Someone please tell me what makes Starcraft II different in any way...

Seriously. I see no strategy.

I mean, from what I've watched, it's whoever builds faster and build more, and then rushes quicker, hoping to have more troops than the other guy wins.

Where's the fun in that?

watch pros play each other and you'll see theres a lot more depth in it...

not sure if serious

I think you can oversimplify any strategy game that way. Beating the oponent before he beats you is pretty much the basic staple of any competitive game.

When one player is more skilled than the other, then it doesnt seem like theres much strategy because one has overpowered the other and has likely won in a single attack.

When two roughly equally skilled players fight, then there quite a lot of strategy involved as each attempts to react and counter the opposition. Split second decisions in the middle of a fight can determine the winner.

Seriously. I see no strategy.

I mean, from what I've watched, it's whoever builds faster and build more, and then rushes quicker, hoping to have more troops than the other guy wins.

Where's the fun in that?

Mischievity

So, if you build at the same rate of your opponent and the same amount of stuff, who's gonna win? Exactly, the one with better upgrades, positioning, micro, quicker reinforcements, better overall economy, I could go on and on.

Seriously. I see no strategy.

I mean, from what I've watched, it's whoever builds faster and build more, and then rushes quicker, hoping to have more troops than the other guy wins.

Where's the fun in that?

Mischievity

Its far more complicated than what you just said.

And the custom games in starcraft are some of the best ive ever seen; Desert Strike, Elemental Tower Defense, Mafia.

to be fair, he is a little right.

when i play games like rome total war its all about unit placement, proper timing etc...

a lot of the things in sc2 that make you a good player have more to do with how well you can multitask, and how fast you can think.

in other words.... a world class chess player might not necessarily be a good sc2 player.

There definitely is strategy, but a lot of muscle memory as well.

to be fair, he is a little right.

when i play games like rome total war its all about unit placement, proper timing etc...

a lot of the things in sc2 that make you a good player have more to do with how well you can multitask, and how fast you can think.

in other words.... a world class chess player might not necessarily be a good sc2 player.

There definitely is strategy, but a lot of muscle memory as well.

chris4355

Unit placement, proper timing and so on are also central elements in winning a fight in SC2. The real challenge lies in not just ensuring proper timing and placement but at the same time be able to maintain your economy, keep an eye out of additional attacks and so on.

Often a player can win the fight but lose the war by focusing only on the big fight while forgetting everything else that is going on in the game. It is true that multitasking and the ability to track and deal with multiple situations at once is a core skill in SC2, but that (at least to me) is a valid strategic challenge.

lol wut? I've seen players who are outnumbered win battles simply because they had better control of their units.

Seriously. I see no strategy.

I mean, from what I've watched, it's whoever builds faster and build more, and then rushes quicker, hoping to have more troops than the other guy wins.

Where's the fun in that?

Mischievity

A central point is that you cannot do both at the same time, this is obviously assuming that the people playing have a reasonable level of experience with the game. However at the beginning of the game, the more resources you invest towards building more economy, the less resources you can invest towards combat units. This creates a dilemma for both players. If you build combat units you risk falling behind your opponents economy. However if you build no military units you risk losing right away if your opponent show up with more military units than you can defend against.

The act of balancing economy with military units is at the heart of SC2s strategy. By effectivly scouting your enemy you can learn at an earlier stage how your opponenet is investing his resources: Is he building a lot of military? Then he might be attacking soon but you'll also know that he'll have a weak economy. No military units? He's going to have a lot of money soon, you'll either want to attack early to damage his economy or ensure that your economy is just as good). Of course there are stragegies to counter of avoid scouting:

- Proxy buildings and placements.

- Walling off your base.

- Letting your enemy see you building one thing, then once he looses sight of the building, cancel the building and change strategy.

In short, you cannot build faster while also building the bigger army, you need to balance those two goals. That is what forms the core of SC2's strategic choices.

[QUOTE="Mischievity"]

Seriously. I see no strategy.

I mean, from what I've watched, it's whoever builds faster and build more, and then rushes quicker, hoping to have more troops than the other guy wins.

Where's the fun in that?

Mazoch

A central point is that you cannot do both at the same time, this is obviously assuming that the people playing have a reasonable level of experience with the game. However at the beginning of the game, the more resources you invest towards building more economy, the less resources you can invest towards combat units. This creates a dilemma for both players. If you build combat units you risk falling behind your opponents economy. However if you build no military units you risk losing right away if your opponent show up with more military units than you can defend against.

The act of balancing economy with military units is at the heart of SC2s strategy. By effectivly scouting your enemy you can learn at an earlier stage how your opponenet is investing his resources: Is he building a lot of military? Then he might be attacking soon but you'll also know that he'll have a weak economy. No military units? He's going to have a lot of money soon, you'll either want to attack early to damage his economy or ensure that your economy is just as good). Of course there are stragegies to counter of avoid scouting:

- Proxy buildings and placements.

