Hope none of you liked RTS's
SentrySteve
.txt Join Date: 2002-03-09 Member: 290Members, Constellation
.txt Join Date: 2002-03-09 Member: 290Members, Constellation
in Off-Topic
<a href="http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/54654" target="_blank">This sucks. Almost as much as Westwood's did.</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Confirming a story broken by Shacknews, Microsoft now says that it will shut down developer Ensemble Studios (Age of Empires) following the end of work on the company's upcoming RTS Halo Wars.
Microsoft called the planned closure a "fiscally-rooted" decision, while noting that a core Ensemble team will go on to form a new studio to provide support for Halo Wars and work on fresh projects.
Though not all employees will be transferred to the new studio, Microsoft plans to find other jobs for as many workers as possible.
Microsoft's full statement follows:
Microsoft has decided to close Ensemble Studios following the completion of Halo Wars. After the closure, the Ensemble leadership team will form a new studio and has agreed to provide ongoing support for Halo Wars as well as work on other projects with Microsoft Game Studios.
The team at Ensemble has made invaluable contributions to the games industry with their Age of Empires and Age of Mythology games and with the highly anticipated release of Halo Wars. This decision does not reflect at all on Ensembles talent or the quality of Halo Wars. in fact, many people who have had a chance to test drive Halo Wars agree that it is on track to being a fantastic game.
This was a fiscally-rooted decision that keeps MGS on its growth path. While the decision to dissolve Ensemble was not an easy one, Microsoft is working to place as many Ensemble employees who do not move to the newly formed studio into open positions within Microsoft as possible.
As to our overall strategy at MGS, it remains the same. We are committed to growing MGS with world-class talent both internally and with our external partners around the globe. We have recently added some well-known developers to our team and will continue growing the team. Were particularly excited about the titles we have in the pipeline and continue to evaluate additional opportunities to bring incredible games to life with the industrys best. Our investment in games has never been greater than it is today.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are only a handful of teams that make RTS's out there (Blizzard, ES, Paradox, Stardock, and Relic). Two of them (Paradox/Relic) make these 'new-RTSs' where there isn't really any economy to macro/micro (Dawn of War, Star Wars: Empire at War, etc). The other makes super long, boring, drawn out games that are so slow it's hard to find a decent mix of strategy, micro, and macro (Stardock).
For gamers who liked more traditional RTS's Blizzard and ES were our best bets. Now ES is gone. Damn.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Confirming a story broken by Shacknews, Microsoft now says that it will shut down developer Ensemble Studios (Age of Empires) following the end of work on the company's upcoming RTS Halo Wars.
Microsoft called the planned closure a "fiscally-rooted" decision, while noting that a core Ensemble team will go on to form a new studio to provide support for Halo Wars and work on fresh projects.
Though not all employees will be transferred to the new studio, Microsoft plans to find other jobs for as many workers as possible.
Microsoft's full statement follows:
Microsoft has decided to close Ensemble Studios following the completion of Halo Wars. After the closure, the Ensemble leadership team will form a new studio and has agreed to provide ongoing support for Halo Wars as well as work on other projects with Microsoft Game Studios.
The team at Ensemble has made invaluable contributions to the games industry with their Age of Empires and Age of Mythology games and with the highly anticipated release of Halo Wars. This decision does not reflect at all on Ensembles talent or the quality of Halo Wars. in fact, many people who have had a chance to test drive Halo Wars agree that it is on track to being a fantastic game.
This was a fiscally-rooted decision that keeps MGS on its growth path. While the decision to dissolve Ensemble was not an easy one, Microsoft is working to place as many Ensemble employees who do not move to the newly formed studio into open positions within Microsoft as possible.
As to our overall strategy at MGS, it remains the same. We are committed to growing MGS with world-class talent both internally and with our external partners around the globe. We have recently added some well-known developers to our team and will continue growing the team. Were particularly excited about the titles we have in the pipeline and continue to evaluate additional opportunities to bring incredible games to life with the industrys best. Our investment in games has never been greater than it is today.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are only a handful of teams that make RTS's out there (Blizzard, ES, Paradox, Stardock, and Relic). Two of them (Paradox/Relic) make these 'new-RTSs' where there isn't really any economy to macro/micro (Dawn of War, Star Wars: Empire at War, etc). The other makes super long, boring, drawn out games that are so slow it's hard to find a decent mix of strategy, micro, and macro (Stardock).
For gamers who liked more traditional RTS's Blizzard and ES were our best bets. Now ES is gone. Damn.
Comments
I recently got back into AoE 3 for it's online play. I dunno if I would call it 'terrible,' but it's like ES just played it safe. It's almost like a copy of Warcraft 3 in many ways. It's average, and average isn't good enough for AoE 2 fans. However, with that said, AoE 3 was ES's best selling and fastest selling game. They should have been profitable, especially with this new Halo Wars crap they were making. AoM was terrible, though.
