I don't have what it takes anymore

Peon killing

Published on June 7, 2006 By Draginol In Real-Time

Years ago, I used to be very "into" RTSs. I spent countless weekends and weeknights playing Warcraft, Total Annihilation, Starcraft and tons of lesser known RTSs.

And in most of them, particularly the ones with peons, what seperated the top players from the rest was knowledge of a simple game mechanic: Multiplication of resources. Which translates to - send forces to disrupt the first couple of minutes of production of your enemy and you will win. We're not talking about "rushing". What I'm saying is that if you can eliminate even a couple peons getting gold or whatever the resource in question is very early on, it will put them behind the curve for the rest of the game.

When I played competitively, that was always my strategy too. But as I've gotten older, I don't have the stomach for it. It's just such a shitty tactic that is only remotely interesting when played against other top players and even then, it all usually boils down to who is most successful in pulling it off. So I don't do it.

Which means that when I play top players at say Rise of Legends, I usually lose. RoL is a peon game. So a good player will move in with their starting forces and take out a few peons and then move out. The rest is pretty much written barring a really clever move.

Some people object to "rushing". I don't. I don't personally rush, but I think rushing is a legitimate tactic and a well designed game will allow players to defend against it. In Rise of Legends, you can see how many units the the other guy has built early on. So it's pretty obvious when an unskilled player is about to rush. I had that happen today and wiped the guy out. One defense canon and a bunch of purchased forces from neutrals (the guy didn't realize that units acquired at neutral cities don't count as "built" units so I had more forces than he thought).

Other tactics are still key, always know what your enemy is doing. When someone rushes me, I usually see them gather their force, send them across the map and make sure I have something there to greet them. Unfortunately, true rushers are usually pretty lame. The rush, having failed, means the opponent is doomed and they typically quit right there. I never understand those kinds of players, given the pain to get a game going, why end it in 5 minutes?

But like I said, the most effective strategies are the ones that suck the fun out of the game. I've always loathed the peon mechanic to begin with (no war in history was ever decided by eliminating the civilian population). In some games, top players will take advantage of glitches in the game such as bad unit AI and such. RoL does'nt seem to have that issue at least.

So I'll have to contend myself with being mediocre.

Comments (Page 2)

Glorfindel

on Jun 09, 2006

I'm waiting anxiously for Supreme Commande, who looks more and more like TA 2007.

Yarlen

on Jun 09, 2006

Definitely. I may actually upgrade to play Supreme Commander.

Jab

on Jun 09, 2006

I can't wait for supreme commander.

GJDriessen

on Jun 11, 2006

Supreme commander really looks superb. Anyone has seen the trailer. It's awesome!

AngleWyrm

on Jul 13, 2006

Some gaming genius, that I remember from Starfleet Command:

Watching a save-game movie, where a Romulan stomped a Klingon in a fleet battle. The Klingon had cloaked, and the Romulan launched it's volley of plasma torpedos at the cloaked and semi-stationary Klingon. Without a lock, those plasmas would go to waste. But just at the last moment, when the plasmas were very close, and the Romulan was swooping by, he teleported several mines in front of the Klingon. The Klingon tripped the mines, and was briefly visible for the two seconds before the plasma torpedos smashed into it's unshielded hull.

It inspired me to develop and practice two killer maneuvers that helped me win a couple games.

The first one was the Tail Hook, for Federation ships: Begin an alpha-strike approach by charging a tractor beam, and activating Evasive Maneuvers. Tractors can't lock in this state. Do the usual stuff on approach (drop missile shuttle, charge forward shield, overloaded torpedos), but wait until extremely close. At range 2-3 begin charging a High Energy Turn, which will activate just after passing the enemy. At the moment you pass the enemy, drop Evasive Maneuvers, tractor beam locks onto the enemy from behind, the high energy turn kicks in, and now you've got a full alpha strike on the rear shields. It's a game winner, if executed properly.

The second one was an escape maneuver, Hells Gate. With an enemy in close persuit, teleport two mines forward of your position, one right and one left, then pass through them. If the enemy tries to follow you between, roll a mine out the back, closing the gate. Otherwise the enemy must break off and go around, giving you a turning advantage.

Anti-Cheese.

Stromko

on Jul 15, 2006

What if in an RTS game you had a special resource that was used to build any kind of attack unit, but not for buildings, defenses, or workers?

Let's call it Munitions, and let's say you start with a defensive unit of some kind; maybe it takes time to deploy but once it's in place has a significant advantage against any first-rung enemies that get close. But you have no Munitions resource until you start capturing resource points and let it build up.

It kind of depends if it's a Dawn of War-style resource or a StarCraft / C&C-style resource game. In Starcraft or C&C your 'peons' generally have to cluster in certain spots that a. contain the resource, and b. are close enough; this limits their options significantly-- but since it keeps them close to base a free defensive unit + limited ability to create offensive unit off the bat would help.

