I shake your hand, that's my favourite strategy too, even if it's not as effective as rushing. When I'll finally start developing my own RTS, I'll give some favors to defences.
I'm making a tiny RTS by myself whose theme is a bunch of stickmen made out of ink fighting on a piece of paper, like the millions of them I have in my notebook. All your RTS related content have been invaluable for me. Keep up the good work!
I think the best RTS defenses other than Command and Conquer were in the game Submarine Titans. Magnetic mines, jellyfish mines, sharks signaling to roam the area, different lasers and missiles that treated the depth mechanic of the game distinctly.
i miss good games where they focus on base building and base defenses.. i always loved to build myself into a huge fort that the AI always tried to attack. building soemthing that is almost tower defense. but still boast alot of power. turtle gameplay was my style. always loved it, sadly all the RTS games now a days dont focus on that anymore. its sad.. i miss building bunkers and walls. :/
Me too... but that is usually impossible, maybe because if 2 players are playing defensive there will be no gameplay. I dont know a strategy where you can win with defense, it is always a loosing tactic :(
@@VirussPL ow yes.. That disaster.. My god i was sad.. If you really want to get sad, there is this vid going around telling more about the history of c&c.. And you will feel bad what EA did to it...
Good vid but I'm not 100% sure I fully agree with it. Gotta rewatch it in some time as sometimes it sounds pretty weird - how SC2 bad scaling of base defences gives your opponent opportunity to keep being active and aggresive? IMO video focuses heavily on micro and balance without explaining what base defences do (power spike your defensive capabilities for what could be seen as permament waste if it is not used or identified as not a point to attack through), or as money-freeze thats slows you down. Base defences can further increase or add another part of the defensive advantage to your game, which can interact with stuff like timing attacks or map control. In game like SC2 base defences allways hinder your map control, as you can use them effectively only to boost your defence slightly, acting more in the way of support of your army (or time-buyers or only anti-light harrasment tools), so the fact that one players build defensive sturctures makes him loose the map control (due to money sink), when in some games base defences can be so strong that they can be used to gain map control (aggresively building them on newly conquered ground etc.). When designing the game it is good to know which of the effects you want to achieve and be sure that they dont fly wildly in the opposite direction. Anyway it is allways nice to find someone from the slightly different RTS background using different terms and prioritising other things in the RTS and touching them in-depth, but from the different point of view. Great stuff that can expand one's horizonts (and have me asking 'do I really agree with what is being said?' or 'IMO X is way more important than Y, then why do you focus mostly on Y?' etc.
Thanks for the comments, you don't always have to fully agree with people on the internet. :P Good points that you mention, but I think if defenses have weaknesses or accessible counters it doesn't matter how players use them, and that level of flexibility is even better. One of the first things I said was that for base defenses to be balanced, mobility needs to be incentivised through mechanics such as resource acquisition. That's the main reason why defenses are balanced in SC2, I just didn't put much emphasis on it because it seems so obvious. I suppose I should have mentioned it again in the conclusion to reinforce the point. I brought up the example of StarCraft 2 because it's ostensibly a contradiction to my rule of base defenses should have weaknesses or accessible counters. What I mean by the bad scaling SC2 defenses is that the diminishing returns prevents people from just turtling their bases and waiting until they are supply capped and then pushing out. Immobility aside, it's just not effective to build 8-10 Cannons on each base because you start to get hefty diminishing returns after the first few due to how they can't concave as well as units. You can attack base defenses head on with medium size armies and trade well by force. Imagine if Cannons had the same unit size as Marines, this would make spamming Cannons on all your bases super effective and could result in StarCraft 2 becoming very campy due to supply cap and things like Protoss Death ball. So as you say, StarCraft 2 has base defenses as a tool to defend against light harassment and help hold pushes, but it's not viable to spam defenses and turtle until maxed out Why is this? It's certainly not all to do with mobility, because often there's only 2 avenues of non-drop attacks in SC2 due to choke point centric map design. The sheer cost efficiency of base defenses can outweigh the lack of mobility if there are no additional features or mechanics to balance them out.
GeneralsGentlemen Did you really said that defensive structures in SC2 are balanced? The suck balls ;P Joke aside a (obvious) digression - balance isn't 'binary', and the only cases stuff is out of balance is when something is never used (underpowered or overshadowed) or allways used (overpowered). This means that both states of the game when you pick units over defensive structures 90% of the time, and when you pick defensive structures overunits 90% of the time are 'balanced'. A lot of units in SC2 currently fall into this weird zone, where none of them is really imbalanced (asside maybe Carriers and Battlecruisers as they are a joke) - especially when you look at the terran units and flexibility they have with their techtree - unit like pre LoTV rebalance (the recent one that removed tank-in-medivac among other things) Cyclone could be a great example of that. If one every 5 or 10 games, one of the player builds 1 or 2 of them with pretty good effects - does it mean that it is balanced or imbalanced? ;-) What I am trying to say, is that IMO it is pretty hard to make towers truely imbalanced - they can have a minor role like in SC2 or a bigger role like in other games, and both be 'balanced'. Having imbalanced static defences IMO means that you had to really fuck up some of your designs - quite often multiple times, even if static defences dont have a place in counter system. SC2 used as the interesting example where size of the defensive structure matters is an interesting one, but IMO far from the being the main factor why DS in SC2 suck (aka 'are balanced'). IMO even if Protoss Photon Cannons were as small as marines, and even could move freely around your bases, they would still IMO be within 'balanced' cathegory (outside the super late game when max supply matters) as just the fact that they can never be used aggresively (meaning that you can never punish your opponent for being greedy - and the more towers you build - the more greedy your opponen could play knowing that you cant punish him). IMO main reasons Photon Cannon are balanced are: -Greed-based gameplay - if both players try to invest as much money, spending it on something that doesnt generate income and doesnt let you punish your enemy is almost an instant-balance -Zero-supply - this is huge factor in the late game, when harrasment can ramp up and max supply matter a lot -Projectile-based - this rule apply to the most of the SC2 units, as almost all of them have projectiles, and only a few of them have instant-attack. This is also the reason why Nod Obelisks were so awesome - you could have dozen of them and still not loose any potential DPS due to projectile overkill. There are dozens of different rules and presets like this that can be applied to almost any RTS within some reason (especially soft sci-fi when you can change laser infantry into plasma infantry and not bother about Aesthetics that much). For example changing the weapon type from instant to projectile can disincentivize blobbing as it adds soft-cap of unit blob DPS regardless of their range and other statistics. There are a lot of general (not-only)RTS mechanics that are quite often not included in RTS discussions, (kind of 'soft-stats') that can change the game balance by 180', but that are not as popular as kite'ing, blobbing, harrasment, etc. (factors like projectile overkill, attack disjoints, and a lot more - for example is there well defined term for the game interaction when units current% health doesnt affect their damage, thus having the difference on the outcome of the battle?). I know that I just started random ramble, but I find general game design vocabulary either not being fully defined yet, or not widespread enough, but super interesting to me. Because of how general these interactions quite are - but still usefull in balancing or inspiring game of any genre, I find a lot of value in knowing as much of them as you can (and trying to popularise them if you can as well). Thanks to how general they quite often are, and thanks how different video games are, knowing a lot of different game genre's can be benefical for your game design vocabulary. The more popular game is, the more sofisticated vocabulary it can bring to the general use. I find some of the game-term vocabularies of games like pokemon, dota2, different card games, WoT, or possibly even sometimes other popular games (I bet Plant vs Zombies have some interesting vocabulary that could be extrapolated to the game design in general - sometimes even unique to PvsZ, thus letting us look at all video games from the different perspective). Quite often the game vocabularies can be way more interesting than the game themselves (maybe EVE online has some interesting vocabulary in it as well?). I know that I keep rambling but things like that are my jam, and not seeing some of this stuff in the video on the so high meritorical level otherwise hurts my soul :P I will have to do some more research about this topic and start a game design vocabulary blog one day...
