographic was small, and the genre's (and game's) advertisement was (comparatively, to recent metas) relegated to events.
>SupCom 1
>Can only play ~50 min before game shits itself and crashes cause LOL 2gb ram
speaking of AI...
...
I hadn't noticed personal performance problems on MP, but that's honestly more about how often mediocre another player's PCs is.
>[Microing is Fun edition].
>persistent gameplay / worlds
What? You want RTS with persistent worlds?
How the fuck would that even work, the guy who's online longer wins? The guy who came first sends his fuck-you max supply army against whoever joins, until he goes afk and gets rushed?
Although since we're on that topic the "world domination" mechanic from TS/RA2 was cool as hell and I'm disappointed it isn't in the TD remaster. Would be a cool gimmick to get people to play every now and then.
Not sure I'm an idiot, but I noticed in Total Annihilation often times the best way to win is just throw everything at your opponent, because units get wiped out so easily.
It's the game for people who like to make a massive blob and attack move, not a fan.
supcom and TA are for fags.
you deserve your dead genre
I know it’s a divisive entry, but Aoe3 is a fantastic rts. I still love it 15 years on.
*An* example is wins giving locations and bonuses, similar to Bfront II Classic's galactic conquests. ..FAF had something similar.
There's an obvious locational meta -- ranges, and momentary building.
>massive blob and attack move
A). "Compared to what?"
B). TA was especially known for its positional weaponization / 3Dness. Amongst controlling units (and establishing building placement) around the terrain, multiple sorts are available, from short-ranged lasers to long-ranged rockets.. in addition to turret-turning / speeds and other aspects of mobility:accuracy.
>[Not a specific criticism or argument].
----
----
As far as taking advantage of 3D terrain, Myth from the same year is much better than Total Annihilation in that aspect.
>What? You want RTS with persistent worlds?
There were a couple of really weird experimental titles that kinda crept under the radar.
Shattered galaxy being one of them. I'm pretty sure it's still alive too but like this user said
>An* example is wins giving locations and bonuses, similar to Bfront II Classic's galactic conquests
That's exactly how that work. There was an undwerworld and an overworld. 3 factions are constantly fighting over the over world. If you venture to a map with a match in progress you can join in on the smack down. Once a match was completed the winner get's the territory and a shield over it for the time being.
The underworld was weird AI monsters that if were given no actual confrontation, would rise and conquer parts of the overworld. Meaning that players needed to work together to keep not only the over world fine but also the underworld so the captured territory wouldn't be captured by ayys.
"Are you expecting me / the readers checking videos or something?"
>[No specifics].
I'm not even that on about TA; my original assertions were favoring the newer iterations.
>[That solved the SC / {etc.} problem].
What RTS games let me turtle like a mother fucker? I love building bases and fortifications.
TA metal maps.
Why oh why did they drop the sexy as fuck economy building in sup Com 2. All I want to do is make my entire base into an infinite energy source and pump out experimentals every 10 seconds
I've been playing Zero-K which is a spring clone I think, I was craving some SupCom but my friends are cheap.
Too complicated for the audience for the sequel I guess.
Anyone else not understand anything this brainlet is trying to say
Supreme commander but not the second one
It's got the absolute best turtling you can spend all your resources on economy buildings, long range artillery, and shield generators then set up a proxy base in range of your enemy and just rain hell down on them
I gave up up in the first sentence.
..Because base-building is bland and repetitive. FA has some of the worst community "meta" in any strategic gameplay; communication is rare, so strategy is whimsical -- and it denominates to leasts, players ecoing and teching as quickly as they can. "Solo".. The maps that are most played are often only 2 sides. And if there is something more than a middle funneling passway (such as side navies), many players aren't keeping up theirs. (This has Setons -- being huge -- really benefiting from building-orders and other sometimes-odd skillfulness, such as how knowledge-based counters / choices are. ..In FAF, those sorts are furthered by patches.)
>["Wasn't understanding something"].
>[Shitposted].
That's simply not very true. Mexes and upgrades are much too important, very lucrative advantages for expansion. Teammate's guarding is an option, but that's a thing for the sequel also (though encounters and economy are really advancing of researching capabilities).
----
"Both games are moddable.."