AoE 2 was something really special, and a game that many consider the best RTS ever made. Respect, son.
Plus, for those of us that actually like our 'Real Time Strategy' games to actually include some economic strategy, ES and Blizzard were pretty much our only two options. Now we're down to one.
This much is true, I could be looking for the worst. I just don't like the idea of Microsoft breaking up what was generally a well proven team. I have no idea what "keeping the key leadership" employees means in a practical sense, but I would hate to see the "Age Of" series die as they've always been my favorites.
If "well proven" means "has been making the same video game for years" or "the only new ideas they have come from other games" then yeah, Ensemble was well proven. Aside from Home Cities in AOE3, though (which was dumb), Ensemble's stuff has been behind the curve since, say, Age of Kings. Relic, GPG, etc are where it's at.
I define well proven as a game that's 9 years old having more than 2,000 players currently online (10:00am EST on a Wednesday). Seeing how you cite Relic and GPG as 'where it's at,' I'd have to say we have very different tastes for RTS's. For example, Relic has been moving to what I call "RTG's" - Real Time Games (what isn't?). Examples of these are DoW, CoH, Empire at War, Universe at War, etc.
These so-called RTS's remove the economic strategy almost completely from the game to 'give more focus to the battle.' In doing so they create RTS games where most of the is strategy removed from the game, so much so that I have a hard time taking any of them seriously. Some are better than others, for example CoH isn't that bad but something like World in Conflict shouldn't even be called an RTS and perfectibility fits the bill for an RTG. It's nothing more than good graphics and clicking the attack button on something. If that's the future for RTS games then ES shutting down would be a fairly large nail in the RTS coffin.
These so-called RTS's remove the economic strategy almost completely from the game to 'give more focus to the battle.' In doing so they create RTS games where most of the is strategy removed from the game, so much so that I have a hard time taking any of them seriously. Some are better than others, for example CoH isn't that bad but something like World in Conflict shouldn't even be called an RTS and perfectibility fits the bill for an RTG. It's nothing more than good graphics and clicking the attack button on something. If that's the future for RTS games then ES shutting down would be a fairly large nail in the RTS coffin.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The idea that it takes more strategy to tell your villagers to mine stone than it does to properly flank the enemy position while you coordinate indirect fire and determine which reinforcements you want to call in is ridiculous. World in Conflict is much more than clicking the attack button on something, which incidentally is what a lot of Age of Empires boils down to, seeing as it's all rock paper scissors and praying that you've produced the right units.
AoE2 is my favorite RTS of all time. I still play it with friends from time to time. The RTS genre has become stale and uninteresting in the past few years, I was hoping ES could breathe new life into it but I guess we'll just be seeing another futuristic RTS with no soul.
Without going into too much of a debate, as it's all a matter of preference and taste, a standard RTS has all of which you described (flanks, microing fire, and reinforcements), plus an economic side. This includes the ability to raid the enemy villagers, to shift villagers in anticipation for a unit-production switch, the ability to know when to do that, protecting your villagers, map control... I mean I could go on almost endlessly. None of that is in WiC. Also, funny enough, WiC is just as 'rock paper scissors' as you claim traditionally RTSs are.
The idea that (somehow) WiC takes just as much/more strategy or micro than a traditional RTS would be blind fanboyism. It's pretty clear that removing an entire aspect of a strategy game results in a significant decrease in strategy. Even though the quality of a game is all based off opinion, I'd hope we could all at least see this much. At least some RTGs try to have some light economy, like CoH for example.
Also due to the havoc engine it is less of a rock paper scissors game with the "<i>realistic impacts of shells</i>"
The sherman is still way to powerfull though vs panthers and tigers (1/2), but yeah making a tank a one shot/sneeze kill would kill the gameplay <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
I would actually chance to say that CoH is the one of the next-gen RTS approaches or at least a new aproach, breaking down old pillars of the RTS world and introducing some new ones...
However, maybe I'm just too stubborn to like the style of these new RTSs. DoW was a complete was of money with hardly any depth online. WiC was a joke, and CoH was 'not that bad.'
I was just pointing out how horrible it was to see an RTS giant like ES go down. Something like that is never good for the industry no matter what your gaming preference.
The two styles of RTS play(macro + economy vs more micro and combat manuvers) seem to be diverging heavily. I was hoping the two could be merged by automatic(pre set by the player) build orders and allowing for most abilities to autocast.
I sorta agree with you. I do agree there is a divergence in the genre between micro heavy games (WC3, DoW, CoH, etc) and macro games (SupComm). However, we have yet to remove the basic elements.
