The best base building RTS's

[DraQ]

Since building order usually stays the same through the most games

Good way to rectify that would be to branch the build order along with technology tree and allow to specialize.

 

[IDtenT]

IDtenT, Why not just play Sim City or similar then, if you hate challenging games?

What do you mean by challenging? Does every RTS game only exist so that another player could challenge you? Fuck no. Starcraft may follow such a model and that's why I wouldn't play it. AoE isn't like that - at all.

AoE is just like that if you play it like that. And that's what it was kinda designed for. Of course alone, you can play it in whatever way you like and hopefully your computer won't mind.

Herpa. If it was designed for rushing it would have included rushing. I've played it multi-player with a couple of people and we never felt like it was competitive in any sense of the word.

 

[Marsal]

Herpa. If it was designed for rushing it would have included rushing. I've played it multi-player with a couple of people and we never felt like it was competitive in any sense of the word.

I may be misunderstanding this. What was the goal of the game, if not to win (by any "legal" means, including pumping out early units and attacking)? I guess you could play multiplayer AoE non-competitively, but that's just... pointless. When playing chess do you avoid taking opponents pieces?

 

[IDtenT]

Herpa. If it was designed for rushing it would have included rushing. I've played it multi-player with a couple of people and we never felt like it was competitive in any sense of the word.

I may be misunderstanding this. What was the goal of the game, if not to win (by any "legal" means, including pumping out early units and attacking)? I guess you could play multiplayer AoE non-competitively, but that's just... pointless. When playing chess do you avoid taking opponents pieces?

Chess is by nature gamist. The whole point of chess is to win. There is nothing sporting in chess.

Let me take the example of Sunday league football. Did I play it to win? No. Does that mean I didn't want to win? Of course not. I played it for the fun of football.

I can include other analogies like it's about the journey and not the destination.

 

[Marsal]

Chess is by nature gamist. The whole point of chess is to win. There is nothing sporting in chess.

Let me take the example of Sunday league football. Did I play it to win? No. Does that mean I didn't want to win? Of course not. I played it for the fun of football.

Oh, well I'm sure you'll find something you're good at. Eventually

No, really, I get what you're saying. What makes football (or any game) fun for you? Just participating?

I like to experiment with different flashy or unusual strategies/plays (e.g. behind the back passes, alley-oops in basketball). Although, my primary goal is to win. I think it "cheapens" the game if all competitors aren't giving it their all to win.

There is, of course, question of intensity in physicall sports. I don't like to give (nor receive) hard fouls or go for dangerous plays, but will raise my intensity and even retaliate in the same manner if on the wrong end of such a foul. That often results in confrontation with other players, but if you can dish it, you better make sure you can take it. This could be similar to rushes and similar "cheese" plays in video games. For some players anything goes, while others have a certain "code of honor"?

 

[Nomask Alt]

The commander isn't fast enough to make using it to harass bases a good idea, unless you play on a very small map.

Well, I don't know about TA, but it happens a lot on smaller maps in Forged Alliance.

 

[Johannes]

Herpa. If it was designed for rushing it would have included rushing. I've played it multi-player with a couple of people and we never felt like it was competitive in any sense of the word.

I may be misunderstanding this. What was the goal of the game, if not to win (by any "legal" means, including pumping out early units and attacking)? I guess you could play multiplayer AoE non-competitively, but that's just... pointless. When playing chess do you avoid taking opponents pieces?

Chess is by nature gamist. The whole point of chess is to win. There is nothing sporting in chess.

Let me take the example of Sunday league football. Did I play it to win? No. Does that mean I didn't want to win? Of course not. I played it for the fun of football.

I can include other analogies like it's about the journey and not the destination.