"in some games base defences can be so strong that they can be used to gain map control (aggresively building them on newly conquered ground etc.)." that sounds so awesome to me
Have you not heard of cannon rushes? Have you not seen offensively built bunkers to punish early expand? Spimecrawler creeps? Defenses in SC2 serve either to strengthen early pushes, solidify map control, or cost effevtively counter rushes, allowing you to gain map control as your eny wastes income on killimg your defences at great expense. Why do you think it is the norm of erey single BO to wall in your base ramp? Turtling makes no sense in any rts where income is tied to map control, but that is never their porpouse.
i think one of my biggest complaints about base defences is when they cut into my popcap as a balancing measure, itd much rather it be something that i can place at the cost of resources and can improve it with other supporting structures (Ala sheilds and walls Supreme commander style) or add troops or vehicls to improve their function. I admit thats just me and thats not an every body thing, But sometimes i just need something to protect me while being able to actually attempt to attack. It probably doesnt help i preffer to turtle but sometimes thats not even in the strategy.
i dont play starcraft 2 because of how shit the base defenses r. people have different play styles. some people play aggressively and some people like me play defensively and alot of games fail at base defense
When I first played Starcraft I completely covered my starting area with AA defense and still got instantly wiped out by a pure air attack. In Supreme Commander the aircraft would drop their payload and be dead in an instant afterward, not survive to mop up everything else.
Even in SC1, but definately in SC2 that was done because turtling is bad for an esport viewership.... which as we all know is what we as a player really care about *sarcasm off. Seriously though, I've taught myself the art of modeling and modding to change this particulairly for Starcraft 2, using CnC and even WZ2100 concepts.
RPGs and RTSs are so good because video-games came from board games, like Monopoly, the Chess or Dungeons & Dragons, the rest of genres are more like a trip to the circus, you may enjoy to drop rings or test your strength with a hammer the first time, the rest of the times will be totally boring to repeat the same.
@@StefanHoffmann84 nope! It a different game. It play like age of empire (the age up part) and total annihilation (combat and resources part) Do it basically two game mixed together and I recommend it. Really fun
yee...''tacked on unecesserly'' .. i rather take a game with the 'fundamnetals' of all things the theme it goess with implimented.. and unrestriced in-game mechanics...such as yes defensive sam structures should have longer rang eoptions comapred to the power limited ammo limited offensive ones ,or that yes smoke can blind..but with fire controll the specific unit dont need to see...if another unti can 'tell it'' things in its range of fire. then a worthless game 'strong handing' the player how to play things the 'right' way.. aka , supreme commander 1 gave the best version when it comes to grand scale , while others given ebtter down at 'infantery lvl' so to speak ,while ra's ''btw older ra games also hade the tesla soldier chargieng coils to uber state'' customisation where fun it lacked scaleing or large scale stratigic usage. unlike for example supcom's where you if a game drags out can find a player haveing turned a choke point into a nightmare to attack..forceing you the opponent to either waste extra resources to try and bull head through it or find yourself at the disadvantage of not only haveing a increasingly dire need for intel but also the choise to use the forces you made for offensive purpuses to counter potential hit and runs from the player with a economy now relatively safe from from you ,or the risk something 'nasty' is being produced behind that Iron fist the so to speak 'asy-metric' vaule since if you desing your game mechanics to reovle around set counters it will soon devolve into a simple rock papper sissor's. rather then say takeing the potential mechanics of what the player may be able to controll withotu restrictions in how to use it after all if a player turned a nock of the map into a steel Citadel.....thats a fully valid stratigic choise to say prepear a nukeliar carpet bombing campain, yet unlike sumpcon with its 'stream lined' economy and more ''evrything should have a defensive version and a offensive one' so do games like say EA's C&C ''weestwoods hade quite a hardware limitaitons so who knows'' indirectly impose arbitary ingame limtiations on the player..such as that there is no long range advantage to deffenses agenst equal 'tiers' of units..after all half the point of takeign a gun and makeing it stationary is that you can use hardware not optional beffore. ups ^^ sorry cant help it ,there been so much dissepointment in the rts market the last years.
