Worst RTS ever!

tacosareveryyummy

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
5,301
Skirrow said:
The worst RTS i ever played would be Black and White, If you could call that an RTS. Fun at first but became incredibly annoying "We need more babies", "We need more food", "More Babies", " More Food", "MORE BABIES", "MORE FOOD" AAAAAAAAAAAAH FFS, GRAB SOME BREAD AND SHAG! CANT YOU SEE I'M BUSY CLEANING UP COW DUNG!! "MORE BABIES", "MORE FOO.. AAAAAAH FFS! Add/Remove Programs. Uninstall. OK? *Click*

If you don't consider that an RTS, then i'd say Perimiter. That game was confusing and too hard for me. A typical game would be..... hmm need some troops, *click* building..... building...... building....... Ah a swarm is attacking, building......building.....building. Units Ready. Bang all dead by some big centipede thing...*click*.. building.....building. Another swarm, shields down.... building....building.... Base destroyed. WTF?? Add/Remove Programs. Uninstall. OK? *Click*

lol
 

Jonsey

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Messages
2,041
Json23 said:
Depends on what race/what time in the game you are going to spam. Early on you only have a few choices, which you better be sure and crank out as many units as possible as early as possible because I promise your enemy is going to "peon" rush you like EVERYONE does playing online with that game.

There is no defense unless you have more units than the enemy. If you have less, you will lose everytime with a peon rush in DoW.

What do you mean by "peons?" If you're talking about workers, they won't win anything. I'm starting to suspect you haven't spent much time at all playing DOW. You probably logged into a game, got crushed right at the beginning, and decided it was unbalanced.

I'm still waiting to with Freidog to hear what units you can rush with and win every time.
 

Json23

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
1,380
What do you mean by "peons?" If you're talking about workers, they won't win anything. I'm starting to suspect you haven't spent much time at all playing DOW. You probably logged into a game, got crushed right at the beginning, and decided it was unbalanced.

By "peons" I meant early weak, but cheap, infantry units. And your right, I didn't spend much time playing. I started, got crushed in a "peon" rush. Then I did the same rush against my next 20-30 oponents using the space marines and the orcs, and didn't lose once. NOT ONCE.

That is what I mean about no strategy. How can I win so easily being the first couple of hours I play online with a game using the same "peon" rush if there is more strategy involved than simply being the first out of the gate with some cheap infantry units?

Seriously, my match went something like this - build a barracks, build a couple scout groups to capture a couple points, then start building as many cheap infantry units as you can. After getting two groups of cheap inf. units, head for the enemy base. Hotkey the inf. units (that way you can click the 'plus' sign without having to go across the screen to click on them) so you can go back to your base and have your builders build power and anything else you *might* need if the first rush goes sour.

Don't even bother attacking the enemy units in the base area, just attack the unit base structures. Keep kicking out infantry and send them directly to the enemy base as soon as they arrive.

And viola!! You win everytime, no questions asked.
 

insanarchist

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 3, 2004
Messages
1,387
I need to make a statement here that everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY who has ever played the game can agree with:

"Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds" is the worst RTS of all time. Period.

Any worse and it is just comical.


That said, C&C: Generals was pretty bad as well. Oh, don't get me wrong, the graphics were really nice, and the gameplay itself, for the most part, was pretty good once you figured out the attack-move option, but explain to me this: how can one man with a grenade launcher take out 1-2 tanks aimed directly at his head? Hmmm? The answer is NO.
 

Json23

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
1,380
That said, C&C: Generals was pretty bad as well. Oh, don't get me wrong, the graphics were really nice, and the gameplay itself, for the most part, was pretty good once you figured out the attack-move option, but explain to me this: how can one man with a grenade launcher take out 1-2 tanks aimed directly at his head? Hmmm? The answer is NO.

Because on a REAL battlefield, trying to take out infantry with cannon fire is next to impossible. Unless you hit a man directly in the chest, he will not really be affected. Tank shells are only deadly against other vehicles, and have no deadly blast area to speak of that would affect a human even if the shell hit the ground within 8-10ft of the person.
 

Jonsey

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Messages
2,041
Json23 said:
By "peons" I meant early weak, but cheap, infantry units. And your right, I didn't spend much time playing. I started, got crushed in a "peon" rush. Then I did the same rush against my next 20-30 oponents using the space marines and the orcs, and didn't lose once. NOT ONCE.

That is what I mean about no strategy. How can I win so easily being the first couple of hours I play online with a game using the same "peon" rush if there is more strategy involved than simply being the first out of the gate with some cheap infantry units?

Seriously, my match went something like this - build a barracks, build a couple scout groups to capture a couple points, then start building as many cheap infantry units as you can. After getting two groups of cheap inf. units, head for the enemy base. Hotkey the inf. units (that way you can click the 'plus' sign without having to go across the screen to click on them) so you can go back to your base and have your builders build power and anything else you *might* need if the first rush goes sour.

Don't even bother attacking the enemy units in the base area, just attack the unit base structures. Keep kicking out infantry and send them directly to the enemy base as soon as they arrive.

And viola!! You win everytime, no questions asked.

Well, I've played my share online as well, and I've only lost a few times to a rush. Never one so poor as that though.

You have a right to your opinion though, even if it is wrong. :p

Lots of people disagree with you though. Afterall, the game has sold so well that the developer is working on a second expansion, due later this year.
 

Json23

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
1,380
Well, I've played my share online as well, and I've only lost a few times to a rush. Never one so poor as that though.

That is what I was thinking when I was rushing. How could it be this easy? It never would have happend in Command and Conquer or T.A..The answer was that my oponents simply didn't build a few inf. squads at the very start like I did.

No strategy at all...
 

insanarchist

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 3, 2004
Messages
1,387
Json23 said:
Because on a REAL battlefield, trying to take out infantry with cannon fire is next to impossible. Unless you hit a man directly in the chest, he will not really be affected. Tank shells are only deadly against other vehicles, and have no deadly blast area to speak of that would affect a human even if the shell hit the ground within 8-10ft of the person.

Fair enough, but you still have to admit having 2 dual-cannoned tanks (I know, they don't actually exist, but bear with me here) within 20 feet of you shooting at you at 2 rounds every 3 seconds (well, 4 rounds with 2 tanks involved), the advantage would most likely not be in your favor.
 

FreiDOg

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 7, 2001
Messages
4,456
Json23 said:
By "peons" I meant early weak, but cheap, infantry units. And your right, I didn't spend much time playing. I started, got crushed in a "peon" rush. Then I did the same rush against my next 20-30 oponents using the space marines and the orcs, and didn't lose once. NOT ONCE.

That is what I mean about no strategy. How can I win so easily being the first couple of hours I play online with a game using the same "peon" rush if there is more strategy involved than simply being the first out of the gate with some cheap infantry units?

Seriously, my match went something like this - build a barracks, build a couple scout groups to capture a couple points, then start building as many cheap infantry units as you can. After getting two groups of cheap inf. units, head for the enemy base. Hotkey the inf. units (that way you can click the 'plus' sign without having to go across the screen to click on them) so you can go back to your base and have your builders build power and anything else you *might* need if the first rush goes sour.

Don't even bother attacking the enemy units in the base area, just attack the unit base structures. Keep kicking out infantry and send them directly to the enemy base as soon as they arrive.

And viola!! You win everytime, no questions asked.

That's the fault of their online matchmaking more than their gameplay.
This would be like faulting Age of Kings because every beginner player you go up against quits as soon you get your skrims/pike rush to their first gatherers. The game isn't devoid of strategy, the people your playing just aren't very good at it.

I didn't notice a force commander in your build order, your marines would get slaughtered without one against a decent player. The early heros are more than a match for a single infantry squad, combined with my two or three scout marine squads and a space marine of my own, more than enough to stop a rush like that. Once I see you're trying something like that I'd go straight to the armory and asault marines, at that point your rush is done.
If I were ork, I'd mass slugga boyz, man for man they beat space marines in melee combat and they're much cheaper. Not to mention they're my scout unit so I'm garaunteed to have 3-4 squads by the time you come for me.
What you're doing is probably somewhat effective against eldar, they have probably the weakest initial infantry units. The special attack of their early hero is probably enough to even the playing field though.
If you're doing this before your amory, you don't even get heavy bolters for the attack, it takes forever for two space marine squads to take down the major buildings like barracks and command centers with just their standard arms. You could destory some listening posts, maybe a power plant, but not anything of real value, those buildings are a lot cheaper than the marine squads you'd be losing to take them.
 

