Warcraft III: TFT is a fine game. On the other end of the spectrum Kohan is also pretty entertaining.
As for Sacrifice, I played that game to completion and enjoyed it, but I wouldn’t say it was a great RTS. Great action game, sure. But what I remember doing in that game was having my creatures run in a gaggle behind me while I cleverly used spells to collect more souls than my opponent. Perhaps I was doing something wrong, but the game always seemed to boil down to a war of attrition with little or no strategy.
Are they going to make the early September release date on Kohan? Who the hell is Globalstar, the publisher? I hope there will be a new Kohan vs. ______(some other new RTS) battle royale that divides the forum like the presidential race has divided the country.
I got a new computer just to play the original Kohan so I guess this is a sign to go ahead and bite the bullet within the next month.
I thought Sid Meier’s Gettysburg was the best RTS I’ve played, since I’m still playing it occasionally now. I’d really like to see more games like it, or at least with an emphasis on tactics rather than frantic clicking to maximise production.
I think what made it an RTS was the emphasis on building (i.e. summoning). The key to grabbing souls was winning encounters, and the key to winning encounters was building stuff to counter your opponent’s army. Careful use of spells was also important, which tied into mana usage, which tied into placement on the map.
Personally, I think it involved a lot of strategy, but I think the big strike against it for people regarding it as an RTS was the way your view was always tied to your wizard dude. To me, he operated more like a cursor than a battle unit, focusing your attention more than anything else. But you still had to pay attention to the map as if you were playing an RTS.
Have you played any of Creative Assembly’s games, Mercutio? Shogun or Medieval? Because I think they’ve both improved on the basic design of Gettysburg.
Barring weird distribution problems, I’m guessing Take Two will get it out in September, if not earlier. They’ve already sent out review copies to come publications.
I did play around a bit with the demo of Shogun, but it didn’t really click, maybe because I don’t know anything about the period. I might have another look, as I guess they’d be quite cheap now.
Try Medieval: Total War instead: same basic engine with far more units, more interesting tactics, a better strategic level, and the medieval hook. It’s also available at bargain prices.
I did play around a bit with the demo of Shogun, but it didn’t really click, maybe because I don’t know anything about the period. I might have another look, as I guess they’d be quite cheap now.[/quote]
SelfishGene, did you ever play Sacrifice? I think it was the last great twist on the genre. Interesting game balance and variety, with a completely new take on economy, interface, and even gameplay. Unfortunately, no one noticed. It was as if the revolution arrived, couldn’t get any attention, and went home…
-Tom[/quote]
No i haven’t sadly, it seems everyone else liked it. In fact just picked up Medieval: Total War a couple days ago, which of course is not an RTS but a strategy game everyone else esteems but i had yet to play. Sacrifice is somewhat hard to find now.
I found several copies of it in a double jewel case with Messiah at the Fred Meyer… I bet there were some at Office Depot as well. They seem to be all gone now here, but I think that’s the best place to find it.
I don’t know about the rest, but while Sacrifice seemed kinda fun, the single player got really old pretty quick. I never even tried the other branches because all the missions resembled your stock RTS types – kill all enemies, defend for ten minutes, etc… Hard as heck to manage as well.
Well :) what is an idea worth nowadays? For whatever mine are- worth…
-Faction specific loss conditions.
-Dynamic, interactive environments.
What differentiates the good guys from the bad guys if they both are doing the same thing? It might sound like a non-problem, but without some way of enforcing “faction-morality” everyone is just massing zerglings. This also goes for how you interact with the environment - if your carpet bombing the bad guys “justly” while they are carpet bombing “unjustly” RTS becomes just like playing with tin soldiers. Also lets factions veer away from the economy centered model of unit balance.
-UI improvements. Controlling dozens of units will always be a problem.
-New damage/combat modelling.
High hp/damage= expensive. Low hp/damage= cheap. This pretty much describes 99% of RTS games. Combat needs more variables, that while still managable, let the game break out of that mold. Dominions 2 actually has a combat model that shows how a faction can be extremely one dimentional yet still relatively playable and balanced.
I’d like to see an Age of Empires style game where technology is evolutionary rather than purchased (like, you get fishing upgrades because you have lots of fishermen) - such a model would be rather cool/historic and let you play on asymetric maps with equal opportunity of success.
It’s a considerable step backwards from Ground Control 1, in my opinion. The interface has been Starcraftified and units are now selected individually instead of in squads.
