Today I stumbled upon a blog post where the author argued that base building in today's RTS games is a chore and feels a lot like work.
Here's an excerpt:
Anyone else get that feeling when playing any of the recent mainstream RTS games? It was novel at first. But now, it is work. When you are playing anything but "no rush 5 minutes, n00b game"s, be it single player missions or multi player matches, you are building the base because you have to. Because it is your only way to build up an army. And, for the most part, you do it in a time constraint, fearing the coming onslaught of Red Helmeted Fanatic Zerglings under strict orders from Saruman to wipe you off the face of Middle Tib Sara. It's a chore on your way to the fight. Some might even go as far as calling it a hindrance.
http://theravencypher.blogspot.com/2011/01/all-work-and-no-play-make-rts-dull.html
After reading the whole thing it was clear to me that the author is greatly underestimating the strategic value of base building. In any RTS game, especially SC/SC2, base building is just as important in terms of strategic value as fighting and winning battles. Saying that base building is a chore and only exists as a way to get an army belies ignorance on the part of the player or is evidence of a poorly designed game. It only takes a couple of hours of playing Starcraft to realize just how integral base building is to the player's overall strategy and success.
Base building adds a whole new dimension to strategy. The author mentions games like DoW 2 and CoH that have eschewed elements of base building in favor of a focus on tactical maneuver and micromanagement. Although great games, I feel that they are strategically crippled and have not provided a convincing alternative to base building with their implementation of victory and control points.
This article is a classic example of "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about" and the author simply needs to think about the RTS games he plays.
What are your thoughts?
Basebuilding is only one part of strategic gameplay. There's also resource collection, holding choke points, choosing to ignore or attack enemies and much more (and these can be accomplished without building bases).
But basebuilding is a significant part of strategic gameplay when it is present in games (just not all of it).
I like the way you put it.
I would argue that base building generally enriches all elements of strategy in RTS games. Things like long-term planning, unit composition, and weakness exploitation are all amplified and play a greater role in games with base building. I'd like to think this makes the games much more fun.
I would be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't like base building but likes elements of strategy like resource collection, holding choke points and choosing to ignore or attack enemies. Base building shares a lot of the decision making and thought processes involved in the above things you mentioned like optimization and on-the-fly analysis.
Well,, let me volunteer then. I like having strategic elements in RTS games, but I dislike basebuilding. I think you wouldn't be "hard pressed" to find many more players with similar opinions playing games like Dow2 and CoH.
Two words: Europa Universalis. Now THAT is actual strategy.
Seriously, all you guys need to get out there and play more games than just Starcraft, C&C and Dawn of War 2, your views on the RTS genre as a whole are badly out of shape.
praetorians... no base building just pure RTS. a good multiplayer community on gameranger
I find it funny that the Myth and Homeworld series' were brought up as examples of strategy/tactics with no base building, but no one throws out an example of pure base building, such as Evil Genius or Black & White (at least to some degree). Those games were greatly entertaining, with little to no control of the smaller units roaming about. Sure, you had your immediate henchman or beast under your control, but that's it.
I think the problem with RTS games is that they are all lumped together. SupCom is not StarCraft which is not Myth. Each of these fit on a slightly different plane, which can usually be broken down to the above terms: strategy or tactics. I think if critics, publishers, and players were clearer about this when promoting a given game, I think fewer people would try games they might otherwise know they will dislike. I recently spoke to someone who thought SoaSE sounded like it would be similar to Homeworld 2, which leads me to believe that RTS games need more distinction of classes.
And personally, I am fine with base building, but am not enthused by your average building (StarCraft) and prefer to have something complex (SupCom) or none at all (Myth). This discounts base building in an environment which breeds stress by crossing genres (Battlezone).
The game Perimeter is all about your base, as your base allows you to win. Expansion of the base gives you the power to take direct control over your opponents base.
Holding choke points and choosing when to engage is tactics, not strategy. Choosing how to spend the resources collected is strategy.
Let me use Starcraft 2 as an example of this. Strategy in Starcraft 2 is building your building in a certain order that will allow you to have cloaked flying units as fast possible, but once you build them managing them and choosing their direction and targets is tactics.
I think your definition of strategy and tactics differs from what we've talked about in this thread then, TorinReborn.
Units are just another form of resources, to be applied or not applied - and whatever you choose is a strategic decision. At least the way we've talked about it in this thread.
I would really like to know how does SupCom have more complex base building? It has larger maps that will allow you (and ask you) to build more buildings, but I do not see how that makes it more complex.
Actually, we have only started to discuss this. I see nobody agreeing on a common definition.
So called my definition is actually commonly accepted definition of strategy and tactics in Starcraft community where I come from (which is by far the largest rts community in the world).
Alright then, let me present my definition. Strategy is planning for a war, and tactics is executing engagements. In that sense, holding a chokepoint is very much a strategic decision because it affects not only the next particular engagement but all the possible engagements that can and cannot happen because of it. I may be cutting my enemy off from the rest of the map, for example, and thus it represents a strategic decision rather than a tactical decision. A tactical decision would be primarily deciding which enemy unit to attack in a particular engagement, what abilities to use, and when to retreat or move to more beneficial terrain (for that particular engagement).
I would absolutely say that it is strategy, for example, to split my fighting army into two or three groups and use one to bait the enemy while striking his base with my other groups. Likewise, I consider it a strategic decision to focus on denying my enemy his resource production capabilities.
