I don't have what it takes anymore

I hear ya Brad; I'm much the same way. The major reason I don't play strategy games in multiplayer mode very much is because I don't particularly care to play against people I don't know, and finding time for even just some of my friends to get together is difficult at best. But the other major factor is that I simply cannot bring myself to use a "cheese" tactic or known exploit, even if not doing so means the other player(s) beats the stuffing out of me--which they usually do. Basically, it's in my nature to be a good sport (both when playing games online as well as real life), and so I often lose as a result. Ah well....

im a "serious Gamer" i play for fun not to win, but often times this leaves me "Flawed". but the good thing is that the games i purchase i play over and over again, saving me much cash!

the most effective strategies are the ones that suck the fun out of the game.

Honestly, this happens in a lot of different types of games as well. In tabletop RPGs, there's Roleplaying and there's ROLLplaying. Munchkinism is something I personally avoid in RPG groups (not that I've had one in a long while). The tabletop miniature wargame of my preference, HeroClix, is almost strictly polarized into theme players and game players. There's the guy who will only play accurate X-Men line-ups, and then there's the guy with Superman, some Con Artists ("hookers") and a Paramedic to heal him up.

There are game-isms (a term I first heard in the Army) in virtually every game. (In fact, the Army uses it to discuss inaccurate but effective tactics used during war games. It's like in paintball where you could hide in a thorny bush and be protected from the "bullets.") No matter how good the design, a game will really not be able to completely and accurately simulate its source (referenced in your observation about wars and civilian populations).

Personally, I'm a fair game mechanic, but not a very good game player. I enjoy the heck out of games, but I've rarely been above mediocre. Any time that I've pulled above average has been due to having an edge in knowledge over my opponents... which is somewhat satisfying for me, but I'd rather be able to get by on raw talent. Having said all this... I still give you some kudos for deciding not to stoop to what you feel is an unfair and cheesy (and unenjoyable) tactic.

The guys that i have a hard time believing are those that say they always have a ready clatch of 4-5 friends that are chomping at the bit to play a MP game to the bitter end with them,

Now there is a completely new breed of geek.

I agree guys. Most MP games are best played against other players as even the best AI is flawed. That said there is nothing worse than people using "cheese" tactics. These are the people who obey the letter rather than the spirit of the law. They only gain gratification from victory and not from the thrill of playing. It is a sadly imature mind-set that is unfortunately often seen in those who should be old enough to know better. The problem exsits in FPS as well as RTS where people will exploit weapons and good pings to allow them to win. I think these people feel that everyone should cheese and so don't feel bad about it.

The key, as mentioned above, is to find some friends to game with but this is difficult if you also work. Perhaps, as we age, there will be larger groups of more mature gamers around to enjoy games with.. as long as the young 'un don't drive us all around. I have found one FPS clan called The Older Gamer who only admit over 25s and have some of their own servers.

Anyway, enough rambling.....

...and darn those pesky kids!

It is possible to achieve “perfection” in nearly any game. Given (or with enough data to deduce or reverse-engineer) the formulas that make up the mechanics of the game, you can devise the “perfect strategy”. Since it is tested, tried, and true, all games, after a while, become somewhat boring. It is true, from a pure efficiency standpoint that there are only certain strategies that are effective. This is true of all games, due to the mechanics that make up the game. Tactics that are “effective” “cheesy” or that “play the system” win out. Applying the same tactic is not fun, however, no matter how optimal and efficient; no matter how many times it allows you to win. As a gamer, I always try to play through a game (the first time) just by my gut instinct, by the seat of my pants, and change and optimize my strategies as I go. After my first few games, I tend to have gathered enough raw data to start putting together the game mechanics (this is something that I really enjoy by the way, figuring out how a game works, and finding the most efficient and effective ways to perform) and even deduce some of the basic formulas. It turns into fine points about the cost/benefit ratio to generate a value, and comparing that to other options. However, always running by this “formula” is tiresome, and due to a lack of balance and a very complete knowledge of the mechanics as well as environment of the game, there is only ever one effective strategy. It is the real world, where many inefficiencies appear, it's a game, which has so few variables, which is so simplified that you can indeed reduce it to numbers, and create the “perfect solution”.

