What is the modern rts?
for example forged battalion,empires apart,aoeo etc.they are BOTH child game and rts game
are u know what is the problem of these games??
because they aren’t a rts games,but also they aren’t a kid games.
because these games aren’t better than aoe2-aom-c&c/ra2/generals or aoe3…
but also they aren’t better than supercell games so children don’t play it.actually children don’t know these games,because they are generally playing supercell style mobile games.
And kids are happy,because they have many mobile game!
but we don’t have any strategy games in these years!
(don’t say me new total war games or paradox interactive’s games,look at tw attila-warhammer-britannia-three kingdoms etc. they are same games.Also paradox’s games are same,innovations between games)
but if they make a good rts game,we play it.
don’t make auto-queue,very very easy controls[i don’t mean make a dark souls game(: ]
don’t make least complex game,because it would be a mobile game
bring new gameplay elements,but don’t make a game for kids
You probably mean modern RTS games instead of kids game but I completely agree with you. I don’t like those simplified RTS experience which you get nowadays. I prefer the old-school ones too.
I personally don’t understand why the original and classic design was abandoned.
Just compare for a second modern vs first C&C like Tiberium Dawn/Red Alert and Age of Empires 2.
Just the big bits:
Classic you never run out of resources, as they are regenerative at default or you can prepare it,
already in early game you gain very fast the economy, full build base and large armies
Modern, after 15 or 20 minutes there are no resources to harvest and the gathering is entire game very slow even at late game, you just lack the infrastructure to maintain anything, as you have to take care of handful of units.
And that’s gameplay wise a very big mistake, as in classic game you always have nice defences, army replenish-able, you can even late game simply switch your focus, like go for Knights instead of archers.
In modern games, you don’t have the resources to afford towers, buy a defence tower in modern game so something “extravagant” as they are too expensive. You don’t have resources to change your army, you have to stick with your choice the entire game, because you don’t have the resources to change it. Another big mistake is units have more gameplay buffs than defenses, which makes them not usable.
I think it would be a failure if a game has mobile forces that can improve while static forces/towers can’t reciece features.
me rambling
To a limit: Obviously static forces cant beat siege units just as light cav shouldnt be able to beat light infantry.
Static is however inherently cheaper to establish then mobile units, so you get more stats for your investment, but without mobile flexibility, typically.
My experience tells me;
Static forces/towers will always fall short at defending supply lines without assistance of mobile forces. But static forces can reinforce supply lines if placed strategically in vantage points.
Its actually even bigger Problem, if tech tree is missing entire units and defenses branches.
There are so many RTS out there that don’t have any longer Tier 2 defense Buildings
also not all faction get access to very basic stuff like transport, scouting or artillery units.