SC2 comment is really off. That's not at all how it works. Defense is a very different experience for the 3 races, but it relies heavily on scouting (knowledge of timings and economics) & preparing. Mechanically, it's all about walling, elevation, vision, range, map control to know from which angle the enemy will be coming, and a strong game sense.
SC2 lacks an experimental and a superheavy artillery phase present in the TA lineage games, which allows bases to directly engage one another, and gives porpouse to highly potent, but expenaive base defences. At this stage map control is no longer the objective, efficient attrition of the enemy base defefences tjrough cross map artillery fire is. This is what makes SC2s defwnsive structures different. Their porpouse is only to augment engagements of ground units.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 The problem with SC2 there is that artillery only comes in the form of 1 unit basically... The Siege Tank and Tempest are pretty much the only artillery in the game. Carriers mostly just benefit from the Interceptor dazzle but arent artillery and for the Zerg... Lurkers and Ravagers are their closest things (in SC1 the Guardian) And outside of some more obvious units/roles the base defenses are on par with even mediocre ranged units making a base defense hardly better than a midgame 1v1 unit on unit battle, except without the mobility. SC2 base defenses, for what traditionally a base defense is, is horrendously laughable and their "balance" is taken entirely from the fact they are intermediate deterrents during the first 10 minutes of a game but after that must make way for more exciting moving armies that are ideally supposed to engage in tug-of-war shenanigans. CnC fixes it somewhat by having multiple tiers of base defenses (Shredder/Laser turrets early and Obelisks late) But those still lack both proper walls (their sole purpose is to be annoying to engineers) and still entirely absent Artillery defense. Also, while there are several counters that deal well with artillery, those counters feed back into being relatively easily countered themselves if they dont receive the needed support. The truly cool game(s) where defenses play a very intricate role as proper base defense AND can be used to actually push out is Warzone 2100 and games of the same nature (dont remember what WZ2100 was inspired by) Effectively they come with the same weapons that are also used on vehicles so they can do equally as good or bad as a tank with the equivalent weapon, they are durable and being part of a wall-structure they also prevent line of sight or firing to something behind that wall. They are an actual obstackle for something to fire through in order to hit whats behind (and vice versa)
![[안방1열 직캠4K] 베이비몬스터 치키타 'DRIP' (BABYMONSTER CHIQUITA FanCam) @SBS Inkigayo 241110](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tnlxo79cAqY/mqdefault.jpg)
Honestly for the production value you guys have in all of your videos, you deserve way more subs. Keep it up!
As someone who prefers turtling and making gradual but stable advances, I really appreciate this
I shake your hand, that's my favourite strategy too, even if it's not as effective as rushing. When I'll finally start developing my own RTS, I'll give some favors to defences.
I'm making a tiny RTS by myself whose theme is a bunch of stickmen made out of ink fighting on a piece of paper, like the millions of them I have in my notebook. All your RTS related content have been invaluable for me. Keep up the good work!
Thats an interesting concept
I think the best RTS defenses other than Command and Conquer were in the game Submarine Titans. Magnetic mines, jellyfish mines, sharks signaling to roam the area, different lasers and missiles that treated the depth mechanic of the game distinctly.
I feel like I'm the only person in the world who's favorite RTS is Rise of Legends. Also my favorite part of an RTS is base building.
This is the Chosen One.
