HIstory of RTS Games 225
Spuggy writes "Gamespot has got an excellent article (in Two Parts) depicting the history of Real Time Strategy Games (From Dune II to the forthcoming Warcraft III and Emperor: Battle for Dune). They cover nearly every RTS release and categorize them by generation. The article even has a mention of the old Sega game Herzog Zwei, which was the first game to incorporate RTS elements." It's all about WC2 for me. What
a game.
Herzog Zwei! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Herzog Zwei! (Score:2)
I was pleasantly surprised to see this guy working on a recreation of the game he was calling HZ:
http://pulp.fiction.net/~jeske/Projects/HZ/ [fiction.net]
It seems to have been in alpha form for over a year now, which is unfortunate, but the source is available and it has been ported to Linux! NOTE: This web site also has a scan of the original manual for the Sega Genesis game.
Also interesting is a site for a Herzog Zwei mod for UT (Unreal Tournament). I'm not sure how that is going to work, but it seems to be under active development:
http://mep.beyondunreal.com/hz/ [beyondunreal.com]
This could be great. Herzog in a 3D world with online playing capabilities...
Re:Herzog Zwei! (Score:2)
NATO Commander was one of the early ones. (Score:3, Informative)
Doesn't anyone remember NATO Commander? Published in 1984, for Commodore 64. It was an RTS. No mouse driven interface, but it was real-time. Brilliant game (of the era) about the good ol' red storm rising and NATO and Warsaw pact fighting it out in the central Europe.
Try it out on your C-64 emulator
Re:NATO Commander was one of the early ones. (Score:2)
That said, I was completely apalled that Bolo [stanford.edu] didn't even get a mention.
To quote the author: "Bolo is a 16 player graphical networked real-time multi-player tank battle game. It has elements of arcade-style shoot-em-up action, but for the serious players who play 12 hour games with 16 players working in teams in different networked computer clusters around an office or university campus, it becomes more of a strategy game. You have to play it to understand."
Or does being network enabled back in '87 somehow disqualify it as an RTS?
Re:NATO Commander was one of the early ones. (Score:1)
--Sam L-L
Re:NATO Commander was one of the early ones. (Score:2)
The correct word for this level of planning (eg. "you two go up there while we sneak up behind") is "tactics", which involves fighting a small corner of a conflict (eg. taking a bridge). "Strategy" is planning the entire conflict (eg. taking a city or a country).
Grab.
Warcraft II (Score:5, Funny)
RTS are a very interesting genere (Score:2)
Re:RTS are a very interesting genere (Score:2)
Re:RTS are a very interesting genere (Score:2)
Best RTS ever in my not so humble opinion... (Score:3, Insightful)
3D graphics, order queues for your units, well thought out balance between the two factions and good (for the time) network support, allowing for a decent game against your friends.
Too bad the company (Cavedog) went to hell and never released a decent successor.
If you want to read what I'm blathering about, here is the link [gamespot.com] to the summary from the main article.
Re:Best RTS ever in my not so humble opinion... (Score:2)
When I used to go to LAN parties, we'd try to set up a game of T.A., and most of the time, it would blow up with errors right in the middle of the action, 15 or 20 minutes into playing.
It always seemed to work fine as a 2-player or stand-alone game, but it seemed to have major problems with handling higher levels of network traffic.
I was always disappointed it didn't work better though, because I agree -- it looked like one of the better real-time strategy games available at that time.
Re:Best RTS ever in my not so humble opinion... (Score:3, Interesting)
Bias in my thoughts: I have certainly played the games I like much more than the others, but the ones I profess to have experience in, I really have played and evaluated long enough that I consider my judgement valid. I love to play games, but I don't really enjoy single player games. If all my friends want to play StarCraft, then that's what I play, even if I consider it vastly inferior to TA. I have played War2, SC, AOE, AOE2, C&C, and several others. Each of these I have played for at least 50-100 hours... (TA I have played 1000s of hours worth).
In the TA community, I played on Kali and was known as 'Blade.java'.
Anyway, Total Annihilation:
To corroborate King_TJ, the worst part of the game was its network code. Strangely, it seemed to work better in the early days than the later ones (and later patch versions).
