A good, long-lasting RTS

Hi there, I am a relatively hardcore gamer, and I especially love FPS.

But recently, I realized that FPS games are getting a tad bit repetitive, and just not as fun anymore. So, I wanted to try out the RTS genre, considering how so many people find them exciting, and equally competitive.

I was just wondering which of the new RTS should I get? Supreme Commander? World in Conflict? Universe at War? Or C&C? Or any other?

For the record, I just recently got Tiberium Wars, and I love it to bits. But I am kinda having second thoughts on my decision.

I am kinda looking for an RTS that is easily accessible, popular, relatively deep, and hopefully long-lasting (think Starcraft and Warcraft).

Thanks in advance for the opinions.

I'd recommend COH

Reading your post I immediately thought Supreme Commander. The game being based in the future appeals more than CoH or WiC cause of all the units being very new. Its relatively easy to access from the start but once you get good, theres a lot there. Couple the game with the Expansion and you'll be set for a very, very long time. Progn0sticator

I agree, Sup. Com. is a good choice. Brings a sense of scale to the RTS genre. I haven't played it much b/c of my PC though. I also played the demo's to Company of Heroes and WiC, both great choices. I don't think you'll be disappointed anyway you decide.

as for C&C 3 i know what you mean. I got it for 360 and traded it back in. and no not b/c of the controls or anything, its just too simplified and rush heavy. youplay it once you've played it a thousand times

You might want to consider Dawn of War.

Firstly, it's from 2004 - so it's getting on a bit. But it has two expansions, and is soon getting a third which will bring the total army count to an astounding nine, as well as adding air units and other neat stuff besides.

It's set in the Warhammer 40K universe, which is gothic science fantasy. It offers the best of both science fiction and fantasy - and if the thought of the two mixing appeals to you, you will love the setting.

The resource mechanic is interesting. Instead of harvesting stuff like in, say, C&C, there are points dotted around the map. These points yield resources to the owner, so the game is all about map control, which means players will be out there early, battling for the resources.

The game is mainly about infantry, which is something that really appeals to me. Thesoldiers work in squads, and you can reinforce lost men on the fly, which means that firstly you won't need to spam build units at your base to get a functional army, and also that you won't need to deal with the logistics of moving men into battle, since all you have to do is keep your squad alive and most of your unit construction will be done in battle, through reinforcement.

This, combined with the resource system, means battles start early and just keep on going. It's not uncommon for combat to start around the2 minute mark and literally not stop until someone gets the upperhand, which might be fifteen minutes later. It's pretty intense compared with some RTS games, where you may find yourself turtling, or just sitting around building up an army before you can even fight.

The game also has both melee and ranged combat, as well as making good use of unit counters (different units specialise against other certain types - rock paper scissors, in other words) meaning you need to use the right units in combination to beat the right units, which gives for a fairly deep experience - but is still fast paced and crazy. That the combat is so utterly brutal and beautiful to watch makes the battles a pleasure to experience.

The game has a huge online community, and the upcoming third expansion will just reinforce that, but the game and its expansions also have tons of single player content through campaigns (most of which aren't all that great) and some of the best AI you can get in an RTS. If you like single player, DoW is a dream come true. The AI really is that good.

The seven (and soon to be nine) armies have very distinct personalities, so even though some play in very similar ways, they feel very different thanks to their character. As far as balance goes, the game isn't perfect - but I think it can be forgiven its flaws.

DoW is definitely easily accessible, is certainly popular - it has depth through the intricacy of unit counters and the need for effective use of ranged and melee units cooperatively, and has been going for three years already and is about to get another shot in the arm with another expansion. You mention StarCraft - DoW is frequently compared with SC, and in many circles is considered its equal or better.

Company of Heroes is sort of a spiritual successor to DoW - it's the more refined, more polished game and it uses more-or-less the same gameplay formula. If DoW's setting or oldness doen't appeal, CoH is probably the next best choice.

I recommend either C&C: The First Decade orDawn of War plus expansions.

Both have awesome singleplayer and good multiplayer.

I don't want to argue down The First Decade - it is a wonderful RTS package, and the games therein are amongst the founding fathers of the genre. But at the same time, nothing in TFD is even relatively deep, particularly long lasting or terribly popular as far as current online activity is concerned.

He already owns C&C3 and he regrets it. A big pile of more of the same - regardless of how good it is - might not be the smartest move. Not to mention the fact that the sheer volume of games in the pack is mostly irrelevant unless you're a C&C collector, because they're all so similar that most will go unplayed by all but the truly devout.

I don't want to light any fires here, but I think it's a verybad recommendation for someone in lordramses's situation.

I don't want to argue down The First Decade - it is a wonderful RTS package, and the games therein are amongst the founding fathers of the genre. But at the same time, nothing in TFD is even relatively deep, particularly long lasting or terribly popular as far as current online activity is concerned.

He already owns C&C3 and he regrets it. A big pile of more of the same - regardless of how good it is - might not be the smartest move. Not to mention the fact that the sheer volume of games in the pack is mostly irrelevant unless you're a C&C collector, because they're all so similar that most will go unplayed by all but the truly devout.