@Stashmaniac Omg, I think you're my soulmate, I have finally found someone who loves Rise of Legends like me :P
Super satisfying to watch and read all the different insights and concepts!
i miss good games where they focus on base building and base defenses..
i always loved to build myself into a huge fort that the AI always tried to attack.
building soemthing that is almost tower defense.
but still boast alot of power.
turtle gameplay was my style.
always loved it, sadly all the RTS games now a days dont focus on that anymore.
its sad..
i miss building bunkers and walls. :/
V4YGR3 Yeah me too....Watching dozens of enemy tanks trying to past my laser turret in CnC ZH is satisfying.
yep... thats why Tiberian Twilight (C&C4) was a disaster for me
Me too... but that is usually impossible, maybe because if 2 players are playing defensive there will be no gameplay. I dont know a strategy where you can win with defense, it is always a loosing tactic :(
@@nogisonoko5409 indeed, it was satisfiying to actually play yourself as a "general" instead of yourself attacking one xD
@@VirussPL ow yes.. That disaster.. My god i was sad..
If you really want to get sad, there is this vid going around telling more about the history of c&c.. And you will feel bad what EA did to it...
I've never heard you guys mention how fire bases are able to be garrisoned, thus removing minimum attack range
Which can be countered in certain ways too, Radiation, toxins and if i recall snipers can kill those units too which is neat.
@@conscript900 Also fire
Very good video, you should make more of these kind of videos as well!
good stuff, very concise
My favorite part of a rts is base building
Good vid but I'm not 100% sure I fully agree with it. Gotta rewatch it in some time as sometimes it sounds pretty weird - how SC2 bad scaling of base defences gives your opponent opportunity to keep being active and aggresive?
IMO video focuses heavily on micro and balance without explaining what base defences do (power spike your defensive capabilities for what could be seen as permament waste if it is not used or identified as not a point to attack through), or as money-freeze thats slows you down.
Base defences can further increase or add another part of the defensive advantage to your game, which can interact with stuff like timing attacks or map control.
In game like SC2 base defences allways hinder your map control, as you can use them effectively only to boost your defence slightly, acting more in the way of support of your army (or time-buyers or only anti-light harrasment tools), so the fact that one players build defensive sturctures makes him loose the map control (due to money sink), when in some games base defences can be so strong that they can be used to gain map control (aggresively building them on newly conquered ground etc.).
When designing the game it is good to know which of the effects you want to achieve and be sure that they dont fly wildly in the opposite direction.
Anyway it is allways nice to find someone from the slightly different RTS background using different terms and prioritising other things in the RTS and touching them in-depth, but from the different point of view.
Great stuff that can expand one's horizonts (and have me asking 'do I really agree with what is being said?' or 'IMO X is way more important than Y, then why do you focus mostly on Y?' etc.
Thanks for the comments, you don't always have to fully agree with people on the internet. :P Good points that you mention, but I think if defenses have weaknesses or accessible counters it doesn't matter how players use them, and that level of flexibility is even better.
One of the first things I said was that for base defenses to be balanced, mobility needs to be incentivised through mechanics such as resource acquisition. That's the main reason why defenses are balanced in SC2, I just didn't put much emphasis on it because it seems so obvious. I suppose I should have mentioned it again in the conclusion to reinforce the point.
I brought up the example of StarCraft 2 because it's ostensibly a contradiction to my rule of base defenses should have weaknesses or accessible counters. What I mean by the bad scaling SC2 defenses is that the diminishing returns prevents people from just turtling their bases and waiting until they are supply capped and then pushing out. Immobility aside, it's just not effective to build 8-10 Cannons on each base because you start to get hefty diminishing returns after the first few due to how they can't concave as well as units. You can attack base defenses head on with medium size armies and trade well by force. Imagine if Cannons had the same unit size as Marines, this would make spamming Cannons on all your bases super effective and could result in StarCraft 2 becoming very campy due to supply cap and things like Protoss Death ball.
So as you say, StarCraft 2 has base defenses as a tool to defend against light harassment and help hold pushes, but it's not viable to spam defenses and turtle until maxed out Why is this? It's certainly not all to do with mobility, because often there's only 2 avenues of non-drop attacks in SC2 due to choke point centric map design.
The sheer cost efficiency of base defenses can outweigh the lack of mobility if there are no additional features or mechanics to balance them out.