TA had lots of elements that were incredible, and some that still haven't been surpassed. The only good concept I can think of that another game had which TA lacked was random map generation.
The resource model was better than any other. I have read AOE2 fan sites that lambaste TA for its 'terrible resource management'. This is ludicrous, they must not have spent very long evaluating it. More resources doesn't equate to a better resource model. TA had only 2 resources, energy and metal. The most interesting aspect of TA's resource model was that your resource store was "continuum based": All of your resource income and expenditure was like "+2.3 metal/sec -1.5 energy/sec" from an individual mine, and maybe you have a vehicle construction unit building a laser tower for "-5.3 metal/sec -30.2 energy/sec" or something... The different construction units built at different speeds. The most important part was that you could start building anything you wanted regardless of resource cost. For example, it might cost 2000metal and a lot of energy (metal was far more important than energy) to build an advanced construction yard. Even if you only had 100 metal on you, you could start the construction immediately... Your construction unit might use up 10 metal/sec, so your metal will be used up quick, but you can still build. If you run out of metal, some building projects don't get built during that second (if you bring in 20 metal and try spend 30, some things don't get done)...
Also interesting about the resource model was "corpses"... If you attack me and fail to do much damage, there is a good chance you are in a lot worse position than you were, since your units die and leave behind "corpses" or "husks" which have lots of metal on them, and I can send out construction units to reclaim the metal (and then build my own army faster).
Also interesting is the concept of the Commander. Other games have this concept in varying degrees now, and perhaps TA wasn't the first, but it was the first to do it well. The commander, (your starting unit), is very powerful fighting and a very quick construction unit. Also interesting, is that the commander becomes a liability in lategame. He is not powerful enough on his own to be useful (his build speed is still useful), but if he is destroyed, depending on the game settings you either lose the game immediately, or, he explodes with the force of a nuclear missile (which basically destroys everything within a rather large radius).
One of the better aspects of TA is that just mindlessly churning out units and trying to overwhelm your enemy is not nearly so useful as in other games. (People who have played other games and then evaluate TA often say TA is bad *because* this is what happens, but that is typically due to their inexperience).
Some people attack TA because it has "too many units", and "they all look alike": I suppose this is just a matter of taste, and I agree it can be daunting to new users. However, I can say without exaggerating that except for a small handful (less than 5) of the 300+ units, every single unit has its uses, and they all get used by experienced players. Contrast this with other games, where they have maybe 50 units, and perhaps 5 or 10 see regular use.
My specific bitches about other RT"S" games typically come from the micromanagement factor. SC is by far the worst in this area, IMO, but the others commit the crime much more than TA. Examples from SC: the terran tanks, going out of siege mode, sneaking forward a tile, then going into siege mode. Also, how important the spellcasters are: A single spell can really spell(har har) the difference in the game, for example by taking out several 1000s worth of resource by killing a group of marines or zerglings... And every spell must be handled and cast manually! Another example: Look at the descriptions of "championship matches" involving SC or AOE and the like. Invariably they revolve around distracting your opponent and then surprise attacking another area. This is a high level tactic almost verging on actual strategy, which is commendable, but the fact remains that the units fight so terribly they must be handheld. TA has its own failures in this area, but they are not nearly so grevious as other ones.
A million factors make TA a much deeper game than most Realtime "Strategy" games. I put "Strategy" in quotes because I hold that there is very little strategy that goes into them, but rather tactics. This is not to say they aren't fun, I rather enjoy some of them, but I do maintain that they are named incorrectly. TA has both strategic and tactical levels.
OK, I suppose I have ranted enough. I don't even suppose people will care very much about an older game anyway.
Old games? (Score:2)
Old, but still oft-replayed in spare hours. Although I've played several newer titles, I haven't yet seen a RTS game that I thought beat TA for pure gaming addiction. And I can still play TA on my P2/350. :-)
Rant some more. (Score:2)
To continue your excellent rant, I've played RTS games since Warcraft, but I always go back to TA. Why? Because of all othe RTS games, it has the most Strategy. SC, WCII, CC all involve way (way way) too much micromanagement. (I haven't played AoE or AoEII yet). Everytime I play SC, I long for TA's movement and attach profile. Also, the small unit grouping limit is a huge pain in the ass. With TA, setting the profiles for Movement (Hold Position/Manuever/Roam) and Attack (Hold Fire/Return Fire/Fire At Will) can make a huge difference in how unit behave. This is exactly what you want when you send units out to patrol vs. guard vs. attack vs. sneak attack vs. targetted attack etc. Another big plus is the ability to have construction units patrol areas to repair structures and units.