For example, you say that SupComm has no micro. I counter by saying it indeed contains quite a bit of micro. Watch any good high level replay and you'll see some serious skill at micro from raiding parties to feints and flanking. Yes your units don't turn on a dime, and it has a strong strategic and macro side, but it still contains a powerful micro region that good players utilize. On the flip side, CoH is extremely heavily micro. That doesn't mean there was no macro. In fact, I usually lose due to my poor macro and switching between tiers and holding the proper regions of the map, even though I win all initial battles.
Basically, everyone is currently removing themselves from the older style harvest and build system and trying newer things. I'm personally a fan of the capture point system used by Relic. I also enjoy 4x games like Civ and Sins of a Solar. The point being that we have begun to diverge and try to reform each aspect, emphasizing the micro or the macro or some new system. At the same time keeping balance and all the good elements we enjoy.
On the other hand, the pinnacle RTS is still probably StarCraft. I think SC2 is getting a little too much hype, but then I'm a bit of a pessimistic skeptic.
Which is a shame. I want to see a strategy game which doesn't throw a tactic out of the window. There are ways to properly balance turtling, such as having a small timing window where the turtle player can execute a successful drop or something along those lines.
Most RTSes suck because the strategy in a game is never going to be any fun on its own. "Oh hey guys, I am executing a pincers maneuver .05% better than you by positioning my units a bit wider. No dude, your cavalry flank totally sucked, the guy was so expecting it." You need distractions, such as alcohol in drinking games, historically, to make them more challenging. So the mundane parts which new developers throw out of the window are actually necessary in order for people to really enjoy the game etc...
Comming back to CoH, I like the way the included airborne units with the use of off-map airplanes that do strafing runs or defend an area. This way ground features such as narrow passages become way more important. But there is still that map control problem that stops you from turtling. Which could in this case be a valid option IRL, but not ingame due to loss of resource income...
Allowing turtling to be an effective tactic is an incredible balancing act, and if it fails, you have a broken game. That's probably why most developers don't try it.
I know, offhand, of only two games that tried to allow turtling to be a valid tactic. One was AoE3, and it was unbalanced. France could sit behind walls, have their villagers (which collect faster) be unraidable, and then tech up to this blatantly overpowered horse unit that did area of effect damage while being able to kill their direct/hard counter with matched resources. If they weren't massing that horse unit, their economy was generally untouchable and they were able to sustain incredible troop numbers.
The other I can think of was Command and Conquer Generals: Zero Hour. USA could select the "Super Weapon General." She had a decrease in the cost of super weapons (X times go, you can use the weapon once to destroy things, then the timer resets) and had better base defenses. Most pubbers didn't want to play against the Super Weapon General, but I always she was balanced for the most part. It just took an adjustment in your normal strategy to beat her, but it wasn't like playing against France in AoE v1.0.
I know, offhand, of only two games that tried to allow turtling to be a valid tactic. One was AoE3, and it was unbalanced. France could sit behind walls, have their villagers (which collect faster) be unraidable, and then tech up to this blatantly overpowered horse unit that did area of effect damage while being able to kill their direct/hard counter with matched resources. If they weren't massing that horse unit, their economy was generally untouchable and they were able to sustain incredible troop numbers.
The other I can think of was Command and Conquer Generals: Zero Hour. USA could select the "Super Weapon General." She had a decrease in the cost of super weapons (X times go, you can use the weapon once to destroy things, then the timer resets) and had better base defenses. Most pubbers didn't want to play against the Super Weapon General, but I always she was balanced for the most part. It just took an adjustment in your normal strategy to beat her, but it wasn't like playing against France in AoE v1.0.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Company of Heroes does it with the British.
I'm sorry, but SWG is just a ridiculous army. Alpha auras are in no way fair (Unstoppable fuel-air bomb which costs $2.5k... totally overpowered). Her super weapons are WAY too good. The normal particle cannon itself is one of the best SWs (Assuming you know how to use it) and hers is 2x more powerful for .5 the cost and .5 the cooldown making it roughly 8x as powerful as the normal one. Then to continue she gets the improved powerplants AND the best defence unit in the game (EMP patriot).
I mean, the idea of the "generals" is that you sacrifice something to gain something. AFG sacrifices ground for air, infantry sacrifices tanks for men, etc etc. SWG however loses almost nothing in the way of units and GAINS SO MUCH.
Rant over. Sorry, I play tons of C&C gens and I can't stand people who insist on playing as SWG. The only way to beat her is to rush and that's not fun at all.
Depending who you talk to, just about every general is overpowered. Although you're right about the SWG general being stronger than most. That's why I said "for the most part," because almost half of the generals in Zero Hour have some really (really) powerful strat that is considered blatantly overpowered.
I mostly play 2v2's (or did, rather, when my partner and I played this all the time) and while she's a ###### to beat she's very beatable. The point was that the SWG is at least beatable, unlike France was in AoE3.