GeneralsGentlemen
Did you really said that defensive structures in SC2 are balanced? The suck balls ;P
Joke aside a (obvious) digression - balance isn't 'binary', and the only cases stuff is out of balance is when something is never used (underpowered or overshadowed) or allways used (overpowered). This means that both states of the game when you pick units over defensive structures 90% of the time, and when you pick defensive structures overunits 90% of the time are 'balanced'.
A lot of units in SC2 currently fall into this weird zone, where none of them is really imbalanced (asside maybe Carriers and Battlecruisers as they are a joke) - especially when you look at the terran units and flexibility they have with their techtree - unit like pre LoTV rebalance (the recent one that removed tank-in-medivac among other things) Cyclone could be a great example of that. If one every 5 or 10 games, one of the player builds 1 or 2 of them with pretty good effects - does it mean that it is balanced or imbalanced? ;-)
What I am trying to say, is that IMO it is pretty hard to make towers truely imbalanced - they can have a minor role like in SC2 or a bigger role like in other games, and both be 'balanced'. Having imbalanced static defences IMO means that you had to really fuck up some of your designs - quite often multiple times, even if static defences dont have a place in counter system.
SC2 used as the interesting example where size of the defensive structure matters is an interesting one, but IMO far from the being the main factor why DS in SC2 suck (aka 'are balanced').
IMO even if Protoss Photon Cannons were as small as marines, and even could move freely around your bases, they would still IMO be within 'balanced' cathegory (outside the super late game when max supply matters) as just the fact that they can never be used aggresively (meaning that you can never punish your opponent for being greedy - and the more towers you build - the more greedy your opponen could play knowing that you cant punish him).
IMO main reasons Photon Cannon are balanced are:
-Greed-based gameplay - if both players try to invest as much money, spending it on something that doesnt generate income and doesnt let you punish your enemy is almost an instant-balance
-Zero-supply - this is huge factor in the late game, when harrasment can ramp up and max supply matter a lot
-Projectile-based - this rule apply to the most of the SC2 units, as almost all of them have projectiles, and only a few of them have instant-attack. This is also the reason why Nod Obelisks were so awesome - you could have dozen of them and still not loose any potential DPS due to projectile overkill.
There are dozens of different rules and presets like this that can be applied to almost any RTS within some reason (especially soft sci-fi when you can change laser infantry into plasma infantry and not bother about Aesthetics that much).
For example changing the weapon type from instant to projectile can disincentivize blobbing as it adds soft-cap of unit blob DPS regardless of their range and other statistics. There are a lot of general (not-only)RTS mechanics that are quite often not included in RTS discussions, (kind of 'soft-stats') that can change the game balance by 180', but that are not as popular as kite'ing, blobbing, harrasment, etc. (factors like projectile overkill, attack disjoints, and a lot more - for example is there well defined term for the game interaction when units current% health doesnt affect their damage, thus having the difference on the outcome of the battle?).
I know that I just started random ramble, but I find general game design vocabulary either not being fully defined yet, or not widespread enough, but super interesting to me.
Because of how general these interactions quite are - but still usefull in balancing or inspiring game of any genre, I find a lot of value in knowing as much of them as you can (and trying to popularise them if you can as well).
Thanks to how general they quite often are, and thanks how different video games are, knowing a lot of different game genre's can be benefical for your game design vocabulary.
The more popular game is, the more sofisticated vocabulary it can bring to the general use. I find some of the game-term vocabularies of games like pokemon, dota2, different card games, WoT, or possibly even sometimes other popular games (I bet Plant vs Zombies have some interesting vocabulary that could be extrapolated to the game design in general - sometimes even unique to PvsZ, thus letting us look at all video games from the different perspective). Quite often the game vocabularies can be way more interesting than the game themselves (maybe EVE online has some interesting vocabulary in it as well?).
I know that I keep rambling but things like that are my jam, and not seeing some of this stuff in the video on the so high meritorical level otherwise hurts my soul :P
I will have to do some more research about this topic and start a game design vocabulary blog one day...