Over all strategy is incredibly important in TA (when played well) mind you. With a good defensive structure/web up (laser cannons and plasma cannons and missile turrets, Oh My! Oh and dragon's teeth, lots of dragon's teeth) I can guarantee that any rush without huge air support will get annihilated (haha).
TA is still one of the few games where a mostly defensive posture is possible. SC, WC, CC and WCII all favor very aggressive postures. In TA, against someone who knows how to scout and scan their radar screen often, extreme agressiveness will get you wiped out quickly. Especially on metal deprived maps, attacking early can give your apponent a huge advantage in metal.
On small maps, the race is usually who will get a (protected) Fusion Generator + Bertha/Intimidator up first. Note that if it isn't well protected, a full flight of bombers supported by distracting fighters/scout planes will reduce it to a pile of twisted metal in a blink of an eye.
On large maps, air power/mobility is (IMHO) the way to go (with sufficient ground protection for your bases of course). The one thing I wish CD would have released before they went under is a heavy air transport (4-6 units). Radar cloaking can also make a huge difference against opponents who aren't thorough. I think of navies as primarily air support platforms and spy sub intelligence gathering.
Check out planet Annihilation's Strategy Page [planetannihilation.com] if you want to see some of the depth of TA. I think it's still the RTS game with the most "S" out there.
Re:Best RTS ever in my not so humble opinion... (Score:2)
However, I don't think any game has kept me more engrossed than StarCraft. Way over WarCraft I and II. I was so pissed when Blizzard decided to make a third game of that when one of their most well-liked games has had players clammoring for a sequel. I'll be like every other shmuck who buys it, though - when it lowers to a reasonable price. :) You hearing Civ III?
Re:Best RTS ever in my not so humble opinion... (Score:1)
I can't believe they didn't even mention Age of Empires/Age of Kings. AoE held my attention even longer than WC2 did, a feat in itself. It garnered a fan club much larger than even Starcraft ever did. Some of my happiest gaming memories are trying to get to the Bronze age in 12 minutes instead of 13..
Pokemon factor was a problem, though (Score:3, Insightful)
The Problem with RTS Games (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Problem with RTS Games (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Problem with RTS Games (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The Problem with RTS Games (Score:1)
FYI, I should have submitted this with the article, but here is Part 2 [gamespot.com]. Also here is a feature on Turn Based Strategy [gamespot.com] (ie. Civilization) which might be of interest.
Re:The Problem with RTS Games (Score:2)
*Upkeep works like this. During the 0-30 food period you are in "no upkeep" and you get 10 gold for every 10 you mine. 30-60 is "low upkeep" and you get 7 gold for every 10. 60-90 is "high upkeep" and you get only 4 for every 10. This discourages you from building large armies and emphasizes strategy over quantity.
Nearly every RTS? (Score:2, Informative)
1) Command and Conquer - Tiberium Sun
2) Red Alert 2
3) Star Wars Galatic Battlegrounds
4) Star Wars Force Commander
huh?
RE: Galactic Battlegrounds? (Score:2)
If I had to list all of the memorable RTS games in an article I wrote, I'd probably leave this one out on purpose - just because it's such a copycat of a true classic.
Re: Galactic Battlegrounds? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: Galactic Battlegrounds? (Score:2, Informative)
i wouldn't excatly call it exactly a rip-off...in fact it actually uses the AOE2 game engine...it's like when they take Monopoly, and then give it a NFL theme to make it appeal to a different market...that's what GBG is....
in any case, i personally find it more interesting to control units and such in GBG because they are units in a universe that we've seen and grown up with (through movies, books, etc...) our whole lives.... well, just my opinion...
Re: Galactic Battlegrounds? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Nearly every RTS? (Score:2, Informative)
Gamespot has got an excellent article (in Two Parts)
Part 2 [gamespot.com]
They are all covered in that section.
