The last RTS i played was tiberian sun and i need something to play on my laptop whilst i go and visit home for xmas as i won't be able to take my main system with me so someone recommend me a decent RTS as i want one
Dawn Of War has had a vote from someone already, any others?
Red Alert 2 has gotta be the best and non-demanding RTS, can be picked up for less than a fiver in some places, u'll be playing for hours I guarantee *cheesy salesman grin* (if you were discouraged at all by Tiberian sun, RA2 wipes the floor with it).
utdmleach
Rise. Of. Nations.
It's addictive as hell and if you get the gold edition that includes the Thrones and Patriots expansion, you'll be playing for as long as you could possibly need to
Theres still a decent online community and they're probably one of the least 'anti-noob' online groups around, as i havent even heard of anyone getting screamed at for not knowing what they're doing.
It's easy to get into but also very deep and the more you play the more you'll be drawn in
http://www.microsoft.com/games/riseo.../downloads.asp demo
Don't feel overwhelmed, once you try the tutorials it's pish
Rome Total War anyone?
Does Rome: Total War count? It's turned based on the main map, but the battles are real time. I probably shouldn't be recommending this game since I haven't played it apart from the demo, but the demo was very impressive and the game just seems to build on Medieval: Total War (which I have played and is truly excellent).
If you like the Command and Conquer style, Red Alert 2 is the best. Generals was, in my opinion, a bit iffy - didn't really stick to the C&C style, and I just didn't like it as much.
Warcraft III is an excellent game - fantastic storyline, orcs, trolls, elves, dwarves, big battles, good ol' fashioned swords and arrows, giant walking trees, fun... what else could you ask for?
"Well, there was your Uncle Tiberius who died wrapped in cabbage leaves but we assumed that was a freak accident."
Personally i preferred Generals (don't know how much flaming i've just entitled myself to) because it's more modern based and i came into C&C too late to really feel the magic that everyone seems to think surrounds it. Completed Red alert1, thought it was soso, and tried Red Alert 2 but that didnt really do it for me tbh.
Warcraft III was certainly fun but i found that in the end it came down more two who could execute the most clicks a minute (same applies for rome, but not Medieval or Shogun) and i didn't like the way that each indivual unit had a healthbar that took ages to diminish compared to other sims. Singleplayer, however was top notch stuff and i'm still considering getting Frozen Throne so that i'm up to date for lore when WoW comes out over here..
C&C vet *wipes a tear for the classic C&C touches lost in the latest instalment*, tried Generals a bit didn't get into it, will get around to buying it. Back to the original question, any age of Empires game would seem like a good choice, or even the Stronghold franchise for that matter.
Actually, I'd argue that Warcraft III is much much more than clicking, especially comparing it to the C&C series. The food cap means that you have to choose each unit carefully, and each unit slots into a different place. However, it does not mean that you should have a certain number of each unit - it all depends on playing style, and there are so many different combinations you can have. For example, the simplest strategy is 'tanks at the front, range at the rear'. If you replace some units with spellcasters, you do less damage, but you can augment your troops (e.g. increase attack damage), hinder the enemies (e.g. reduce their armour) or even take them out of the battle completely (e.g. cyclone). You could take it one step further, and get so many spellcasters that you can take the majority of their army out by casting cyclones on most of their units, and deal with the small rabble that's left easily. You might decide to add in some air units as well.Originally Posted by klarrix
My point is that, in some games, you have a rock, paper, scissors effect. One unit is good at destroying another, but is vulnerable to a different unit. Warcraft III has this to some extent, but it's not so simple and clear - the units go beyond just being designed to kill another type of unit, making the game all the more strategic.
The slower combat is a plus for me. Instead of sending your hundreds of units in and not being able to control them, and sitting back and waiting, Warcraft III makes you take an active role in the battle - you have to choose your targets carefully, cast the right spells, and make every hit count.
"Well, there was your Uncle Tiberius who died wrapped in cabbage leaves but we assumed that was a freak accident."
Yea but at the same time C&C Gens (Not that i'd rate it in the same quality bracket) has a similar idea going for it in that you cash is always extremely limited for the tactics you need to employ and so the same 'choosey' aspect is present when creating armies. What i meant by being 'clicky' is that pre-planning has a far smaller affect on the outcome of a battle compared to getting as many units as you can on the battle field and grabbing as many upgrades as quickly as you can in as short a time humanly possible. It was fun online, but these little niggles detracted from the experience somewhat in that area for me.
In the same respect, Gens also had Buffs for friendly and opposing units (Propaganda towers, ECM tanks, Salvage upgrades etc) as aspects like these are implimented widely into most RTS's including Rise of Nations ()
I Also felt that the slower combat made raids unneccessarily hard to defend against as even if you have better units, 80% of them will escape due to it taking so long for them to die. Maybe if they moved slower to compensate then it would be logical but otherwise it doesnt work as well as it could.
I'm not saying that it wasnt a good title, but I wouldnt say it does anything original in comparison to RTS's of the last couple of years.
And mike, how could you forget to mention Homeworld as a personal recommendation?!
Last edited by klarrix; 06-12-2004 at 11:00 PM.
Homeworld is good... but it's no Warcraft III
And I normally found that your selection of units would ultimately decide the outcome of the game. As for the buffs, the point is that when you build a unit that provides a buff in Generals, you build it alongside whatever units you have already. In Warcraft III, you have to replace i.e. sacrifice another unit to get another different unit with special abilities such as buffs, meaning it has a serious impact on the workings of your army (by serious impact, I don't just mean 'it makes it better', I mean the balance of your army has to be shifted accordingly), whereas in Generals the cost is relatively small compared to the rest of your army, so there is no real sacrifice.
Just my 2p.
"Well, there was your Uncle Tiberius who died wrapped in cabbage leaves but we assumed that was a freak accident."
Age of Mythology, that's alright
Rome: Total War (Extremely Drainage)
Medieval: Total War
or Dawn Of War
The best RTSs out at the moment in my opinion.
CnC generals and Dawn of war are the two you want
rome/medieval/shogun:total war are very...specialised and...boring unless your really into that type of game, i wouldnt call the rts really.
Warcraft3 is good, but takes time to get any good at it, and its no-where near as good as warcraft2.
But I would reccomened generals - or any of the cnc series, hours of fun
I'm still unsure, it's between warcraft3, DoW or CnC red alert / generals :S
c and c, red alert two, cn be run on a low spec machine and still has a great few players about the servers
Under Development...
RA2 runs on pretty much any machine, played it on a naff 4 year old HP laptop still worked great. Generals requires a lot more power, not really suitable for a laptop, unless its a high spec one.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote