Any good, non-korean paced, RTS out there?

RavenSEAL

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2010
8,661
3
0
I haven't really gotten back into the genre since AoEIII and are looking for something fun to play.

I tried getting back into C&C3 but couldn't do it. What's the cool thing nowadays?
 

Dankk

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2008
5,558
25
91
One of the best RTS games ever. And I don't even like RTS.

Supreme Commander is also fairly steady and deliberately paced, unlike Starcraft, which is way too fast as you mentioned. Forged Alliance (the best of the series) can be had on Steam for a measly $15.

Edit: Here's a gameplay video, just to give you an idea of how epic it is (albeit very dramatized, without showing any UI for cinematic effect :p ). It's real gameplay footage though, the game is very nuanced and detailed.
 
Last edited:

IonusX

Senior member
Dec 25, 2011
392
0
0
i like dawn of war II. nice well rounded games with great single-player.
id also try red alert 3. while not as serious or as umm.. respectable as the other C&C games. red alert 3 is always a blast if you can adjust to its pace.
you also get to see george takei & rick flair(yes that rick flair) acting again which is always sweet
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
If you can find a server (there's usually about 4 active ones that aren't full): World in Conflict. Gameplay is pretty basic and you have time to breath outside of actual conflict.

I'd also suggest Company of Heroes, but the strategy there is pretty intense and the online community is something of a catch-22. The noobs tend to really suck but are better natured, while the good players are super-hardcore will kick someone with a mediocre record. The issue is here is more often than not playing with noobs, which you need to do to rank up, involves playing with people who don't know their hardware/connection, and people will lag and drop for apparently no reason. This usually results in a loss if your opponents are even remotely competent, and there's no way to drop without it registering as a personal loss. This racks up losses which kill your record. Shame the multiplayer is so retarded, the game itself is brilliant.

Honestly I've turned to Shogun 2: Total War for most of my strategy needs of late.
 
Last edited:

Zorander

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2010
1,143
1
81
X2 on the SupCom: Forged Alliance recommendation. Solid game with plenty of satisfying Experimental goodness.

You should also give Sins of A Solar Empire: Trinity a try. A solid blend of RTS and 4X genre.
 

Baptismbyfire

Senior member
Oct 7, 2010
330
0
0
Company of Heroes. One of the best RTS ever made, and I've played a lot. It does however require fast response though, like trying to dodge the grenade the enemy just threw at you, and turning your tank around so that anti-tank gun stops poking your tank in the butt, where it is the weakest.
 

Maximilian

Lifer
Feb 8, 2004
12,604
15
81
Company of heroes. But play on the maps "lyon", "the scheldt" and "vire river valley" and make sure you are the axis. They are campy maps which are quite popular and if you want a long game these are the you're best bet.

I would like to recommend supcom: FA as well but the online community is a mess, there's three systems people play on, GPG.net the original one which apparently will be shut down soonish? theres a decent amount of people on that, steam has its own multiplayer thing which when i tried it was abandoned but it probably has the best potential of the three and lastly there's this community developed thing which i cant remember the name of, it looked reasonably active but dosent work with the steam version. Also the very first game i played on GPG.net my ally "reclaimed" my entire base, that is he hoovered up all my stuff to get the resources from it :mad:
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Company of heroes. But play on the maps "lyon", "the scheldt" and "vire river valley" and make sure you are the axis. They are campy maps which are quite popular and if you want a long game these are the you're best bet.

I would like to recommend supcom: FA as well but the online community is a mess, there's three systems people play on, GPG.net the original one which apparently will be shut down soonish? theres a decent amount of people on that, steam has its own multiplayer thing which when i tried it was abandoned but it probably has the best potential of the three and lastly there's this community developed thing which i cant remember the name of, it looked reasonably active but dosent work with the steam version. Also the very first game i played on GPG.net my ally "reclaimed" my entire base, that is he hoovered up all my stuff to get the resources from it :mad:

Yeah, basically whoever gets the Island in The Scheldt wins, and whomever's placed on the west side of the river (by default, the axis) is closest to the Island. Kinda cheap really, although I have had a few victories as allies from the weak side of the river.

And even as axis, against a good allied team with a good British artillary player that island and, well the whole map will get Howitzer nuked. Have fun camping with that. :)
 
Last edited:

Maximilian

Lifer
Feb 8, 2004
12,604
15
81
Yeah, basically whoever gets the Island in The Scheldt wins, and whomever's placed on the east side of the river (by default, the axis) is closest to the Island. Kinda cheap really, although I have had a few victories as allies from the weak side of the river.

And even as axis, against a good allied team with a good British artillary player that island and, well the whole map will get Howitzer nuked. Have fun camping with that. :)

Well i mainly suggested the axis for their late game power, in most of my games the allies take most or all of the island but we push them back off it after ~30 mins.

The only reason axis ever seems to lose on that map is if the guy at spot 6 gets rushed and cut off, even then its not a lost cause for axis but it will be a tough fight.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
When you say "non-Korean paced", is it safe to assume that you don't want something that's an APM-based clickfest like Starcraft? Check this out:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/201290/

You Tube reviews (outdated now, but they give you an idea):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY-NSNhgydY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kCEadNSxwI

Why Sins of a Solar Empire rocks!