(btw, how we consistently defeated even decent SWG generals was a very effective rush using GLA suicide bombers, technicals, and eventually some tanks to assist. The number one goal is to always destroy her dozers (more than any other general). After that you have to target power while making absolutely sure that no dozers are surviving when they come out of the CC. It takes practice to pull off, but worked for us. Of course, sometimes the plan goes to hell, as with anything, but if you can pull off the basic idea of this rush you can remove her from play early on. It does have a fairly strong impact upon the GLA's players economy, though.)
And it's not that SWG is unbeatable, it's just the fight isn't really "fun". 1v1 and 2v2 it's easy enough to kill her with a rush or early push before she gets her strat center up. However in 3v3 and up the only way to fight her is with a competant AFG or another SWG, and at that point the entire fight just rotates around them.
So who are/were your favorite armies?
What you described is tactics not strategy. Strategy is forward-planning, it is ensuring you have enough resources to produce the required units, and researching the correct technologies to produce a flexible mix of units to fight with. So yes, mining stone is a part of strategy. The whole point of strategy is that it's not having to 'pray you chose the right units', it's about making sound decisions according to an intelligent plan of action. Your example describes troop movements within a combat zone and the actual combat, which is clearly tactics. Steve was complaining about the strategy element being removed or watered down in RTS games to the point where the S is no longer a main constituent.
<b><!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->Strategy<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
The science and art of using all the forces of a nation to execute approved plans as effectively as possible during peace or war.</b>
<b><!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->Tactics<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy</b>
<b>Also:</b> In military usage, a distinction is made between strategy and tactics. Strategy is the utilization, during both peace and war, of all of a nation's forces, through large-scale, long-range planning and development, to ensure security or victory. Tactics deals with the use and deployment of troops in actual combat.
And before anyone questions the suitability of using these military definitions of the terms, let's not forget that the RTS genre began life as a military sim, albeit in an alternate and futuristic reality and they in turn were inspired by (tabletop) strategic wargames.
What you described is tactics not strategy. Strategy is forward-planning, it is ensuring you have enough resources to produce the required units, and researching the correct technologies to produce a flexible mix of units to fight with. So yes, mining stone is a part of strategy. The whole point of strategy is that it's not having to 'pray you chose the right units', it's about making sound decisions according to an intelligent plan of action. Your example describes troop movements within a combat zone and the actual combat, which is clearly tactics. Steve was complaining about the strategy element being removed or watered down in RTS games to the point where the S is no longer a main constituent.
<b><!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->Strategy<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
The science and art of using all the forces of a nation to execute approved plans as effectively as possible during peace or war.</b>
<b><!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->Tactics<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy</b>
<b>Also:</b> In military usage, a distinction is made between strategy and tactics. Strategy is the utilization, during both peace and war, of all of a nation's forces, through large-scale, long-range planning and development, to ensure security or victory. Tactics deals with the use and deployment of troops in actual combat.
And before anyone questions the suitability of using these military definitions of the terms, let's not forget that the RTS genre began life as a military sim, albeit in an alternate and futuristic reality and they in turn were inspired by (tabletop) strategic wargames.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's no strategy in any RTS; when anyone says "strategy" when talking about the game they mean tactics. The closest you get to strategy is deciding what unit to build, and even that is tactics by the dictionary definition. The problem is that the genre is "RTS" instead of "RTT," which leads to a lot of confusion. Steve wasn't complaining about the strategy being watered down, he was complaining about a lack of economy or a lack of speed. The second obviously has very little to do with the strategy/tactics dichotomy, and in fact slower games would theoretically allow more strategy since you get time to plan. The first has nothing to do with strategy either; it takes just as much "strategy" to mine stone as it does to capture a munitions point on the map.
I know you put stone in the "strategy" bit and not the "tactics" bit, but I'd have to argue that on two counts. First: the "new" RTS games that Steve dislikes, like WiC or CoH or SupCom, still have resources. The difference is that instead of telling your villagers which resource to gather and in what quantity, you decide in other ways. SupCom has buildings, CoH has points on the map that you control, and WiC has a set amount that you choose to allocate. The only difference is whether a villager or an engineer is getting the income.
The second reason I would call it tactics instead of strategy comes straight from your dictionary or whatever. Tactics is "the technique of deploying and directing troops..." yadda yadda yadda. "Deploying" is choosing what forces to commit to a fight. This is the same as choosing what units to build in an RTS. If a general holds back a tank batallion for a counterattack, that's tactics, and if I save my manpower to buy an Off-Map Combat Group, that's tactics.
Rushing is a strategy. Turtling is a strategy. Economic domination is a strategy.
Accomplishment of those strategies is done using tactics.