Awesome man, I'm definitely digging your RTS rants and insights. Do you have Twitter?
"in some games base defences can be so strong that they can be used to gain map control (aggresively building them on newly conquered ground etc.)." that sounds so awesome to me
Have you not heard of cannon rushes? Have you not seen offensively built bunkers to punish early expand? Spimecrawler creeps?
Defenses in SC2 serve either to strengthen early pushes, solidify map control, or cost effevtively counter rushes, allowing you to gain map control as your eny wastes income on killimg your defences at great expense.
Why do you think it is the norm of erey single BO to wall in your base ramp?
Turtling makes no sense in any rts where income is tied to map control, but that is never their porpouse.
0:09 What a game.
2:38 Can anyone tell me the name of this game?
Thanks!
i think one of my biggest complaints about base defences is when they cut into my popcap as a balancing measure, itd much rather it be something that i can place at the cost of resources and can improve it with other supporting structures (Ala sheilds and walls Supreme commander style) or add troops or vehicls to improve their function. I admit thats just me and thats not an every body thing, But sometimes i just need something to protect me while being able to actually attempt to attack. It probably doesnt help i preffer to turtle but sometimes thats not even in the strategy.
Can do a retro edit and add game titles and years of games released to all gameplay video. Would increase video enjoyment a lot like 1000% a lot
Ugggh creamed my pants listening to this! Thoughtful talk about RTS mechanics and design FTW!
What mod is it for dawn of war at 0:50?
That's no mod. That's just Dark Crusade.
i dont play starcraft 2 because of how shit the base defenses r.
people have different play styles. some people play aggressively and some people like me play defensively and alot of games fail at base defense
When I first played Starcraft I completely covered my starting area with AA defense and still got instantly wiped out by a pure air attack. In Supreme Commander the aircraft would drop their payload and be dead in an instant afterward, not survive to mop up everything else.
Even in SC1, but definately in SC2 that was done because turtling is bad for an esport viewership.... which as we all know is what we as a player really care about
*sarcasm off.
Seriously though, I've taught myself the art of modeling and modding to change this particulairly for Starcraft 2, using CnC and even WZ2100 concepts.
Guys what's the name of the game shown directly after the "Welcome to the general's gentleman" intro?????
You can play Dune 2000 inside of the Open RA project.
MasterKolis thanx bro... I used to play the shit out of this game when i was i kid but i couldn't remember the name 😅😅
GeneralsGentlemen will do.. Thnx for the tip and keep up the good work 👍👍
Spamming units need to be punished period, there's no strategy in it
RPGs and RTSs are so good because video-games came from board games, like Monopoly, the Chess or Dungeons & Dragons, the rest of genres are more like a trip to the circus, you may enjoy to drop rings or test your strength with a hammer the first time, the rest of the times will be totally boring to repeat the same.
0:56 game name?
Rise of nations, if you got it. Wanna play sometime?
@@bondbond8260 I am more into Age of Empires 2, looked kinda of similar though
@@StefanHoffmann84 nope! It a different game. It play like age of empire (the age up part) and total annihilation (combat and resources part) Do it basically two game mixed together and I recommend it. Really fun
@@bondbond8260 Sounds good. I also liked TA back then :)
game at 2:30 ?
Command and conquer Red Alert 3
thank you :)
i have yet found RTS with a better base building/defense then TS.
TS?
@@Qdiglet Tiberian Sun
Warzone 2100, Supreme Commander. Both games where you can win by artillery creeping your way towards the enemy lol.
yee...''tacked on unecesserly'' .. i rather take a game with the 'fundamnetals' of all things the theme it goess with implimented.. and unrestriced in-game mechanics...such as yes defensive sam structures should have longer rang eoptions comapred to the power limited ammo limited offensive ones ,or that yes smoke can blind..but with fire controll the specific unit dont need to see...if another unti can 'tell it'' things in its range of fire.
