[QUOTE="Nikalai_88"][QUOTE="Uberbadassmufuh"][QUOTE="Nikalai_88"] Ork has proven himself to dislike and bash Blizzard on every opportunity, he isn't going for anything, he didn't even state macro of which there is little in Relic games, the Panzer Elite have a total of, what, four economic buildings? Micro is very necessary in SC, but you will not get along without good macro, macro was a great strength of several Korean players like iloveoov and NaDa while BoxeR's had amazing micro but his macro was always thought to be a weakness. Anyways here is a small micro/macro in StarCraft tidbit. CoH seemed to have more micro than DoW (have not played much of DoW) so maybe they are going into that direction? As I mentioned before for pure strategy I prefer wargames.
Uberbadassmufuh
Someone who intensely dislikes micro will bash Blizzard at every oppurtunity because every Blizzard RTS is extremely micro intensive. Macro also encompasses large troop movements and fortification decisions which do matter quite a bit more in Relic ****games. Honestly I consider things like build orders a very small part of macro. Also, before it seems like I'm coming down on Bliz, I'm not because I'm part of their install base that still plays SC and WC3 years after the product lifetime was supposed to be over by all accounts. I'm just saying that insofar a player with vastly inferior macro has been able to micro their way out of trouble pretty easily in all of their games to date. There are a lot of reasons for this, absence of squads, demphisis on environmental factors, lightning fast move speeds across the board, no suppression mechanic, etc. but the point is that Bliz games have a very intense micro game and a ho hum macro one.
I personally have been one of those guys who was lazy and made bad tactical calls only to pull the game out because of a frenzy of micro. You can do that in Bliz games while Relic punishes you much more harshly for... well... being dumb.
All right think back as to what you just wrote, you are going to sit here and tell me that a game that starts you of with two free machinegun nests to protect your base and a retreat button that gives your units a speed and a armor bonus punishes a player more than a game which doesn't? I would also like to remind you that macro stands for macromanagement; you actually think there is more of that in CoH?
Can you can select all your armored units, and simply send them to attack without microing them? That you have enough disposable infantry squads to macro them with general orders without using their special abilities, that you just select multiple MG's and generally direct them, that you macro your sniper or diverse armies? That you have enough AT assets to simply macro them especially when facing matters? You are going to sit here and argue that that one or two MG'nests you are likely to place in 1v1 require significant management to set them up and than you actually manage them? You are going to argue that a game where blocking and defensive structures are important elements in all the races opening moves does not reward defense? You don't consider economics an important part of macromanagement? To bad they are, in CoH you are likely to have a single structure of each type in one place, in SC you are going to have multiple structures in multiple places, which one do you think requires more management?
After I posted information on players who were considered great do to their macromanagement you are simply going to ignore that and state that it simply does not matter? The funny thing is all the reasons you mentioned deal with micromanagement, the management of individual units and actually break up macromanagement. Some of them aren't even true; zealots might be fast, but speed zealots are even faster and Arbiters recall beats all that, had what you said been true than recall would have been a useless ability, too bad it isn't.
I personally consider the relationship between a player's skill and strategy a great idea, that I can select strategies that work because my opponent is human and can't be in all places at once rather clever and add to the depth of the game. Find the JulyZerg vs. Bitsu game where Bitsu was able to build up a corsair army in amazing speed and see how many mistakes JulyZerg was making after that simply because he could not keep up. Anyways I am not forcing you to like micro/macro, I thought we agreed that it is up to personal preference and yet you are arguing that it is stupidity. Why are you defending fanboys like Ork anyways? Everything he writes is against Blizzard, look at his other posts. Disliking something is no excuse to bash it.
Is this a joke?!
How can you compare a game that has seven races to a game that only has three races?!
How could you compare a philosophic story of a universal war with a deficient story?!
In "DOW",you have seven totally different races with extreme optimizations on every squad available.In "Starcraft" you upgrade all your units with the same option.You can't even personalize units with different kind of weapons or armors.
Rylsadar
You should try harder, since I don't want to waste to much time with your poor arguments I will just focus on the story. StarCraft was nominated for story of the year in '98, no DoW game ever was. StarCraft characters such as Jim rRynor and Sarah Kerrigan are beloved and well know, no one really cares for Sindri. WH40k is the better setting, but so what? You might as well be one of those Halo fanboys who thinks the game has a great story because supposedly the books are good.
Edit: Please fix your quotes the next time you post.
Reread the posts and try again.
Nice, you mentioned macro matters more in CoH, well it doesn't along with some other drivel.
Log in to comment