Are there any SP RTS games that actually involve strategy?

[baronjohn]

It seems in most of them you just wait until you've built enough units to roll over the enemy's base.

 

[Malakal]

Strategy? Unlikely. Tactics? Yes, many. For example Warcraft 3 or Starcraft 2 are games where tactics and proper unit use are very important. Of course in all games with bases and resources those elements are too going to be important, but good micro and tactics can win with superior numbers.

The question should be: are there games where non APM/micro tactics are important.

 

[Multiple Sarcasm]

Apart from games offering alternative ways of conquest (cultural in SoaSE comes to mind), I can't think of any way for "strategy" to enter into "real-time" games. Strategy in them is already pre-defined, - all you get to decide is the R-P-S of units and resource cost/effectiveness management.

 

[DakaSha]

AI War
More strategy then many TBS'

There are plenty of times you swarm an enemy with a blob of units but AI war is NOT about that and relying on it will mean death.

You cant play against humans though. (Coop is a big thing in it however)

 

[laclongquan]

Warzone 2100, baby, Warzone 2100!!!

The campaign is designed so that you will never have enough to roll enemies over and stuck it in. Oh no! Even at the end of this major base and we delay the time to get more resources and units, the new map still rape you pretty hard.

And it's strategical planned alright:

You want to concentrate on aircrafts, expensive as all get out and very easily lost, which lead to the loss of unit's XP.

Or you concentrate on ground vehicle, main battle tanks and stuffs, which is slower than aircrafts and vulnerable to airstrikes even with AA units.

Or you use light fast scouts with heavy battalions of artillery and shell them like heck?

You have a cap on the number of units produced so it's a concious decision of strategy you are making all the time.

 

[Destroid]

It seems in most strategy games you just wait until you've built enough armies/fleets/etc. to roll over the enemy's country/planets/etc.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Rise of Nations.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Re: Are there any SP RTS games that actually involve strateg

It seems in most of them you just wait until you've built enough units to roll over the enemy's base.

I've always considered it a bit comical that codexers, who fancy themselves hardcore gamers, would use this argument against RTS's. I mean, it is true that you are supposed to build units but that is typically balanced by the fact that your opponent also builds units. Unless you only play campaign (which misses the entire point of RTSes) you can't win by simply waiting and building units, because a pro-active policy by your opponent (such as attacking you when he has a superior army, or expanding) can completely fuck your shit up. The argument reveals a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of RTSes in particular and strategy in general.

To answer the question though, as the supcom creator said: Most RTSes should have been called RTTs instead, although of course different games can put more or less emphasis on macro. I am under the impression that SC2 has more macro than many other games, although I haven't played it so I can't say for sure.

 

[oscar]

Watch a pro game of Starcraft and tell me there's no strategy involved. Seemingly small decisions like building an extra worker in the beginning or researching one tech over the other often have massive repercussions.

Though these are all relatively moot points against the AI in campaign. Writing off RTS's as "build enough units then steamroll the enemy", while understandable, is no better then dismissing RPG's and saying "I played WoW and all you do is grind shit". To actually get fun "roleplaying" you need an intriguing setting that draws you in and makes you think as your character would. To get challenging strategy you need a competent opponent and balanced teams that forces you too make decisions (rush now and try cripple his economy or gain an early victory? Hope he doesn't rush and develop my economy and tech for the long-term? Turtle and try and make him take heavy enough losses that you can counterattack and win?.

Just as millions of 15 year old kids running around yelling "fagg0t" doesn't result in interesting roleplaying neither does fighting some unimaginative AI result in a fun strategical battle.

 

[attackfighter]

Strategy? Unlikely. Tactics? Yes, many. For example Warcraft 3 or Starcraft 2 are games where tactics and proper unit use are very important. Of course in all games with bases and resources those elements are too going to be important, but good micro and tactics can win with superior numbers.

The question should be: are there games where non APM/micro tactics are important.

StarCraft 2 is a bad example because 99% of the time the only tactic you'll use is spreading your units into an arc so more of them can attack at once. Plus the OP is discussing single player and single player SC2 is literally nothing BUT massing the current wonder unit and attack moving across the map.

 

[attackfighter]

Re: Are there any SP RTS games that actually involve strateg

To answer the question though, as the supcom creator said: Most RTSes should have been called RTTs instead, although of course different games can put more or less emphasis on macro. I am under the impression that SC2 has more macro than many other games, although I haven't played it so I can't say for sure.

StarCraft 2 multiplayer is essentially one big game of rock paper scissors, in that build orders and unit compositions are the determining factors most of the time. So yes, your macro decisions in SC2 carry more weight than in other RTS's.

