I'm assuming this game blew donkey dicks since literally no one talks about it anymore

Really, what more can you do in an RTS?

Looks mediocre.

Rebalance artillery so they can't kill small formations of cavalry by themselves?

Make the economy more balanced so you aren't spending retarded amounts of gold upgrading mines and trying to pick up all the stone you can get to sell for gold to upgrade your mines?

Supreme commander.

Can have up to 2000 units.
Zoom out map control

fuck okw

And Supreme Commander, like all RTS, loses it's luster the minute that you realize competitive play is nothing like the game you were promised.

how so

>I don't like RTS

Ok.

Game basically is forfeit the minute anyone gets past Tier 2, making a lot of the early game about harrassment and while some cool shit can be pulled off midgame late games and early games look pretty same-y between matches.

I prefer Total Annihilation with less tiers.

>Zoom out map control

Probably hard to render and they want units to be more recognizable from afar.

Literally my only issue with Wargame, full zoom-out is available but units are designated by big rectangular boxes with their names on it.

Not all RTS games needs to be a Supcom clone, I dislike the zoom because it takes some of the charm of the game and you must use it, a minimap serves the sme function without making the game look like a ASCII roguelike.

>quickly get an overview of what's going on

And also zoom in to other areas that need immediate attention ACCURATELY, without having to click on the minimap and then adjust.

best bang for buck?
Back to War and Campaign Expansion, which adds campaigns from European Wars and Art of War. It's $9 total, when not on sale

Alternatively you can get package with all Cossacks 1 and 2 games and expansions and American Conquest and expansion which is something between Cossacks 1 and 2 gameplay wise, for $20.

And in SupCom the units looks like shitty 2d sprites, strategic zoom is unnecessary because we have minimaps, it solves a problem that never existed, clicking on a minimap isn't harder than using the mousewheel to zoom all the way down to an area, it substantially damages the game visually and makes it harder to judge terrain differences, which encourages games that don't have meaningful terrain differences.

Lol

Years of playing shit like starcraft have fucking ruined your perception of what RTS could be.

Any rts without the zoom feels like somebody is forcing me to keep my face 10 cms away from the screen I'm playing on. So the only way you think that other way is better is because you are too crippled to actually enjoy the feeling of freedom.

>you must use it

You literally do not, faggot.

>strategic zoom is unnecessary

What if the level of engagement you want to keep watch over does not fit in your tiny ass faggot view you seem to be advocating?

Your fucking tiny goddamn 200 units or whatever the fuck you have in pretty much every RT"S" is fucking pittance compared to the thousands you have in Supreme Commander. How are you going to keep watch over all that shit while being ten feet off the ground?

You are the past. And every other RTS that abandons your pathetic way of thinking is a step forward for the genre.

>Years of playing shit like starcraft have fucking ruined your perception of what RTS could be.
I don't even like generic RTS that much, I'm more a fan of RTTs, nice strawman.
You have to use it when the game is designed around it.

still, you could probably improve the aesthetics of the zoomed-out mode

what's the point of cool unit designs when they're all just reduced to icons on the map anyway am i right

Can we just admit the differences between games and enjoy our dead genre in peace?

There is also appeal in small engagements you know.

I don't care as long as those goddamned Ukrainians start working on another STALKER.

how exactly is group selecting a large blob of units 'more strategic' or whatever than controlling just a couple?

There is more shit happening on screen so its better.

>I'm more a fan of RTT

Well that explains everything.

>what's the point of cool unit designs
>appeal of small engagements

I get it. But there still isn't a reason to have a mini-map since you can still be zoomed in to see all the action happening on the smaller scale.

Basically all I'm seeing is "I don't care about that feature, so there is no benefit to having it". Despite there being absolutely no demerit to it. In SC and PA you can even set up a second view where you can be zoomed out if you want, and it functions like a mini-map.

The entirety of RTS fans have a utilitarian mindset when it comes to RTS where "more = better."

Some people like American Conquest even though it was an economic nightmare and 20 guys holed up in a log cabin with muskets could hold off a 192-man Fusiler formation.

Are you aware of what the difference between strategy and tactics is?

If you think strategy is just "selecting large group of unit", then you are a retard.

tactics:
>a-move a small group of units

strategy:
>a-move a large group of units

you're arguing over the definitions of some words and a genre name made up by some guy. you could instead argue about what is good or bad

all other things equal, a big army is just plain cooler than a small army

> I get it. But there still isn't a reason to have a mini-map since you can still be zoomed in to see all the action happening on the smaller scale.

There is a reason, having a minimap lets you have full map awareness while actually being zoomed in and focused on a small section of it.

In the end, I do think SC2 could have used a zoomed out view and work. But I think Blizzard didn't want the game to look like the undecipherable blob SupCom looks like to newbies and spectators and I think the game looks and sounds good enough to warrant that close view.