[ From Part 1 of the article:
It's worth noting here because it has the distinction of being the predecessor of a game that will figure heavily in our next segment. We'll also take a look at some of the big RTS games currently under development, as well as how the genre has continued to evolve and influence other types of games. ]
Granted my fault for not posting the second link as well, but at least read the article before you whine.
Re:Nearly every RTS? (Score:1)
Mod parent down for being flat out WRONG.
Recycled? Or an old lost article (Score:2, Informative)
Er, exactly how recent is this article?
Re:Recycled? Or an old lost article (Score:1)
Re:Recycled? Or an old lost article (Score:3, Informative)
The part II of the article is here: http://gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/realtim
It covers RTS from 1999 to the present.
Re:Recycled? Or an old lost article (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Recycled? Or an old lost article (Score:2)
Grab.
SimAnt! (Score:1, Funny)
Re:SimAnt! (Score:1)
I guess for RTS, the "Strategy" tends to be synomous to battles with several different units under your control.
Wheres the Glut? (Score:1)
What bothers me is, where is the section where they give you all the "dont do this when you make a RTS" games (eg, Star Wars: Force Commander). I know there were quite a few RTS games that I wouldnt touch with a 40 foot pole. I cant remember any of them offhand (it being 1:42am and all), but I do remember many a university lecture being skipped and me wondering "why the hell did I skip a perfectly good lecture for THIS crap?".
A really good RTS game... (Score:2, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Sega Strategy (Score:1)
Of course the best strategy game ever made for Sega is definitely Third World War for sega CD, which you will not find a ROM for because last time I checked there were no working emulators because they could never hack the sega stuff.
True, hardcore RTS (Score:2, Informative)
When will the real evolution of RTS arive? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:When will the real evolution of RTS arive? (Score:1)
Re:When will the real evolution of RTS arive? (Score:2, Informative)
As for the RP aspects....
Your hero gains experience points from victory in battle either over your opponent, or over NPC opponents called "creeps". Exp leads to leveling, leveling leads to ability to cast different spells. All in all, the effort it takes to build your hero up to be able to cast spells is equivalent to building up the tech tree in SC to get templars that can cast spells. If I wasn't told this was a Blizzard game before I sat down to play it, I would have known as soon as the game started. It has that Blizzard RTS style. And therefore, the old SC way of thinking will bring you success in WC3. This is why I've been mostly dissapointed.
Keep in mind, this is only the third day of beta testing. Therefore, it's most likely WAY to early for me to be making such judgements. But these are my first impressions. Expect the game to change greatly from now until it's eventual release. As Blizzard will be releasing a lot of game balance patches during the beta to see what happens.
Re:When will the real evolution of RTS arive? (Score:1)
Keep in mind, this is only the third day of beta testing. Therefore, it's most likely WAY to early for me to be making such judgements. But these are my first impressions. Expect the game to change greatly from now until it's eventual release. As Blizzard will be releasing a lot of game balance patches during the beta to see what happens.
Oh yeah, to be expected, I followed starcraft.org during the Brood Wars beta and they made change after change to play balancing.
'preciate the feedback though, kinda disappointed in the initial impression, but I'll keep following the news on it. Not like it'll matter though, I've bought every damned game from them as it is (more than once in several cases when my CD collection got stolen), and I doubt I'll stop now.
Re:When will the real evolution of RTS arive? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is the evolution you wanted, but everybody is too busy ooing over the graphic-update-by-the-popular-company called Warcraft 3 to care.
Re:When will the real evolution of RTS arive? (Score:2)
Worked for Russia in WW2. It helped that they were mopping up an overextended army that depended on armor that no longer had any that was usable...
Anyway, it's one reason I prefer games that do *not* involve resource gathering and unit production, such as the Myth games and the Close Combat series. In CC, you can expend infantry on rushing a position, but you'll find yourself short for the whole campaign. TA is one of the few settings I can think of where rush tactics wouldn't be ultimately suicidal in terms of undermining morale and logistics -- they're just robots that are literally sprayed out by the dozens. Otherwise, after a couple rushes, you might find a few unit commanders that are a touch reluctant to go on fire missions with 90% casualties...