 

[Destroid]

Re: Are there any SP RTS games that actually involve strateg

To answer the question though, as the supcom creator said: Most RTSes should have been called RTTs instead, although of course different games can put more or less emphasis on macro. I am under the impression that SC2 has more macro than many other games, although I haven't played it so I can't say for sure.

Macro is indeed very important in SC2, insofar as good macro will beat good micro, every time. On the other hand, the macro ceiling is much lower than micro, all you really need to do is make sure you keep building workers, expand at sensible times, don't let your money get high (keep producing military) and ensure you have enough production buildings to cope with sudden mass losses. After that (and being good at that will make you better than probably 60% of all players) you need micro, good unit selection and combos, countering etc.

I do find it strange that the devs made Zerg have a higher macro load and Protoss have a lower one.

 

[Johannes]

There's strategy in most games, but if you insist on SP then you simply don't have to be good at it to win.

 

[DakaSha]

Or you play a game developed for single player from the ground up

 

[laclongquan]

There's strategy in most games, but if you insist on SP then you simply don't have to be good at it to win.

Warzone 2100 will bend you over and stick it in, raw. Then the reap will commence.

Even with reloading like mad, it's not rare for you to reload to the save at the start of mission to do it properly this time. Hell, it's possible to even replay the mission next to last just to properly prepare for this mission. The campaign is designed very balanced.

 

[DakaSha]

Any game you have to save scum in is a bad game in my book

that said i remember loving Warzone. Might as welll try it considering its fucking free (and open source even?) nowdays

 

[Phelot]

Myth and Myth 2 are great if you don't mind not building units or resource gathering. Has no actual strategic campaign, but the tactics are great fun. Myth 1 is probably the tougher of the two.

 

[Johannes]

There's strategy in most games, but if you insist on SP then you simply don't have to be good at it to win.

Warzone 2100 will bend you over and stick it in, raw. Then the reap will commence.

Even with reloading like mad, it's not rare for you to reload to the save at the start of mission to do it properly this time. Hell, it's possible to even replay the mission next to last just to properly prepare for this mission. The campaign is designed very balanced.

I don't believe that's true for somebody as good as me, but I'll give it a try.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

Paradox games. Unless the fact they have a pause button disqualifies them.

 

[Disconnected]

Have to second AI War and a pile of Paradox games. Pretty much everything else pales in comparison for SP.

 

[Panthera]

Check out Hegemony: Philip of Macedon. It's a real-time strategy game with minimal tactics. I'd also recommend the Celtic Kings series.

 

[Johannes]

Meh, I tried the Warzone 2100 campaign and it seems neither hard nor strategic. Mainly it was about microing artillery, repairers and tanks so that stuff stays alive while you push into enemy base. There's no maneuvering needed on a bigger scale, the maps are so linear that your base isn't in danger unless your whole army dies. At least for the 2+ hours I played, the enemy base next to the starting base after the dropship missions was the last I did.

It was fun enough though, as far as raping AI controlled tanks and fortifications goes.

 

[laclongquan]

Just how many missions have you played anyway? The first campaign can be considered a tutorial campaign. You start seriously when you encounter 2nd or 3rd factions.

 

[mr.doo]

earth 2150 and earth 2160 are underrated gems and they are incredibly strategic games.

 

[commie]

earth 2150 and earth 2160 are underrated gems and they are incredibly strategic games.

Earth 2150 is great, that whole balance of trying to do as much as you can with as little as possible in order to save funds for the evacuation ship(each map had a very limited amount of extractable material) and to do it all reasonably quickly was unique. Then there's the decision as to what to spend precious funds researching given the likely enemy counter on a given map, scouting to maybe find a secret deposit of minerals or even risking a daring raid to cut ff enemy supplies by targeting harvesters. If you did it right you'd not only stop enemy unit production but be able to use that deposit for yourself, though if you wait too long it would be depleted. Fuck I loved that game.

The other arguments for Warzone, RoN, Hegemony Philip of Macedon, and Paradox stuff I'd lend my support to as well. Hegemony in particular is really well designed and a blast with quite a lot f strategic depth and options.

Depends what you want though. If just something other than rolling over bases with mass produced units then many things could fit the bill. I mean Codename Panzers or Soldiers HOWW2, Faces of War, Men of War are RTS games but they involve acute tactical planning as a result of limited units and not much mass base rape there. I'd add Theater of War and Blitzkrieg to this. Still no great 'strategy' as opposed to 'tactics' but then few games in this genre work at such a level.

As for macro strategy over micro tactics well there's Distant Worlds the 4X RTS. That's a neat little game where the mundane micromanaging of the empire is out of your hands and you concentrate on the broader strategy.