I do agree this is probably one of the most arguable design choices but I think it worked out ok.

But a minimap is extremely useful, to scroll around the map with precision and speed, its probably mush faster than the strategic zoom, its not that there shouldn't be a zoom as a cool novelty feature, but I don't think that its that much of a improvement or the future of the RTS genre, its a developmental dead end to design games completely around it.

lol

>you're arguing over the definitions of words

The original post was literally asking about the definitions of words you fucking idiot.

Also you're wrong about tactics and strategy. Naturally, since you are a fucking idiot, as I've said above.

Tactics = combat only

Strategy = base building, resource management and tactics all together.

>But a minimap is extremely useful

All the games I've played with it have felt way too small to actually notice much of use.

>it's probably much faster than strategic zoom

lol

>RTS fans confirmed for children that only likes massive explosions and blobs of units!

>tactics:
>>a-move a small group of units
And get your blob shredded to pieces in a carefully prepared ambush by an smaller army, welcome to a world where terrain, formation and positioning matters.

>dude small scale games are pssht nothin personall kiddo while large scale games are for dumb babies lol is this how I win every argument

Literally the "How to Argue on Cred Forums" The Image: The Post.

>actually milady, I play only the most strategic of strategy games, because I am intellectually superior
>*a-moves blob*

>And get your blob shredded to pieces in a carefully prepared ambush by an smaller army

See user, if your "blob" is big enough, then no amount of terrain, formation and positioning will help you.

Not even the 300 spartans managed to kill the entirety of the Persian army.

>hear alarm and see visual cue on minimap indicating a battle
>move mouse over minimap and click
>less than a second

Next thing Cred Forums will argue for is that Action Games are more strategic because when you move your character you don't just click on him and click somewhere on the map.

>see fight happen, because you are zoomed out overlooking the playing field
>don't even need to zoom in or go to it to see what's happening or what units are attacking because of easily recognisable markers
>instantaneus

You even have the choice to zoom in and see the carnage happen.

>grand strategy

A square formation doesnt seem very effective. Do half the people just stand around doing nothing incase they get surrounded at some point? Whats the deal with square formations

Sonis it actually good? It has mixed reviews on steam. Why?

irl its anti cavalry, no idea in game

During a battle irl you just can't turn a formation around very easily, depending on the situation it might be better to distribute the firepower like that than to be caught completely open from a flank.

>i only play turn based strategy games

I would if they existed

more like ballsacks 3

learn to stutter step, unit split, kite, surround.

Learn to fucking play

that doesn't sound very strategic you know, and we all know strategic means good

im talking about tactics. If someone truly believes tactics in RTS is limited to A-moving their army then you already know what kind of player they are

this is the dumbest thing I've read all day, and I just spent the last 2 hours browsing Cred Forums. the minimap exists so you can constantly be aware of what's going on, like the rear view mirror in your car. strategic zoom is like turning your entire head around every time you want to see what's behind you.

but the zoom mat in SC is great

I like Cossacks II better

If only it didnt randomly crash every like 25 minutes and didnt have other unfixed bugs

It's literally impossible to dislodge SupCom fans. I get why SupCom is loved, but not every game needs that same massive scale, nor devolve into a constant churning of units and production.

It's like arguing that all FPS should be Quake-like arena shooters. In before some faggot agrees with this. I personally enjoy the smaller scale and more tactical approach to RTS, but even those are a rare sight nowadays.

I don't believe all RTS need to have complete interface.

The beauty of SC1 as a competitive lies in its limitations. Crappy pathfinding, limited FoV, and 12 unit limit prevented users from acheving total efficiency. Pros learned to circumvent these limitations and play games around it. Even if pros were better at circumventing these issues and would always win against noob it was enough of a detriment to their capacity that games wouldnt end because of a misclick and they could make mistakes that could be capitalized on.

SC2 reformed many of those issues, and purposefully made the game micro intensive with numerous abilities including shitton of delayed deathball deleters. This resulted in a very extreme game where best players will win by a split move and decision because they can utilize all these tools more efficiently.

...

I was only trying to get at the faggot saying a game where you use larger numbers of units is inherently better somehow

and how are you going to precisely control your units when you can't even click on them because they're only 4 pixels tall? you don't, because huge army strategic zoom is the cinematic qte action of the rts genre.

Waiting eventuqlly for someone to make a Napoleonic Wars mod, hopefully less than half a year

that's why you can zoom in

Tactics aren't obligatory for a RTS, one could play the decent RTS games without using any of it.
Go play some true RTS games instead of gookshit and you will see.

Why have nobody made a 3D rts yet? Imagine a game in underground dwarven tunnels or sci-fi megastructures where your units can move not just in the cardinal directions, but up and down as well, and you can easily browse through the terrain layer by layer with your mouse wheel, like those medical scanners that graphically cut up your body like a fine slice of jamon serrano. Units would be able to navigate not stuck to a walk/can't walk movement map, but as fluidly as a FPS enemy, with jumping, climbing, dropping down, and so on and so on.