Um, if you're playing football you usually are playing it to win in the sense that you do try your best (within the rules) to reach that goal. As in, whatever you do with the ball is with the intention to get it in the net eventually, you don't just kick it randomly into whatever direction seems fun.
Sure, the fun comes from playing the game and not from winning so much, both in football and in RTS's. Sure you can agree with your opponents that there's a 20 min peace period in the start, or that you'll play football while just walking (running is too exhausting), or whatever, you should realize it's not the way the game was intended even if you enjoy it.

And I don't see how AoE II doesn't include rushing? You just don't know shit about the game.

 

[Phelot]

Well, I guess you could play a game like AoE MP non competitively where everyone takes their time and builds their bases and then agree upon when to attack or to test each other's defenses. Can't say I've ever done so nor would I want to, but I guess I could see it being entertaining for a bit. Sort of like fucking around with the AI, not wanting to kill it off because you want to keep building or trying some things out.

 

[Ashery]

Herpa. If it was designed for rushing it would have included rushing. I've played it multi-player with a couple of people and we never felt like it was competitive in any sense of the word.

I may be misunderstanding this. What was the goal of the game, if not to win (by any "legal" means, including pumping out early units and attacking)? I guess you could play multiplayer AoE non-competitively, but that's just... pointless. When playing chess do you avoid taking opponents pieces?

Chess is by nature gamist. The whole point of chess is to win. There is nothing sporting in chess.

Let me take the example of Sunday league football. Did I play it to win? No. Does that mean I didn't want to win? Of course not. I played it for the fun of football.

I can include other analogies like it's about the journey and not the destination.

Um, if you're playing football you usually are playing it to win in the sense that you do try your best (within the rules) to reach that goal. As in, whatever you do with the ball is with the intention to get it in the net eventually, you don't just kick it randomly into whatever direction seems fun.
Sure, the fun comes from playing the game and not from winning so much, both in football and in RTS's. Sure you can agree with your opponents that there's a 20 min peace period in the start, or that you'll play football while just walking (running is too exhausting), or whatever, you should realize it's not the way the game was intended even if you enjoy it.

And I don't see how AoE II doesn't include rushing? You just don't know shit about the game.

That's a completely fucked up analogy with football. It's closer to someone saying they hate it when players fake injuries in football in order to gain an edge over the other team via unnecessary penalties. Sure, it's technically legal and there's not much that can be done about it officially, but it's completely against the spirit of the game. Note, I said it's *closer* to that element of football and not exact. An exact match would be in the class of minor exploits: See Shadow settlement wall healing in Kohan:Kings of War for one such example.

 

[Johannes]

That's a completely fucked up analogy with football. It's closer to someone saying they hate it when players fake injuries in football in order to gain an edge over the other team via unnecessary penalties.

Um, what is the RTS analogy of that? Peace periods, rushing (neither makes sense) or what?

 

[Ashery]

That's a completely fucked up analogy with football. It's closer to someone saying they hate it when players fake injuries in football in order to gain an edge over the other team via unnecessary penalties.

Um, what is the RTS analogy of that? Peace periods, rushing (neither makes sense) or what?

Look at the line directly after: Shadow settlement wall healing in K:KoW. For those that don't play K:KoW: All but the lowest level settlements have walls that protect the economic buildings and troops defending from a siege. For most races, these walls are sectional, but the Shadow race has a significantly stronger wall that is a single piece. What this allows Shadow players to do, however, is to use many of their dirt cheap companies to repair the walls of their besieged settlements and prevent all but overpowering forces (That include several siege weapons) from having the slightest chance of taking the town. Even a single engineer company will usually buy enough time for the Shadow player to pull his forces back from his front and relieve the siege or even push back a smaller force entirely thanks to archer militias being able to shoot over walls.

 

[Johannes]

Ok. But what's the point in commenting on an analogy I make about how fucked up it is, then telling your own supposedly more fitting analogy that's about a different subject altogether?

 

[Ashery]

Ok. But what's the point in commenting on an analogy I make about how fucked up it is, then telling your own supposedly more fitting analogy that's about a different subject altogether?