The unfortunate thing is that winning and having fun don't always go hand in hand. While there's only one perfect way to win, there are very many ways to have fun. Playing only one way does get boring after all. We all need to try new things, do the “wow did you see what I just did? Isn't that cool!” factor. It's not fun when you're no longer experimenting, when you know everything there is to know.

We all need variety and novelty. Why do expansion packs sell? They bring new content to the same-ol' good stuff. They bring in something we all need, something new. I think, Draginol, that you're just tired of the same old thing. Perhaps some RTS will come along that finally breaks us of this resource management formula, but you won't really find me holding my breath. That said, you might want to check out Star Wars: Empire at War's galactic conquest mode. Credits are generated by buildings and by owning planets, you don't actually ever mine resources. Construction is performed across all maps, and when two fleets or armies collide, you go into a tactical battle that never requires you to build a single peon.

What makes a good game? Many have debated this topic. Eye candy? Yes it does. Gameplay? Yes. Storyline? Yes. Bells & whistles? Yes. But why? It is our desire for something new, if only slightly that drives us to pick up another copy of that some ol' RTS formula. That's what brings gamers to pick up Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, when we've played tons of RPGS, it's because we're looking for something novel, and something cool. Where does this novelty have to be? It doesn't have to be in any specific place. An easier UI, new flashy eye candy that hasn't been done before, maybe game mechanics that haven't been thought of (bullet time everyone? FPS standard now-a-days, it's hard to believe it was once a brand new idea). One of the reasons why I like the 4X genre is because there are just so many different ways to do it. Everything from SM's civilization series, to galactic civilization's II, to the Heroes of Might and Magic series, and even little gem titles like advanced wars (Game boy advanced) [perhaps not strictly speaking, 4X] that make this genre so diverse. Each of these games are 4X, but they do it in their own way, have their own depth. What your sick of is a flaw in the RTS system, one that's been sickly and dying for a long time now, and needs a major overhaul. Perhaps a revolution is on the horizon that will make RTSes as diverse as their 4X strategy brothers, but until then, all we can do is play the games we have.

When we're tired, we take a little break, so we can come back (perhaps in a few years), to have some more fun with something we know we love, and who knows, maybe even a few new developments in the field will make us fall in love with the genre all over again.

Reading this thread brought back wonderful Starcraft memories, not that I ever dabbled in multiplayer of course, but I'm still familiar with the cheese of peon killing (or SCV's). I really should dig that game out again... I hunger for battle.

Anyway, the same tactic can be used in turn based games. The build up period at the beginning of a GC2 game helps to soften it, but its still possible to crank out fighters and go colony ship/scout killing early on. (Not over the whole map obviously, but enough to soften up your neighbours and get a good start).

You've got two games mixed up there, Muppet, it's "I long for battle". "I hunger" comes from an old arcade console called Sinistar.

I say if you can get away with it in the game, then its fair play! Good strategy players can overcome impossible odds. As mentioned, cheese tactics like rushing is a fair way to play the game, which if resisted successfully, has many strong drawbacks. That's why I love the rush option in a game. If you choose to rush, you better have a backup plan if it does not succeed. If you play a game that has the rush tactic, you better prepare your defenses for it. I like having the rush in the game because it adds to the number of strategies you have to be aware of and prepare for. It also adds to the frantic pace of the first few moments of the game when you don't know what is going to occur. I love that feeling.

STARCRAFT RULES!

Well, when i play a RTS game, i never do that type of strategy i find it pretty lame and only people that can't play a full scale war do it and its mostly so they win and that just takes out the fun in a Strategy game.

I play it because i love playing it, but most people play it to win at all costs, as fast as possible and for some reason people think the faster you win, the better you are and the points don't seem to matter, thats why i never play RTS games with other players now, i just play with my mom now and then, she is bloody good at them.