Re:When will the real evolution of RTS arive? (Score:2)
Three things worked for Russia in WWII:
And from Germany's invasion till the relief of Stalingrad a year and a half later, the Soviets weren't 'pointing them in the direction to roll over anything they come across' so much as digging in and trying not to be rolled over themselves.
Re:When will the real evolution of RTS arive? (Score:1)
Re:When will the real evolution of RTS arive? (Score:1)
Re:When will the real evolution of RTS arive? (Score:1)
That being said, stupid Americans dont know play anything besides the mindless FPS. Point and shoot, yah, fun fun
Re:When will the real evolution of RTS arive? (Score:1)
So the challenge to RTS game designers is who to get around this without throwing total randomness into the game (which is what WC3 does to an extent with the equimpent your hero can find).
Re:When will the real evolution of RTS arive? (Score:1)
Go play BattleRealms [battlerealms.com]. All other RTS just seem stupid and overly simplistic now. I was quite looking forward to Warlords Battlecry 2 and WarCraft3 but I fully expect all RTS for the near future to have been ruined for me by BattleRealms.
Tactics and combined arms not mere economy.
Stamina (finally!)
BattleGear giving each unit massive flexibility.
Heros.
4 balanced sides
plus its pretty.
It really is a vast step up.
Re:When will the real evolution of RTS arive? (Score:1)
But all in all I agree with you. Today you have to "hyper-click" to get a leg up on your opponent. It's not enough to focus on the battle at hand when you need to run back to your town to prepare for your next move then quickly jump back to manage the battle. Some would say this is a good thing, the point is subjective.
Re:When will the real evolution of RTS arive? (Score:2)
Definately a one player game for sure, but both stories are top notch and the way they merge the cut-scenes with the game it's self almost makes the whole thing seem like a really well done sci-fi movie.
Homeworld and Cataclysm are BOTH definately 100%'s!
Both are a tad bit difficult, but I'd say the first one was harder than the second one.
What about "Wargames" ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What about "Wargames" ? (Score:1)
Read the Second Part of the Article (Score:5, Informative)
Part 2 located here [gamespot.com].
My fault for not posting it in the first place (hopefully they'll update it when they get a chance).
It will clear up a lot of the posts I am seeing about "They missed xxx!!"
RTS Thanks to Configuration (Score:3, Funny)
Sweet, I'm off topic AND lame in this post.
--Josh
They forgot Art of War (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not even sure if this is exactly the right name - perhaps it was "Ancient Art of War" - but this was the first RTS game I had ever played, and it must have come out around 1987 or earlier. It ran on the PC, and if I recall ran in black and white, and certainly did not feature the huge armies or innumerable unit types that are available today, but games like WC and AOE play - in broad strokes - VERY VERY similar to "Art of War". It was, for its time, a great game.
Re:They forgot Art of War (Score:1)
Ran in 4 colour CGA, too!!
Re:They forgot Art of War (Score:2)
There was also "Ancient Art of War at Sea," which can still be downloaded to play in the Apple 2 emulator.
What about Sacrifice? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Stonkers on Sinclair ZX Spectrum in 1983! (Score:1)
What about the Settlers? (Score:2)
Re:What about the Settlers? (Score:2)
How is Command HQ NOT the first? (Score:2, Interesting)
Starcraft -- My RTS Fav (Score:3, Insightful)
The games greatness didn't necessarily lie in its features, (TA was much better looking; still had the build-gather-amass troops-rush problem in a lot of cases) but in its storyline and multiplayer modes. It was really the first RTS game to have Internet play planned for the start. Sure there were problems with kidiez running out on games on you and other issues, but for the most part, the Blizzard Ladder system provided a great way to compete for both fun and competition. (Still remember reading writeups of every match in the tournaments on starcraft.org--too bad the damned site is unviewable now in Mozilla).
As far as the storyline goes, who doesn't remember Kerrigan's infestation or the Protoss Hero's (can't remember his name now--kinda killing my argument here) sacrifice. The Brood War expansion was a masterpiece as well--bringing back Kerrigan as the Zerg Hero, showing the uneasy alliance between the Dark Brethren of the Protoss, and of course the UED, who you just grew to hate. The storyline of the games were so great, that at several points I didn't care about the gameplay, I just wanted to see the Cinematics and the Mission Briefings.