Huh? Your analogy leads one to believe that the players are just being lazy shits because they can't handle the "true" form of the game, when in fact they simply enjoy the base building (and subsequent defense) more than they care about straight "winning."

I'm not quite sure how my analogy is about a different subject altogether as I was merely pointing out what would constitute a minor exploit and stating that, on a line between my fake injuries and your walking, the no rush rule falls in between the two and, I'd argue, closer to the fake injury side.

 

[belated]

Dune2, mmmmmmmm

 

[bot]

Knights and Merchants, an RTS / Settlers hybrid.

 

[Ulminati]

Does Rampart count?

The building phase had you building castles with tetris-like pieces. The bigger the castle, the more cannons you got. Then in the shooting phase you tried to shoot the hard-to-repair arts of the opponents castle. If they couldn't repair all the walls in the next building phase, soldiers would storm the castle and the player would die.

 

[laclongquan]

Knights and Merchants? Yeah, the fucking serfs are idiotic as fuck. If we build big base we must expand very carefully so that they can move stuffs without hitch and/or have enough time to eat. Nothing more hairtearing than looking at 20 bums standing around an inn waiting for room to have a meal.

But best? I dont think so.

EDIT: if you enjoy looking an economy function like a clock, tick tock tick tock, best play Caesar, Pharaoh, and Zeus. Still, once you grab the quirks inside those game, building base become vastly easier.

 

[Harpsichord]

Another vote for TA and Supcom.

 

[catfood]

Knights and Merchants is the bane of my existance. Well, one of them at any rate. I've been playing it on and off ever since it came out and I never managed to beat it. Good news is that each time I got closer to my goal, so there might be hope yet.

 

[Harpsichord]

The problem with Knights and Merchants is that beating the campaign levels is damn near like solving a puzzle. You gotta build the right thing in the right spot at the right time, and you can't deviate from that plan, or you're fucked.

 

[catfood]

That and abusing the dumb as bricks AI.

 

[Johannes]

Ok. But what's the point in commenting on an analogy I make about how fucked up it is, then telling your own supposedly more fitting analogy that's about a different subject altogether?

Huh? Your analogy leads one to believe that the players are just being lazy shits because they can't handle the "true" form of the game, when in fact they simply enjoy the base building (and subsequent defense) more than they care about straight "winning."

I'm not quite sure how my analogy is about a different subject altogether as I was merely pointing out what would constitute a minor exploit and stating that, on a line between my fake injuries and your walking, the no rush rule falls in between the two and, I'd argue, closer to the fake injury side.

Walking and peace period are something you agree with your opponent on, on top of the normal rules. Nobody could claim this is unsportsmanlike if it's done in agreement, even if it's something mostly lazy shits would do.
Whereas using (subjectively) lame tactics or faking injuries is done within the rules of the game, in order to maximize chances of winning.

Though it's totally possible to add more rules and outlaw some glitches without patching the game. For example:
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Competitive_Rules

 

[Dim]

0AD the AoE clone. O.S. Though i vote WZ2100. 0AD's and AoE's resource and worker management was just such a pain.

 

[Carceri]

I'd vote for Stronghold. Too bad that in skirmish/deathmatch play building something that actually looks like a castle isn't practical at all.

 

[odrzut]

+1 for netstorm. It's great game. There's also fun game "StormMaster" (from early '90) that I think could be predecessor to NetStorm. Mechanics of the game is completely different, but also takes place on flying islands, and it's quite fun, too. You design flying ships from parts (and have to test-fly them), build them (there's nice economy in game - the real resources are ship parts sold between factions). http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/426/Storm+Master.html

Regardig base-building I've liked the best MAX (and to lesser degree MAX2). It's not really RTS (turn-based with optional almost-RTS mode), but base building is great - you have to scout for resources, build radars and various turrets to defend your base, and every building needs to be connected to others by pipes, or it stops working.