Thoughts?
Looks like unit interactions might be better in broken arrow
2 Likes
Coming from other large scale RTSes, like total annihilation, warno, ground control, and world in conflict, broken arrow is much more in my wheelhouse.
Set in the modern era, the decisions you make strategically have a much larger impact and itās more about unit positioning and grand strategy. I like it a lot, but it is a very different game from AoE.
AoE is good for base building and smaller skirmishes between groups of 20-80 units at a time. Thereās a lot more ārock-paper-scissorsā kind of gameplay happening there (thereās still a strong counter system in broken arrow, but the relative simplicity of the aoe counter system makes it easier/faster to use).
Personally, I have been preferring the mix between eco and military gameplay in age of empires. It has a faster pace to it, and thereās a feeling of āspinning platesā from all of the small tasks that need to be done in a match.
Broken arrow is still a great game that has much more tactical gameplay, where the wrong or right decision can change the shape of the battle space. If you enjoyed that game I highly recommend warno, or if you want a smaller scale men of war or company of heroes are great for the same kind of feel. Really, everything in the real-time tactics genre is great.
Broken Arrow has a mix between RTS and RTT, it has nothing to do with a traditional or pure RTS.
3 Likes
Yes but iām gonna be straight with you, ever since the dawn of starcraft these games have leaned/crutched far too heavily on the āReal Timeā aspect and not enough strategy.
To compete, one must first obtain the ability to multitask if they havent already, whilst retaining a high effective APM. In aoe/sc/c&c this has been the theme. 99.9% of players are simply trying to obtain high effective apm while the 0.01% who has, get to think about strategy.
Bfme2 is the ONLY game where a decent balance was struck imo. Great game.
Itās odd for you to call broken arrow āimpureā as if to say its neither real time, nor strategy. It is both - and RTT was just a token term for āno buildingsā
Broken arrow requires far less in the realm of APM and more towards strategy. Its real time strategy - with an emphasis on strategy and not as much cruching on the real time element as other RTS games.
It is in my honest opinion that games like broken arrow will supercede those RTS games in which APM is arthritis inducing.
A big way it does this is by having some smart aspects to its units, they will do things like, fire a grenade launcher on their own when fighting against infantry. A lot of things you have to click to activate in AOE4 would be automatic in broken arrow.
Youāve really broken that down well. I actually agree with you on many points, and I think weāre largely on the same page, even if I expressed myself a bit differently at first.
When I mentioned that Broken Arrow wasnāt a āpure RTS,ā I certainly didnāt mean it as a criticism. On the contrary, what I was trying to convey is precisely what youāve explained so clearly: that it steps away from the formula of classic RTS games. For that reason I wouldnāt compare it too much to AoE4.
Youāre absolutely right that those traditional games lean heavily on the āReal-Timeā aspect to the point where speed and the ability to multitask (using both clicks and keyboard shortcuts) become the primary barrier. This is certainly true for games like StarCraft, and while AoE4 requires significantly less APM to compete than earlier AoE titles, the focus on fast execution still dominates much of the competitive scene in many traditional RTS games. For many players, mastering these rapid inputs and multitasking is the first hurdle, and only a select few can truly dedicate their mental energy to pure strategy.
And yes, I agree with you, BFME2 was a breath of fresh air in that regard, showing that the focus could be on strategy without feeling like a click-marathon, but that game is less popular than SC and AoE.
Thatās why with games like Broken Arrow (and similar ones like Wargame), itās compelling to see how they lower the APM requirement and allow you to breathe and genuinely think. The unit automation you mentioned, where units perform intelligent actions on their own, is a smart design choice. It frees up your mind for what truly matters: tactics, positioning, flanking maneuvers, unit counters, and so on. Instead of constantly micromanaging every single click, you can focus on the bigger picture, on the āgrand strategy.ā
Iām not quite with you on the prediction that these games will āsupersedeā traditional RTS titles, especially given that Broken Arrow isnāt seeing the player numbers StarCraft II did in its early years. However, itās undeniable that they provide a valuable alternative that many players will appreciate for being more cerebral and less physically demanding on the hands. Itās certainly a direction that many have been looking for.
Strategy is more in its initial preparation before real-time gameplay and then there is the tactical execution.
The reason it will supercede the current catalogue is its focus on team games 5v5+
These games AOE4/Sc2 have team games but they arent designed around them at all, and they devolve into gimmicks using very blatantly overpowered unit compositions to the point where nearly every aoe4 team game at the top level is just the same civs/units being used.
Well, it will have to improve its Steam numbers to beat SC2ās best start.
And yes, 2 big problems that RTS should fix or improve in multiplayer is to find ways to have a learning curve somewhat reduced (which is easier to understand and difficult to master) and focus a little attention to the competitive teams, with separate patches of 1vs1, although I think quite a few different civs are played in teams.