then a worthless game 'strong handing' the player how to play things the 'right' way.. aka , supreme commander 1 gave the best version when it comes to grand scale , while others given ebtter down at 'infantery lvl' so to speak ,while ra's ''btw older ra games also hade the tesla soldier chargieng coils to uber state'' customisation where fun it lacked scaleing or large scale stratigic usage.
unlike for example supcom's where you if a game drags out can find a player haveing turned a choke point into a nightmare to attack..forceing you the opponent to either waste extra resources to try and bull head through it or find yourself at the disadvantage of not only haveing a increasingly dire need for intel but also the choise to use the forces you made for offensive purpuses to counter potential hit and runs from the player with a economy now relatively safe from from you ,or the risk something 'nasty' is being produced behind that Iron fist
the so to speak 'asy-metric' vaule since if you desing your game mechanics to reovle around set counters it will soon devolve into a simple rock papper sissor's.
rather then say takeing the potential mechanics of what the player may be able to controll withotu restrictions in how to use it after all if a player turned a nock of the map into a steel Citadel.....thats a fully valid stratigic choise to say prepear a nukeliar carpet bombing campain, yet unlike sumpcon with its 'stream lined' economy and more ''evrything should have a defensive version and a offensive one'
so do games like say EA's C&C ''weestwoods hade quite a hardware limitaitons so who knows'' indirectly impose arbitary ingame limtiations on the player..such as that there is no long range advantage to deffenses agenst equal 'tiers' of units..after all half the point of takeign a gun and makeing it stationary is that you can use hardware not optional beffore.
ups ^^ sorry cant help it ,there been so much dissepointment in the rts market the last years.
How much did you pay to the guy who voice acted your: "General Gentelmens Pls subscribe" etc ?
None. He is a friend who I met at a convention and offered to do some Voice Over stuff for me.
Cool dude.
twitter.com/voiceover_au
SC2 comment is really off. That's not at all how it works.
Defense is a very different experience for the 3 races, but it relies heavily on scouting (knowledge of timings and economics) & preparing. Mechanically, it's all about walling, elevation, vision, range, map control to know from which angle the enemy will be coming, and a strong game sense.
SC2 lacks an experimental and a superheavy artillery phase present in the TA lineage games, which allows bases to directly engage one another, and gives porpouse to highly potent, but expenaive base defences.
At this stage map control is no longer the objective, efficient attrition of the enemy base defefences tjrough cross map artillery fire is.
This is what makes SC2s defwnsive structures different. Their porpouse is only to augment engagements of ground units.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 The problem with SC2 there is that artillery only comes in the form of 1 unit basically... The Siege Tank and Tempest are pretty much the only artillery in the game. Carriers mostly just benefit from the Interceptor dazzle but arent artillery and for the Zerg... Lurkers and Ravagers are their closest things (in SC1 the Guardian)
And outside of some more obvious units/roles the base defenses are on par with even mediocre ranged units making a base defense hardly better than a midgame 1v1 unit on unit battle, except without the mobility.
SC2 base defenses, for what traditionally a base defense is, is horrendously laughable and their "balance" is taken entirely from the fact they are intermediate deterrents during the first 10 minutes of a game but after that must make way for more exciting moving armies that are ideally supposed to engage in tug-of-war shenanigans.
CnC fixes it somewhat by having multiple tiers of base defenses (Shredder/Laser turrets early and Obelisks late) But those still lack both proper walls (their sole purpose is to be annoying to engineers) and still entirely absent Artillery defense. Also, while there are several counters that deal well with artillery, those counters feed back into being relatively easily countered themselves if they dont receive the needed support.
The truly cool game(s) where defenses play a very intricate role as proper base defense AND can be used to actually push out is Warzone 2100 and games of the same nature (dont remember what WZ2100 was inspired by)
Effectively they come with the same weapons that are also used on vehicles so they can do equally as good or bad as a tank with the equivalent weapon, they are durable and being part of a wall-structure they also prevent line of sight or firing to something behind that wall. They are an actual obstackle for something to fire through in order to hit whats behind (and vice versa)