I'll admit that I haven't been as active in the genre as I once was, and could have had as much fun with another game, but it was Starcraft that really won me over.
Looking foward to Warcraft III to provide the same level of greatness in 'net play and in the storyline.
Why not? (Score:2, Insightful)
-Edie
Where's Kohan? (Score:3, Insightful)
Additionally, Kohan is available for Linux if you look around, and there's a dedicated online community of Linux gamers that are great to play with. I can't reccomend this game enough, I havn't played a game this much since Starcraft. It is well worth the $50 sticker price.
M.U.L.E ?? (Score:2)
Might well be the ancestor of all RTS games, IMHO.
Re:M.U.L.E ?? (Score:1)
It was a really fun game and I still play it sometimes. Problem is that it is turn-based, so not all the actions take place simultaneously. It was a good primer for situational economics (supply and demand) under specific conditions.
Re:M.U.L.E ?? (Score:2)
M.U.L.E. is not RTS. It's just perfect turn based strategy with few moments of arcade.
BTW IMHO first game better than M.U.L.E. was Civilization (after 8 years).
What about the Ancient Art of War? (Score:2)
Re:What about the Ancient Art of War? (Score:2)
Utopia - the first RTS (Score:1)
Utopia started the Sim-genre IMHO.
http://www.intellivisionlives.com/ used to have a PC version of Utopia, but it seems the site is down.
Populous (Score:2, Informative)
I can't believe they left out Populous [mobygames.com], published by Electronic Arts 3 years before Dune II, in 1989. See some screenshots, with bad translation [google.com]. Gamespot considers it one of the 15 most influential games of all time [gamespot.com].
The concept was that you were a God, and you were battling another Diety for control of worlds. Both you and your opponent started out with a few followers, and they would multiply rapidly through making settlements. You could make the settlements produce faster by improving the land around them.
You slowly built up Mana points that you could spend on disasters to inflict on your opponent's settlements and followers. Volcanos, quicksand, earthquakes, just to name a few. The more followers you had, the faster your Mana would accumulate.
It was the first game that I had ever seen that had multiple units to control at once. Instead of having direct control over each unit, you could direct them towards a "Papal Magnet" that you could place anywhere in the game world.
It even had a multiplayer option that you could play over a modem.
It was much closer to today's RTS games than Herzog Zwei!
It Came From the Desert (Score:1)
Why is Carrier Command not mentioned? (Score:1)
Dungeon Keeper (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Dungeon Keeper (Score:2, Funny)
The first time I played that level I didn't know I was was supposed to kill it and captured it instead (never managed to do it again afterwards) so that after putting him in my torture room and feeding him plenty of chickens he came to MY SIDE. What really surprised me was when I received a message that the Avatar's followers had ressuscitated him. Being the first time I played the level I didn't understand (how can teh do that if he isn't dead) but when he attacked me with his friends I had the coolest ever fight in video game History: the Avatar against the Avatar. The one I had captured and converted against the new one. Man, that was cool.
Warcraft II's Fire (Score:1)
Also, I remember WarII as being the first game I played online. I went by 'PeonMe.' Oh boy, my 6th grade years.
-Vic
Wow, what about even older RTSes (Score:3, Informative)
Pre-Internet (with the capitalized I) on the Merit network was a game (that was banned _often_ by the system administrators) that created an adaptive universe to travel through (local copies of the universe were "patched" to have dimensional rifts when the local universe synced to a remote universe and the on-the-fly universe creation overlaped between the two universe, sometimes entire rifts winked out of existance (when sys admins quashed them
one that really pushed the envelope... (Score:2, Interesting)
very commercial slant (Score:3, Insightful)
Pushing Real Time Strategy games (Score:2, Informative)
- Homeworld (and the half-sequel, Homeworld: Cataclysm).
Strategy in Space, with full 3d navigation. Huge battleships to form the core of your army (includes Carriers, which can be deployed remotely, and can be used to create strike craft and frigates), and smaller crafts like bombers and fighters to move quickly for recon and attack.