Edit: I believe the terms micro and macro can be used here. Micro would be tactics, macro would be strategy.
No, micro and macro are not equal to strategy/tactics.
Macro is what you do in base. It is all the base building, resource collecting, upgrades starting and troop building. Micro is all the rest.
Both can be strategy and tactics. Putting that building on your choke while you enemy is coming to get 10s more before the enemy troops come into your base is tactics. Building the base in a certain way to get that needed unit at 5 min mark is strategy.
And as you said, planning to take and hold a choke is strategy, but retreating but deciding to defend at a close by choke is tactics.
Yeah you're right, they're not the same. Anyway, I think now that you understand how I see tactics/strategy, you can understand why I see basebuilding as a part of - but not all of - strategy in rts games. It's a point of view, of course, but then what isn't.
Strategy means deliberate planing on a longer term goal, tactics are actions and reactions to others behaviors to achieve a short term goal. Every RTS has both, but with varying focus. The more battle oriented, the more tactics, the more Empire/build up/diverse oriented, the more strategy.
In my case, I didn't bring up "Genius" or "Black&White" because I've never actually heard of them.
But I do agree; RTS games need to be delineated as to which ones are oriented a particular way.
Base-building wise, it's one of those things that's a "depends on the game" for me. While I haven't played the full SupCom game, the demo gave me the impression of having to carefully think out and plan a base (which I actually admit to having fun doing), while DoW2 and especially HW1&2 focus you on the execution of operations against the enemy player.
Going to second here that I thought Company of Heroes nailed it. You had a few different unit production buildings and one tech building, and that was it for your base. You had a variety of options for buildings in the field like bunkers, tank traps, artillery, etc. on top of that. The net result was that you didn't have to do much back at your base, but you could still make defensive set ups in the field and attack the opponent's base to destroy their unit production buildings.
Dawn of War 2 eliminated any incentive to attack the enemy base, while also providing minimal options to defend territory in the field. Combined with the removal of the territory system and making all strategic points the same value, the result was blobs of units smashing into each other until someone got the upper hand. Dawn of War 1 had a tad too much base building, but going the other extreme is NOT a good example of how reducing base building can improve the game.
Real Time Tactics games can still be fun, but I find their replay value is usually far more limited than more traditional RTS'. I played World in Conflict for a while when it came out, but simply lost interest after games always played out the same. When there's little to no teching and no base, it just becomes a matter of figuring out mathematically which unit is the best and spamming it. It is more interesting to me when you have to think about economy, base rushes, turtling, hard teching, etc.
Any of you guys played any of the battlefront.com games? Such as combat mission, theatre of war, etc? They are all about tactics, and none about base building. Very interesting games. I personally love combat mission, for its unique gameplay style, and attention to detail.
Dawn of War 2 is a terrible tactical game. Its a stripped down RTS. They need to have an tactical game where the depth goes slightly beyond arbitrary Victory points.
I disagree; DoW2 isn't a terrible tactical game at all. You have to take it all into consideration. DoW2 stripped out almost all base-building, and, yes, it does orient around arbitrary VPs. But that doesn't make it terrible.
Different units do different jobs, and the requirements of ranged&melee units to work in concert means that you have to not only have a good mix of units, but also a good tactical plan. Just spamming 'the best' unit is a sure way to lose in DoW2 multiplayer, and I understand that even though I've never played DoW2 multiplayer.
I am one of those people. This is why I love Kohan so much. It simplifies the base building so you can concentrate on the fun stuff.
If I was to mind-control Brad into developing one new franchise for Stardock, a Kohan-style game would be my choice.
SupCom (1, not 2) has fewer production buildings, that is true. But there are more defensive structures, the ability to construct stationary artillery, necessary equipment such as radar, building upgrades, and buildings have different traits based on what is built in conjunction to what. It is more complex. There's no better/worse judgement attached to that.
Well, I just figured to add them to the list. I was surprised others didn't toss them in, but that is an issue with any debate (as was previously stated by another). The debate is always limited (maybe even hindered?) by the experiences of the debaters.
And thank you for the recognition of that point.
That sounds absolutely wonderful in magical theoryland, but in most of the RTS' I've played online this is simply not the case. There are usually at most 2, maybe 3 units worth using in a serious competitive match (worker/builder units don't count). And I've played mostly serious ladder games, so it's not a case of playing bad players. Some games are better than others, but even the 'mighty' Blizzard has been unable to avoid this in most of its games. Starcraft and Warcraft 3 were only considered well balanced after expansions and literally dozens of patches. Pre-expansion Warcraft 3 was so terrible people massed buildings (that could attack) as there was no other unit that could compete against the mage spam.
Name me a competitive RTS and I'll name you a build that top players rode to the top of ladder using 1-3 units at most. It's why I've stopped playing RTS' competitively altogether for the past few years.
If I remember correctly all sides in SupCom have almost same buildings and units. And they all work the same way with VERY similar capabilities.
Yes, you got a bigger overall number of different buildings but that does not make the game more complex in a positive sense. I played SupCom1 (as well as TA) and all the building management was more a chore then anything else (and the point of the game was to eventually get to top level). Starcraft 2 building management on the other hand is not. With 3 sides all very different from each other there are so many more combination in each game then SupCom. And you do not need top level to win even on bigger maps and longer games.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