I don't want to light any fires here, but I think it's a verybad recommendation for someone in lordramses's situation.

mfsa

you, mon frere, just lit the fire! Oooooooh its time to burn!

Nah, jay kay, I only take issue with the "nothing in TFD is relatively deep" comment.

Any game that goes to the lengths to include FMVs with real actors, hours of dialogue, and one of the best stories in RTS history is a deep game imo. What about Red Alert? Definately one of the greatest in RTS history, well-respected by just about all gamers if not liked by them. Then there are the expansions, etc etc. As individual games, the Command and Conquers are incredibly deep...but as a series, I think its hard to rival that.

But all in all youre right, C&C3 was loved and hated because it maintains the formula from prior games. So if you didnt like C&C 3, you will problably not like The First Decade. I didnt see that he didnt like it, my bad btw. And while C&C multiplayer is satisfactory, there are definately better alternatives if thats the main appeal of RTSs to you.

But TFD does come with Renegade! Wooooot! :D

Sincerely,
A C&C Fanboy

*EDIT* wait, he said he enjoyed Tiberiam Wars, "loved it to bits" i think. Go get The First Decade lords, you'll love it to bitty bits!

Company of Heroes is just awesome, you must play it if you like a bit of "realism" in a game, and with opposing fronts it becomes a master piece. But if you like more the fantasy games, Supreme Commander should be your election.

[QUOTE="mfsa"]

I don't want to argue down The First Decade - it is a wonderful RTS package, and the games therein are amongst the founding fathers of the genre. But at the same time, nothing in TFD is even relatively deep, particularly long lasting or terribly popular as far as current online activity is concerned.

He already owns C&C3 and he regrets it. A big pile of more of the same - regardless of how good it is - might not be the smartest move. Not to mention the fact that the sheer volume of games in the pack is mostly irrelevant unless you're a C&C collector, because they're all so similar that most will go unplayed by all but the truly devout.

I don't want to light any fires here, but I think it's a verybad recommendation for someone in lordramses's situation.

mrbojangles25

you, mon frere, just lit the fire! Oooooooh its time to burn!

Nah, jay kay, I only take issue with the "nothing in TFD is relatively deep" comment.

Any game that goes to the lengths to include FMVs with real actors, hours of dialogue, and one of the best stories in RTS history is a deep game imo. What about Red Alert? Definately one of the greatest in RTS history, well-respected by just about all gamers if not liked by them. Then there are the expansions, etc etc. As individual games, the Command and Conquers are incredibly deep...but as a series, I think its hard to rival that.

But all in all youre right, C&C3 was loved and hated because it maintains the formula from prior games. So if you didnt like C&C 3, you will problably not like The First Decade. I didnt see that he didnt like it, my bad btw. And while C&C multiplayer is satisfactory, there are definately better alternatives if thats the main appeal of RTSs to you.

But TFD does come with Renegade! Wooooot! :D

Sincerely,
A C&C Fanboy

*EDIT* wait, he said he enjoyed Tiberiam Wars, "loved it to bits" i think. Go get The First Decade lords, you'll love it to bitty bits!

Yeah, but he's having second thoughts. Second thoughts, man!!

You are right about TFD's depth - I was only thinking about the combat, you know... the whole spam light tanks or spam medium tanks or spam light tanks and medium tanks thing. Compared with games with full blown unit counters, hit zones, destructable environments and everything else we have in modern RTS games, C&C is really simple. But I know how much you love those campaigns - as a mostly multiplayer/skirmish player, it's easy to overlook stuff like that. The C&C games have legendary campaigns, and are - with good reason - amongst the most influential games of all time.

It is definitely a game I think every RTS fan should have in his collection (Generals is the only gap in my C&C collection), but I just wouldn't recommend it as a mainstay RTS. I don't think someone who owns C&C3 would get much out of working backwards, especially someone who is looking for online activity and depth of tactical gameplay, which is what I assume he meant by depth. Something C&C TFD definitely doesn't have when set against the modern standard.

You may think about Sun Age..It's on Gamer's gate and Total Gaming already..Three different campaigns..the box version won't be out till Jan.

It's a starcraft like game with lots of strategy..kind of hard..good graphics but no zoom....the battles are very tactical..Forget just the massive rush like a lot of RTS games

Sup Com might not be for everyone, because it just has too much micromanagement, and the factions are about the same.

I would get StarCraft instead, because it suits most RTS players, and has alot of players and custom maps to keep you busy for a while.

PS: C&C3 might be simpler, but still has alot of strategy.

Thanks for the great responses guys, I think for now I will stick to playing C&C. Moreover, there is an expansion coming out next year, so it can keep me busy till then.

I tried playing CoH on my dormmate's PC once for like, 5 minutes, so I don't really remember what it was like, but will try it out again. Downloading the WiC demo now.

Now, I feel like getting either Supreme Commander or Universe at War, depending on the situation.

Can't wait till I get my paycheck:D