- Walling off your base.

- Letting your enemy see you building one thing, then once he looses sight of the building, cancel the building and change strategy.

In short, you cannot build faster while also building the bigger army, you need to balance those two goals. That is what forms the core of SC2's strategic choices.

It's strategy, but it's just a different kind of strategy than what you're probably thinking about. It's sort of like "I think my opponent is building a lot of unit As, so I will build a lot of unit Bs to fight them" and you have to do it pretty fast. It's not like HOI where you're influencing a political party in Austria in anticipation of annexing them and assaulting France, or calculating moves in Frozen Synapse.

to be fair, he is a little right.

when i play games like rome total war its all about unit placement, proper timing etc...

a lot of the things in sc2 that make you a good player have more to do with how well you can multitask, and how fast you can think.

in other words.... a world class chess player might not necessarily be a good sc2 player.

There definitely is strategy, but a lot of muscle memory as well.

chris4355

[QUOTE="chris4355"]

to be fair, he is a little right.

when i play games like rome total war its all about unit placement, proper timing etc...

a lot of the things in sc2 that make you a good player have more to do with how well you can multitask, and how fast you can think.

in other words.... a world class chess player might not necessarily be a good sc2 player.

There definitely is strategy, but a lot of muscle memory as well.

KHAndAnime

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"]

[QUOTE="chris4355"]

to be fair, he is a little right.

when i play games like rome total war its all about unit placement, proper timing etc...

a lot of the things in sc2 that make you a good player have more to do with how well you can multitask, and how fast you can think.

in other words.... a world class chess player might not necessarily be a good sc2 player.

There definitely is strategy, but a lot of muscle memory as well.

Swiftstrike5

I don't care about the depth - I was commenting on the importance of tactics. Starcraft 2 has an equal focus on strategy and tactics. Micromanaging units = tactics - and there's a lot of importance when it comes to micromanagement. Rome's campaign map certainly doesn't constitute as tactics and that's a huge portion of the game. Timing in Rome: Total War is much looser than the timing in Starcraft 2, and that's good because Starcraft 2 requires the need for responsiveness.

[QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"]

[QUOTE="KHAndAnime"] Starcraft 2 relies on unit placement and timing just as much as Rome: Total War does (if not more). You can have significantly less than your opponent and win with proper strategy.

KHAndAnime

I don't care about the depth - I was commenting on the importance of tactics. Starcraft 2 has an equal focus on strategy and tactics. Micromanaging units = tactics - and there's a lot of importance when it comes to micromanagement. Rome's campaign map certainly doesn't constitute as tactics and that's a huge portion of the game. Timing in Rome: Total War is much looser than the timing in Starcraft 2, and that's good because Starcraft 2 requires the need for responsiveness.

IMO, Macro is considerably more important than micro. That's why most players are told to avoid doing intensive micro until they can insure it doesn't affect their macro. I enjoy playing both games, but there's nothing more satisfying that crushing an army that outnumbers you 3 to 1. I can't do that in SC2 as long as they build the proper soft/hard counter to my units.

I haven't played a lot of RTS's either. But before Starcraft 2 came out I asked a question similar to this in the Starcraft 2 specific message board. Except I mentioned that I recognized that there was strategy, I just couldn't figure out what skill you would improve to say you are better. The people there told me for someone new to the games, the main thing that would be a skill to improve would be multitasking.

That alone is a lot of strategy. Being able to manage a base, scouting, building a solid offense and defense, reacting to whatever new move your opponent does. Even on a ground level, if you don't want to get into the serious depth, learning to multitask in that game, and doing it well, is a lot of strategy in it's own right. I then watched a couple professional matches. I saw someone with an SCV (a basic unit used for building and collecting resources) go into the middle of an enemy base, and leave with it's life while the opponent's units were attacking it by making various movements to "deke" the opponent. All the while building more units at the SCV owner's base. That's very hard to do.

RTS's are so much more, but just by watching videos if you are new it is easier to pick up on the multitasking elements and learning from that, compared to watching a match and learning tricks on unit position.

Seriously. I see no strategy.

I mean, from what I've watched, it's whoever builds faster and build more, and then rushes quicker, hoping to have more troops than the other guy wins.

Where's the fun in that?

Mischievity

That is like saying FPS are all about who can aim and click with the mouse/controller the fastest. Yeah, it helps a lot to be fast and percise with the mouse but, there's a lot more to it for both types of games. You just need to play enough and you'll slowly start to get it.

Seriously. I see no strategy.

I mean, from what I've watched, it's whoever builds faster and build more, and then rushes quicker, hoping to have more troops than the other guy wins.

Where's the fun in that?

Mischievity

If you don't like the whole action per minute kind of rts play,get company of heroes. You'll feel the depth and strategy right away.