Relic's RTS are generally not balanced.

It's true that no RTS with wildly different factions is perfectly balanced, but I do think that despite all the effort on pushing gameplay with innovations, Relic doesn't seem to put some effort to balance their RTS.

CoH was fine but when the expansions come out, the balance is disrupted.

Dawn of War up to Dark Crusade was okay but then SoulStorm(though not developed by Relic) ruined the balance.

Relic seems to just put awesome units for the sake of bloodbath.

Dawn of War 2 has serious balance issue with people just prefer Space Marines over anything else.

And No, In Dow2, Tyranids is not a preferable faction over SM.

Tyranids is awesome if you wan't bloodbath, but then again, do we really wan't bloodbath or some balanced gameplay?

To these days, I haven't found a single Relic RTS that is really balanced, at least at the vanilla CoH level.

Balance is important if you want the multiplayer aspect of your games to have long lives.

CoH was fine but when the expansions come out, the balance is disrupted.

Ravenchrome

[QUOTE="Ravenchrome"]

CoH was fine but when the expansions come out, the balance is disrupted.

XXI_World

Sorry, typo.

It's fine of you only vanilla COH but don't buy the expansions. There are bad.

This is a good argument. Swear that Relic unbalances their games with new expansions but offer no examples to show this.

Homeworld 2 was pretty balanced imo. Can't remember much about HM 1...and Catacylsm kinda sucked imo.

Sorry, typo.

It's fine of you only vanilla COH but don't buy the expansions. There are bad.

Ravenchrome

Sorry, typo.

It's fine of you only vanilla COH but don't buy the expansions. There are bad.

Ravenchrome

Opposing Fronts has a incredible singleplayer campaign. I wouldn't call them bad.

they dont imbalance it.. rather they cant manage more complex tasks.. they make outstanding games but then flop on the followthrough.

except for homeworld... nothing is quite as good as homeworld..

It is true that Relic games are less ballanced then SC, but I do not think it is a bad thing, they basicly traded ballance for fun.

The truth is that Relic could not make a competetive game rts due to thier ground ideas and ideals for thier rts games.

Thier games has alot to do with luck, it is not up to the player if a shell penetrates an enemy tank, or what gets damaged, nor how much, nor if the squad drops down in time to avoid heavy losses.

That alone makes thier RTS games none competetive, because the player does not have complete control, a big factor is luck.

And you can not have a competetive game where luck is included, cold mathematics, and user control is needed there. And SC fits that description there.

Then comes the units, In CoH vanilla the factions are fairly ballanced, altho the axis did have a small advantage.

In OF both the PE and Brits were potentially more powerful then the vanilla factions.

And TOV does not really have alot of note, altho there are 2 custom units, that are far better then the standards.

But I still think ofCoH as the better game, it has an emphathis on tactics, and the bigger picture, where SC much less so, altho in SC2 there is more tactics then just spam, and yes, SC1 was about spam, buildorders over tactics, and the fastest way to make them most damaging. Pretty much make an army and throw them at the enemy at the best time, economics were more important then battlefield tactics.

Sounds odd for me saying that, SC is my second most liked RTS game, but even Dune2 had more tactical options then SC1.

CoH is ment to be unballanced, altho it is not imba enough to be gamebreaking, and it depends on alot of factors just how imba units can be.

And the luck factor in that game means that a cheap silly AT gun can change the entire battle, or that pesky little squad of infantry.

I do find DoW1 more unballanced then CoH, in vanilla Dow Reaper + lance = eldar automatic win

In WA, when the bugs were fixed, the IG would steamroll anyone in range and damage output.

In DC I just need to say Tau and nothing else.

and in Soulstorm I dont need to say anything :S (not relic)

DoW2 I did not like that much, but it has alot of the same things as CoH has, so Luck and placement factors far higher then how fast you can build units

I like the SC series for thier competetive possabilities, but I Love the Relic RTS games for the sheer joy and fun you can have in thier games.

They are just that, games ment to be fun.

To me, Relic make some of the best games in the business. Homeworld, Homeworld 2, Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, Dawn of War 2. All superb games.
I'm not a massive competitive RTS player anyway, so I don't mind if the balance is off. I'm happy as long as they're fun to play alone and with friends.

Real-Time Tactics games such as World in Conflict are a ton of fun online. RTS games on the other hand, not so much. I enjoy taking my time. Multiplayer is rush rush rush!

Not for me.

Can't say anything about the units from Tales of Valour, but I can't stand the Brits. American and Wehr is balanced to the point of Wehr is stronger in a flat-out brawl, but Americans have more varied abilities like rapid-deployment or even strafe, which tears apart guys if you're not careful.

It seems like Brits and Panzer Elite are a little more balanced against each other, but up against any other faction, it's kind of upsetting. The British artillery sounds like a good idea on paper, but up against Wehr, who do things considerably slower, it's a slaughter.

Real-Time Tactics games such as World in Conflict are a ton of fun online. RTS games on the other hand, not so much. I enjoy taking my time. Multiplayer is rush rush rush!

Not for me.

MythPro1