In a game like Dawn of War however, there is a variety of resource points to capture and you have to scatter your 'peons' around. My idea wouldn't prevent rushing in a game like that since half the time an opponent rushes via pushing a cluster of their peons into 'your side' of the map to claim point and thus interrupting your early game development.

SmegInThePants

on Dec 31, 2006

I don't like production oriented RTS's. The game becomes more about production than than tactics. That's fine for a TBS, but in an rts game, I want the real and important action to be where the units are, in the fighting, not back at the buildings. I want the important decisions that will decide the outcome of the game to be on the front lines, where the armies meet. I want tactics to matter more than strategy.

That's why I liked the Myth series so much. RTS, but you don't build your units, you simply start w/X units, and when they die there is no replacing them. This made each unit of great importance. More like a chess game despite being real time. You had to be careful w/your units because when they gone, they gone. But it was also a fantasy game, and had unit experience which made a giant difference in their level of effectiveness (nothing like having your newbie archers miss and take out your own, irreplacable troops instead). But the one thing that kept me from growing sick of it like I did every other rts was quite simply - no buildings, no production, no replacing fallen units, all about tactics.

The only other rts's that come close to having a similar mechanic would be the total war series and its clones, but they are on such a grand scale that they aren't quite to my tastes like the myth series was. But they are enjoyable and I don't get sick of them like all the production based c&c and warcraft clones out there. But they're also so different, that they don't satisfy my desire for a new Myth like game.

So brad, make us a myth-like RTS, which hasn't been seen since the myth people were bought by MS and decided to dedicate their life to making halo. Be my savior brad!

KdGergo

on Dec 31, 2006

You are right about early disruption, it may decide the whole battle.
But if you remember some of the top-games in Starcraft, you see what this RTS really means. Of course this level is unreachable by ordinary people:).

FarAway Galciv

on Feb 14, 2007

I think this is an interesting discussion around why we play games.

Different folks play for different reasons. Some folks, and especially younger gamers, just play to win. For those of us who have competed (with ourselves, with our computer, and with other players) longer, that alone is seldom sufficient anymore.

I do like games that genuinely allow different paths to victory. This is one area where Dominions 2 was actually a decent game. They needed some nerfing around the Superhero tactic, but otherwise, different factions played the game very differently.

For me, a lot of the fun is in exploring the underlying system of the game. I don't so much like reverse-engineering every last piece of the game machine, but I do like figuring things out like "Hey, they like me on this planet, so they actually offer a lower price on laser cannons!" or "Hey, Dictatorships really do pay a premium for weapons, while Republics don't!"

This was one of the most intriguing features of Space Rangers 2, I think.

Astax

on Feb 15, 2007

Ah RoL. I have this game. However I have not played it much. I might pick ti up again thou.

I also found the taste of RTS bittersweet. More bitter the older you get. I used to be, dare I say, pretty frikin good at StarCraft/ So good infact I usually played 1 vs 2 for a bit of challenge. I even could go 1 vs 3 and keep the game going till one of the 3 had to leave. I must say since then I found few games appleaing. Even StarCraft lost it's touch when it got to a level where less was more. And by that I mean a little micro management early on, made the late game Macro obsolete. Ending the game early was the way to go.

But since then I have only found Civ4 interesting. Yes I know you say it's turnbased/ Well it's hardly turn based in simultaneous move. Oh man that game is more nerver wreckign than anything RTS. But eventually you pick up all the tips and tricks of every era you play. Ancient was my thing. And got to a point where I would do ridiciulous things, just for fun of it. Because playing the right way every game was too boring. I even made a settler first strategy which was pretty frikin awsome. I haven't played that game in a while. If I could find one of the disks I'm missing, I would isntall it right now just for old time's sake.

Campaigner

on Feb 21, 2007

By competetive games definition, the people who think like Brad, are scrubs. You make up mental rules that stops you from winning. You simply do not play to win. I used to think like that myself when I was a kid. "WAAAAAH THAT'S CHEAP!!!" I used to say when someone throwed energy balls and used the dragon punch when I jumped over them in Street Fighter 2. These days, my old friend who still only play games on consoles refuse to play me in competetive games like Street Fighter 2 or Bigfoot since he knows he can never ever win.
But then again, he prefers adventure games and can't handle fastpaced games which require precision and timing like Street Fighter, Bigfoot and (Super) Punch out.

But back to the topic at hand. Have you tried Warhammer 40.000 Dark Crusade Brad? No peons there. And it's "finished" now. No more Warp Spiders owning the ENTIRE Ork race. Only some balancing and bugfixing is left now. Like fixing the Necrons and some Tau units (Crisis Suit flamer and Vespid).

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!