Json23

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
1,380
Fair enough, but you still have to admit having 2 dual-cannoned tanks (I know, they don't actually exist, but bear with me here) within 20 feet of you shooting at you at 2 rounds every 3 seconds (well, 4 rounds with 2 tanks involved), the advantage would most likely not be in your favor.

Yes, but in real life the tank probably wouldn't even know there was a man with a rocket close by until it was too late and the tank was ruined. You should have equipped the mammoth with uranium shells or built a turret on it. (or bought the anthrax shells upgrade if you were using GLA)
 

Json23

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
1,380
didn't notice a force commander in your build order, your marines would get slaughtered without one against a decent player.


Oops! I left that out. Once I get one of those guys, that is what I use to keep the enemy inf busy while I take out there buildings.
 

Jonsey

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Messages
2,041
Json23 said:
Oops! I left that out. Once I get one of those guys, that is what I use to keep the enemy inf busy while I take out there buildings.

Except if they're space marines, they have probably have a couple of space marine squads and a force commander of their own. And they'll all be focused on the force commander while your squads are killing buildings. Your force commander doesn't stand a chance against his force commander plus a couple of squads. Once your force commander is gone, they mop up your squads. If he has a re-enforced SP (I usually do) he'll dance what's left of your guys around that.

You mentioned you just hotkey your squads to re-enforce them as you rebuild your base. An experianced player will use that against you. In DOW, you have
The point is there is plenty of strategy to the game. If you want to play against someone who can beat a rush, maybe you should try playing a game now. Don't play ladder. Just get in a 4v4 game, where rushes mean a lot less. That will allow you to progress through the tech ladder a bit.
 

EvilKamui

n00b
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
26
I think most of the RTS games that have come out have been good for the most part. Each engine has their own style of play in which just because you don't like that one does not make it the worst game ever.
I think there are some RTS issues that, if not addressed, can kill the gameplay. My main ones are:
-Massing: The concept of "if you make enough of this one unit, you will win." If an RTS game has something like this that is possible or just easier to do, then that kills gameplay and makes strategy games less fun.
-Online Lag: This would mean the game itself creates problems such as having difficulties finding games, joining games, getting games started, players getting disconnected or just the game running significantly slower than normal when played online.
Some games are more fun in multiplayer and some in single player. Take the original Red Alert for instance. Seeing as how easy and efficient it was to mass tanks, it killed the fun for me when it turned into a tank race. Sure you could make anti-tank infantry, but they could easily just be run over. When I play Starcraft I get bored fast doing single player but enjoy doing LAN games of it. I don't bother online with it because its been ruined with nothing but brainless unlimited resource maps.

There are many factors that determine a games playability and level of enjoyment. However, unless the game just had no thought put into it, I wouldn't jump to saying that it is one of the worst games ever just because you don't like it.
That's just my opinion.
 

Json23

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
1,380
Just get in a 4v4 game, where rushes mean a lot less. That will allow you to progress through the tech ladder a bit


Lol, I played a 4v4 game last night just to give the game another chance since everyone seems to disagree with me on the strategy, and I got rushed by THREE people.. The funny thing is, that my teammates went in and rushed three of there bases and took them out before I was finally offed. I am assuming my team won, because there was three of them left versus one crippled enemy.

Anyway, I guess the game isn't that bad. But the inability to build anywhere, units that don't seem to have a nemesis unit (something a tank might fear) and capturing control points for resources *IMO* does not have enough strategy involved for me to enjoy it.

I am finding out that the Battle for Middle Earth 2 is a lot of fun though. I picked it up last night and have been enjoying it.
 

FreedomFGHTR

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
66
Personally I can't really say there has been an RTS that I truely hated.

But C&C Generals got annoying rather quickly, TA was ok, just ahead of it's time. Warcraft3 was the biggest dissapointment in my book, way too micro if you ask me.

My favorite of all time has to be Warcraft 2 during the Kali/Kahn days. There was nothing like knowing that someone got seriously pissed off because they sent a bunch of ogres only to be wiped out by a couple of blizzard's, that game was truely a battle of wits when it came to players of equal caliber. Starcraft had the best single player storyline imo. The original AOE was cool at early lan parties since everyone had lots of time to kill. Red Alert 2 would also be in my top list.
 

Warrior

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
13,837
insanarchist said:
I need to make a statement here that everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY who has ever played the game can agree with:

"Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds" is the worst RTS of all time. Period.

Any worse and it is just comical.
QTF!!!
 

Warrior

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 13, 2004
Messages
13,837
Skirrow said:
The worst RTS i ever played would be Black and White, If you could call that an RTS. Fun at first but became incredibly annoying "We need more babies", "We need more food", "More Babies", " More Food", "MORE BABIES", "MORE FOOD" AAAAAAAAAAAAH FFS, GRAB SOME BREAD AND SHAG! CANT YOU SEE I'M BUSY CLEANING UP COW DUNG!! "MORE BABIES", "MORE FOO.. AAAAAAH FFS! Add/Remove Programs. Uninstall. OK? *Click*

If you don't consider that an RTS, then i'd say Perimiter. That game was confusing and too hard for me. A typical game would be..... hmm need some troops, *click* building..... building...... building....... Ah a swarm is attacking, building......building.....building. Units Ready. Bang all dead by some big centipede thing...*click*.. building.....building. Another swarm, shields down.... building....building.... Base destroyed. WTF?? Add/Remove Programs. Uninstall. OK? *Click*
OMG...ROFLCOPPER
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
19,028
Json23 said:
Because on a REAL battlefield, trying to take out infantry with cannon fire is next to impossible. Unless you hit a man directly in the chest, he will not really be affected. Tank shells are only deadly against other vehicles, and have no deadly blast area to speak of that would affect a human even if the shell hit the ground within 8-10ft of the person.


This post is suppsoed to be satire right?
 

Vagamus

Gawd
Joined
Dec 4, 2001
Messages
820
I think this guy likes "Real Time I win all the time so the game rules a lot Strategy" games. Aka, strategy games that are so easy that he wins everytime.

Someone should invent a game for his bleeding twat that makes it so even online, he always wins, and so does the other guy. Just like Kindergarten, which seems to be the grade of which his judgement is based.
 

tacosareveryyummy

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
5,301
Would someone please enlighten me how rome total war is an rts. Arent rts suppose to be in real time?(I know the battles are) How many people have actually beaten this game without ending a turn..............
 

roz1281

Gawd
Joined
Nov 1, 2004
Messages
618
HHunt said:
It's interesting that you like starcraft but neither warcraft 2 nor 3, since starcraft is the evolutionary step between them. (Put WC3 in the engine of WC2, and you would have something not very unlike starcraft.)

maybe its just hte setting he doesn't like. For me, i like warcraft much more just because of the silly fantasy setting, whereas space doesn't interest me much.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
2,340
tacosareveryyummy said:
Would someone please enlighten me how rome total war is an rts. Arent rts suppose to be in real time?(I know the battles are) How many people have actually beaten this game without ending a turn..............
The battles are the basis of the game. If there were no real-time battles, the game wouldn't be worth playing. If you remove the real-time strategy component, Rome is nothing more than a piss-poor Civ knockoff. I play Rome solely for the real-time strategy, and thus I consider it a real-time strategy. Sure, you can auto-resolve battles. And if you play it like this, it's not an RTS. But if you're going to do that, then why the fuck are you even playing Rome?

I can't think of any other way to explain it, I'm afraid... I'd have thought it was blindingly obvious to begin with. I can't really see where you're coming from. Just because it contains something other than real-time strategy doesn't mean that the label doesn't apply. It's like calling Super Mario 3 a turn-based strategy because the Hammer Brothers move around every "turn" on the world map. Sure, it's part of the game, but it's not what the game's about.
 

tacosareveryyummy

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
5,301
Dude get a a life. You've been playing way to many games when you start flaming people for their opinions.
 
Top