Moriarty wrote:
AI's never adapt (and then you have people who cheat to contend with (and yes i know that most AI's cheat... but they do it to be fair... humans do it for exactly the opposite reason ))
Moriarty
The best AI that I think I've seen was in the RTS Dark Reign. That game was/is extremely challenging and it left me in a sweat just about. And then I thought, I'm endlessly doing the same thing for about an hour or so just for one single session. That's what turned me off RTS a bit was the endless repititon.
I both hate and like multiplayer. Without multiplayer, Diablo 2 is very boring. With multiplayer you have to be on the lookout all the time for being hacked, scammed or pked.
The best single player game I've found would probaly be Master of Magic. So, I'd say that when the single player game is good enough, there's no need for multiplayer and in single player games you don't need internet connection and don't have to worry about the "perils" of muliplayer.
1. Starcraft
2. Warcraft
3. Rise of Nations
4. Age of Empire
5. Conquest, had a lot of potential I think
The AI in warcraft is quite challening. In fact they can beat out at least a good half of the population, probably more like most palyers. The AI in warcraft adapts and uses counters, but the major flaw is lack of diverse strategies, although I saw someone fixed it so they do rushes or mass air; and Blizzard program it to mimic the players, which is really silly; and the fact it shamelessly maphacks.
Im still wondering why nobody mentioned Total Annihilation (with CC and UTASP + max500-units-pp-mod)... TA offers a great set of different vehicles, unlimited strategies paired with a simple ressource-managment and a nice engine (especially when more than 300 enemy units try to break a well build defense line...
No strategy with those mod. They are for ppl who like amassing armies then watch the nice sound and graphic effects. In that case, warcraft 3 is upbeat, beautifully rendered, and tastefully colorful without over doing it. There are games like that in warcraft and starcraft.
Command & Conquer series has always had unique units that have special abilities rather than just different stats.
Abilities:
-teleport
-firewall, missile defense
-stealth
-travelling underground (digging)
-lifting units using gravity weapons
Lets not forget superweapons, though there were no real defenses against them.
Also what about Emperor Battle for Dune. THat was a good game, sand worms were cool.
I remember it was a hard choice picking between C&C and the warcraft back in the days. I picked warcraft becuase of fantasy units rather based on real life. I think I made the right choice now looking back. Blizzard is great RTS compnay, though I don't know what they are doing with first-person shooter and game boy games now.
In starcraft, every unit is unique--even down to the workers that you get in the very start. I remember crazy ppl doing scv rush or worker rush.
TA is the best 'traditional' RTS ever made, even if its not that traditional. It did things that many other RTS's still havent even begun to think of. Me wants TA2. All they would need to do is add better pathfinding AI (the enemy strategic AI has been pretty well modded by the community) and some formation commands and it would be perfect.
Shogun and Medieval Total War are fantastic. I believe Shogun Warlord Edition is about to be rereleased on budget for £5 (about $8) in the UK. If you havent already got this its well worth a purchase.
Ground Control is another good 'traditional' RTS. No resource management, just tactical combat, with terrain having a significant effect on gameplay. Also now available on budget.
Homeworld is good. Unfortunately the SP game is let down by the necessity to capture enemy ships all of the time, making it a bit one dimensional. A game with the strategic map gameplay of shogun, and the combat of homeworld would be a nice thing to have.
[quote="gb207The best AI that I think I've seen was in the RTS Dark Reign. That game was/is extremely challenging and it left me in a sweat just about. And then I thought, I'm endlessly doing the same thing for about an hour or so just for one single session. That's what turned me off RTS a bit was the endless repititon.
[/quote]
Hey, that sounds just like what I'd say IIRC there was actually some .doc file in the installation that explained some stuff about how the AI works.
I'd have to say WCIII is how to make RTS games better.
Basically the UI is very good, you have ways of getting all the useful information speedily, and of accomplishing what you want easily most of the time.
The RockPaperScissors nature of the Main attack units, augmented by the various magic/anti-magics and special abilities of units makes for good strategy.
What they did best though was multiplayer with battle.net, the automatic team level matching allows for good, consistently challenging games.
I don't really like WC3. It's for attackers.
I like to sit in my 'hole' for ages enhancing tech and everything, and only attacking when I know i can do well.
WC3, defending isn't an option, due to the low/high upkeep. It's rare for a skirmish (against AI's) to last 50% of the time that a starcraft (or similarly 'balanced' RTS) skirmish would last, because attacking is the only option.
I'd say that is what makes WC3 good, it makes teching(with some early units built) v. early mass rushing a difficult choice, and ensures that just 'sitting there' won't work, you actually have to use your forces throughout most of the game.
My only comment on the matter. Heroes ruined WC3. Makeing any kind of "super unit" will inherently unbalance the game. And guess what the only defense is? Yep building your own hero. Talk about one-dimensional.
I hope SC2 if/when it comes out does NOT have heroes, and focuses more on the SC style of RTS rather than the abomination that WC3 created.
Oh sure I sound sour, but I don't like RPGs where you control an army. If its an RPG I want it to be on a limited personal party bases like the early FFs (before 7) otherwise it just creates a distraction. Make up your mind its either a RTS or its an RPG not both.
I think WC 3 is a S-class blend of RTS and RPG. It is meant as a micro game and not macro like TBS or regular RTS. The RPG part enhances the RTS part with stories. I like having powerful heroes carrying special weapons and items with a few other regular units. It is like focusing on your captial ships with all the neat weapons and effects blowing up the enemy fighters while your other medium ship distrats them.
Moriarty wrote:I don't really like WC3. It's for attackers.
I like to sit in my 'hole' for ages enhancing tech and everything, and only attacking when I know i can do well.
WC3, defending isn't an option, due to the low/high upkeep. It's rare for a skirmish (against AI's) to last 50% of the time that a starcraft (or similarly 'balanced' RTS) skirmish would last, because attacking is the only option.
Yes, if you sit there and build up an army defensively, then when the enemy attacks they will have high level experienced units, because they have been in battles. I think experience makes units too powerful in WC3.
))
IIRC there was actually some .doc file in the installation that explained some stuff about how the AI works.