The capital ships need to be defended, yet they are also your biggest weapons. The 3D factor is more important than it might seem, since it's quite hard to avoid attacking in a flat plane.
Remember, the enemy's gate is down!
- Shogun: Total War
Cavalry, archers, pikemen (either peasants, who are cheap, and professional pikemen, who are hardier). Not in a one-on-one capacity, as done by Warcraft. Units have a maximum of 120 individual soldiers, and each army has a maximum of 16 units, including the unit which carries the army's general.
Having 1920 soldiers on the field in medieval-oid configurations and formations is fun enough by itself. Each unit has morale. If this is too low, they give up and run for the hills.
Morale of a unit is determined by the units around it. If you have a wavering line of pikemen, and allied cavalry is fleeing through their ranks, the pikemen are more likely to panic. Taking losses to the unit hurts morale. Having the general of an army killed hurts morale.
Units also have stamina. Quickmarching soldiers and horses up hills exhausts them, and they really do fight worse if they are exhausted. Also, they become slower. It also affects morale. Horses don't go well through trees. That sort of thing.
Okay, that turned in a (poor) mini-review. Anyway, Shogun takes the cake when it comes to scale and detail. It's on a level no other RTS has done, IMHO.
These two had better be in the second part of that review. Anyone else have recommendations?
Fon't forget NetRisk, Intellivision Sea Battle (Score:2, Interesting)
It was great fun, and definitely fits as a "RTS" game.
Going back even further, to about 1982, Intellivision's Sea Battle had two players simultaneously deploying and giving directional orders to fleets on a worldwide map, with "zooms" into fleet-to-fleet battles (like Ancient Art of War). Sea Battle could definitely be considered proto-RTS.
getting that BK manager job (Score:2, Funny)
Warcraft 3 is simply amazing (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Warcraft 3 is simply amazing (Score:2)
Rescue Raiders beat them all... (Score:3, Interesting)
Rescue Raiders, an Apple II game put out by Sirtech in the early eighties ('83 or '84) beat them all to the punch. It was a 2d side scroller, but it had most all the elements of present day RTSes. (it most resembled Herzog Zwei)
You piloted a helicopter (a la Choplifter), but this chopper had a main gun, anti-air missiles, and bombs. You had to progress from the left side of the battle field to the right and kill your enemy's base. To help you do this, you could "summon" tanks, infantry, missile launchers, and demolition trucks. The goal essentially was to attack, and protect a demolition truck long enough for it to get to the other side and blow up your enemy's base.
See the link [j0lt.com] for more details.
Oxryly
Reach for the Stars (Score:2)
Players were given planets, and could build space ships to meet certain objectives. A *very* basic Starcraft, I suppose.
A quick review and download at http://www.inwards.com/~fairway/game_pages/reach_
Deuteros... (Score:2)
Thing is the game was so lame for starting, it probably killed itself, but once you were set, god.. addictive...
To ring a bell: You had to collect minerals from other blanets, build better vessels with R&D, there was always one metal you'd need and trying to add more cargo to your transport ships.. you would start with a mining machine on one ship and harvest the meteor I think... oh here's better:
Deuteros, a sequel to millenium [dixiak.com]
The First Real-Time Strategy Game? Uh, no... (Score:2)
The first realtime strategy game I'm aware of is "Modem Wars" for the Commodore 64 circa 1985-1986. It encorporated all of the elements you'de see in any RTS game.. Movement of forces, variable terrain, variable damage, differing strengths/weaknesses of each piece, execution of feild strategy, even grouping of forces. Quite a breakthrough game considering it could be done within 64K of RAM, and played head to head over a modem.
You mean 4 X games ? (Score:2)
> generally understood to be in the "harvest, build, destroy" mode
> that we've come to know and love.
Or more commonly known as in the RTS world:
eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate
Master Of Orion 3 (MOO3) is supposedly adding eXperience, but how well they will pull it off, remains to be seen. (I loved MOO2 and am very interested to see what is "new".)
You can read more by following these links:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=moo3+4x [google.com]
Cheers
~~
"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." -- Thomas Jefferson
Re:You mean 4 X games ? (Score:2)
Turn Based Strategy Games Artcile at Gamespot (Score:1)