Its like when i play Star Trek Armada with her, she is always the Federation because of their good guy style and their average shields and armour strength and she is good on what ship class to use and stuff like that and if she gets a good plan set up, I get virtually slaughtered. lol

Now i love losing when its to a well planned assault, but when its in the first few minutes by 'Peons' i just get bored because its only players that just want to win do it and it just puts me off big time.

I know for a fact if it came down to a full scale battle i would win hands down, but hey i never play online now, i have been totally put off of it forever.

You know you're young when your mom plays RTS games and is really good at them 8D

Cheese tactics have really ruined the online gaming experience, and make the "ladders" completely worthless as evaluations of a given player's skill. It's too bad that in the competitions, the cash and prizes go to the person who wins, at all costs.

I say if you can get away with it in the game, then its fair play! Good strategy players can overcome impossible odds. As mentioned, cheese tactics like rushing is a fair way to play the game, which if resisted successfully, has many strong drawbacks. That's why I love the rush option in a game. If you choose to rush, you better have a backup plan if it does not succeed. If you play a game that has the rush tactic, you better prepare your defenses for it. I like having the rush in the game because it adds to the number of strategies you have to be aware of and prepare for. It also adds to the frantic pace of the first few moments of the game when you don't know what is going to occur. I love that feeling.

I think pretty much any tactic is "legitimate".  The question is whether it provides a "fun" experience.  I didn't mention this but I was ranked in the top 10 in Starcraft for human (terrans) in the game during the beta.  And I can tell you one of the first tactics to take was always to go and take a few marines and take out a couple of enemy peons (zergs were particularly vulnerable) early on.  It's not rushing in the sense some peple think of it as you're not doing a full on game ending attack. The mechanic is to slow down their production at the start of the game. The build time to get more peons to mine the crystals is what the killer was.  Take out 2 peons and you lose a minute's worth of production which multiplies out.

In Warcraft 3, until they patched it, the trick was to know which "Creep" had the special treasure and in particular the one that gave your hero experience.  Hence, the top players were the ones who knew a given map very well already and could go around and cherry pick the creeps.

In both cases, they take the fun out of the game for the other player.  The other guy doesn't get to develop their strategy.

Last night I had a great game of RoL.  Took over an hour to complete and it was back and forth.  I could have gone into his base and killed a few peons (or he could have probably tried to do the same to me) but we didn't and it was a game that could have gone either way (well except I took advantage of a weak game feature -- one of the Vinco heroes has a power that makes a group of units invincible for a FULL minute which is total cheese but it's not realistic to not use one of your heroes main powers late game).

That is why we had a rule that Harvesters were off limits in C&C. (I didn't really play Warcraft or Warcraft 2 much, but Peons were off-limits in those games as well.) The games lasted longer and were rather fun. The original C&C had many ways to win, where as Red Alert really toned down on all of the unconventional methods of victory. (I pretty much quit playing RTS's after Red Alert.)

There are ways to invite a foolish attack, even on higher levels of difficulty. I tricked an AI enemy into attacking me. He had a lot of allies, so it would be difficult for me to attack him in the conventional manner without going to war with everyone else. I built up a large number of inexpensivie medium sized ships with relatively low attack and defense capabitlities, and sent them near his border. At the same time, I saved up a great deal of money and designed a much more powerful version of the ship, but did not build any. He sent that "I see what you're doing message" and then the "I am going to rid the world of you" message. I sent the order to upgrade all those ships to the much more powerful version, which only took a week since I owned nearby planets. By the time he got into my vicinity, he experienced what I would like to call an "oh sh*t" moment, and I promptly wipe him off the face of the map, and remained friends with the other AI players who had allied with him.

Things like tower rushing are what really annoy me. When has somone been able to build a sentry tower or what have you in someone elses base without them knowning...

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

Definitely. I may actually upgrade to play Supreme Commander.

I can't wait for supreme commander.

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

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.

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.

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!

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:).

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.

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.