I think it could be neat.

>You even have the choice to zoom in and see the carnage happen.
this perfectly illustrates the kind of person who likes strategic zoom. the fact that you need to be giving precise commands at all times, and thus zoomed in at all times doesn't even occur to him. for him zooming in is optional, not so you can control your units, but so you can watch them fight on autopilot with more detail.

Issue is with most games at some point metas are established and there is not enough space for novel strategies to combat the established norms. This is where personal finesse comes into to tip the balance.

A single soldier in real life is just a huge blob of microscopic "units", and when you think you are micromanaging him efficiently you are actually just blobbing

I'll let you chew on that aphorism for a while

So is multiplayer in Cossacks 2 BfE still available? I would try a game with you lads if it was since I just figured out how to make the game not drop frame rate like crazy when buildings are made.

Theres a fix for that

Google
>BUILD BARRACKS
>LAG
>COSSACKS 2
>NOTEPAD

It's a reskin without any of the bugs from the original cossacks fixed. Same level of laziness as the Bioshock remasters except there's no dev commentary mode for people to see the devs fellating themselves.

Oohhh Misread, thought it said "i need to figure out"

I wish is had things from Cossacks 2, what the fuck were they thinking.

Literqlly feels like an HD upgrade

So artillery still beats everything and stone is the only resource that matters?

Guess I'll skip and wait for the real Cossacks 3 then.

Never ever been memed by this

Make it more about strategy rather than just small unit tactics and build orders

>stone is the only resource that matters

can you explain?

What is strategy?

when people complain about strategy they usually mean they want to be able to build random tech units and generally ignore what their opponent is doing and still win somehow.

Well that happens with every niche game.

People most hyped about it are playing it at the moment.

Strategy doesn't exist in a vacuum, in fact the separation between tactics/strategy is useful but an arbitrary one, if your game has no tactical considerations to be taken into account the strategy will also suffer.

so are there any strategy games that people still play?
>inb4 ww2 games
I rly don't enjoy ww2 setting anymore. I'm so overexposed to it at this point I feel nothing

>2016
>Over exposed to WW2

Its not 2006 anymore nigga

'Impossible' is already used symbolically, using it and 'literally' symbolically is superfluous.

Or do you truly believe it's impossible?

the scars run deep

better than age of empires 3?

I'm only asking because it looks similar

I think I'd take more WW2 over fantasy garbage or warhams anyday

This is why Dominions is the best strategy game.

It's not Stalker 2

MY COSSACKS 3 REVIEW

- Pros the campaign is great
-Slow and hard

Cons
-I heard its Buggy
-mine hasnt had any problems

The first level takes like 3 hours to beat .. i like it alot... if u want slow RTS gameplay .. this is for you

don't you mean stalker 3? there are 2 stalker games

If you want to be pedant do it right, there are 3 S.T.A.L.K.E.R games.

Clearly you're mistaken.
Let's count them :
1) Shadow of Chernobyl
2) Cl
2) Call of pripyat

That's it.

>Cl
Its Clear sky, there are 3 games see.

They aren't the people who made STALKER.

Studio has been recently re-opened.

I guess they are just trying to make an easy buck because this is simply Cossacks, not even the expansions, on a full 3D engine.

Still has the shit AI, plenty of bugs and quite honestly feels way too rudimentary for a 20€ game.

You don't want these guys in charge of Stalker2.

I enjoyed Clear Sky, played it more than the other two, it came out at the right time for me I guess.

>ZERO marketing whatsoever
>game comes late day of release because of bugs anyway
>multiplayer doesn't even work day one
>blame it on beta testers
>straight copy from original game on updated engine, still has old glitches with bridges and retarded AI
>no pre order on Steam, probably so they could sell more copies directly to key resellers

What could go wrong?

I bet the lack of pre orders on Steam was also because they expected bad reviews and planned on manipulating the ratings. Too bad for them Valve fixed it, so retail key reviews don't count.

>another strategy doesn't get above 80% reviews
wtf is wrong with stratey games
was it like this all along and we were too young to realize it?

Tactics is about using concrete weapons and personnel to archive the concrete goal.
For example sending squad of soldiers to capture the goal.
Or capturing a piece on a chess board.

Strategy is about using all available resources in order to achieve non-specific or/and long-time goals
For example ordering battalion to raze the land so the advacing enemy army will starve to death.
On chess board this would be castling.

Cossacks is 90% tactics, because it's always only one battle (specific goal: destroy enemy), and there is clear winner/loser.

The Total War Series is 90% strategy, because the individual battles doesn't matter. You can lose five battles in a row, but still be better in the end.

seems legit