It's an awesome game, and the online multiplayer PvP is a lot of fun.

It's much more complicated than simply spamming out ships. It's actually a very deep and complex strategy game. In fact, the game is all about strategy and not how many clicks you can enter per minute. The boring aspects of micromanagement have been almost completely eliminated. It really is the birth of a new genre--RT4X or 4x-RTS. What's great is that it's actually pretty easy to manage a large fleet of ships (no selecting only 12 at a time).

One of the primary challenges is to decide where you need to spend your limited amount of resources. Should you "fleet up" and make lots of ships? What kinds of ships and how many of each kind? Should you focus on expanding as quickly as possible at the expense of fleeting up? Should you focus on building a strong economy so that you can fleet up more later or do you need a big fleet right now? How should you counter your enemy's fleet? Should you invest in military research to make your ships stronger or would it be better to spend that money on building more ships? If you build a structure, where exactly should you build it? Should all of the structures in a gravity well be bunched together (so they can be defended by a starbase or other fortifications) or should they be spread out (so that it takes longer for an enemy to travel around and destroy them)? Should you build a structure on the edge of a gravity well where an opponent will jump in or should it be at the far edge (forcing him to traipse across the well to destroy it)?

The other big challenge is actually using all of these ships properly. Should you build defensive fortifications? Should you attack? Should you defend? Can you do something to trick your opponent into making a fatal mistake? In advanced PvP there are actually mind-game components. ("If I keep scouting him at such-and-such a location he'll think I'm planning to attack there.")

The game also has complicated tactical elements. Ships need to be told where specifically to go and what enemy ships or structures to attack and in what order. One class of ships might be ordered to attack a certain class of enemy ships while you order another class to attack a different class that it counters better. Your large capital ships are juicy targets that need to be carefully managed. You might want to focus all of your firepower on one enemy capital ship, for example, and if yours becomes the focus you need to get it out of the battle and to safety, pronto. (Your enemy might follow it out and kill it, which can make for some suspenseful moments during the chase.)

Ideally, you'd like to expand and build a rich economy while also building a huge fleet, but you can't really do both early in the game, and especially not if you have to fight someone early on. You'll end up questioning whether it makes sense to invest your money and resources on, say, four more fighting ships (early game that could mean increasing your fleet size by 20% or 40%) or a 5% increase in metal harvesting. The 5% increase will stay with you throughout the game and pay for itself long-term, but if you die because you needed those four ships to defend yourself, it won't do you much good.

You need to develop a sense of when you need to "peak" in terms of your fleet size--will you have attained the pay off for expansion and economic investment by the time you anticipate fighting? Sometimes you do want to sacrifice having those four extra ships now for the 5% resource increase, etc.

That's just an example; the game is filled with those sorts of considerations. It has a learning curve. Additionally, you need to learn about the three races and all of their ships, starbases, structures, strengths, weaknesses, common tactics, and tech tree abilities. As you become more experienced at PvP you'll be able to anticipate what opponents of a certain race are likely to do.

Is it worth $20? That depends on how much you anticipate playing it and what's important to you. You should be aware that sometime later this year a new stand-alone expansion called Rebellion will be released that will sell for $40. It will contain all of the content from Vanilla, Entrenchment, and Diplomacy, and you don't need any of those to play the new game.

On the other hand, if you think you'd really enjoy the game and don't want to wait 5-8 months for Rebellion, then it might make sense to get it now. Then you'll be up to speed by the time Rebellion comes out and ready for online multiplayer.

The other issue is whether it's worth spending $20 for a game that has low online player counts. It's sad, but there aren't too many people who play it online and many who do only play comp stomps against AI with their friends. So, there's basically a small group of diehards, many of whom have been playing since 2008, who play in the real games, the 4v4 and 5v5 PvP games (on Ironclad Online). There are normally several games every day, but the action is pretty much restricted to a window between 2 pm and 10 pm U.S. Eastern time. Also, it's pretty much one game available at a time. When that fills, you'll have to wait a while for the next game. During the busier times they'll be two or three real games going on at one time, but you could end up waiting half-an-hour.

Is that worth $20? I think it's an amazing and overlooked game--overlooked by the RTS online multiplayer PvP community. It still has me addicted like a crackhead on payday, even after all this time. Of course, I'm a heavily experienced grizzled pro. It's hard for new players to get into it because they're going to get stomped for their first 50-100 PvP games. You have to master it against the AI first (2 or 3 months) and learn everything there is to learn, then come online and start playing people (where there's much more to learn). The AI in this game isn't bad as far as computer AI goes, but it is AI and won't ever be able to play the way a human can.

I hope you'll get the game, but it may or may not be for you, or you might want to wait until Rebellion comes out.
 
Last edited:

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Well i mainly suggested the axis for their late game power, in most of my games the allies take most or all of the island but we push them back off it after ~30 mins.

The only reason axis ever seems to lose on that map is if the guy at spot 6 gets rushed and cut off, even then its not a lost cause for axis but it will be a tough fight.

More or less. :p Best victory I had was with a good British player and one other American. After we secured the island entrances and barricaded the south bridge he just squatted about 5 howitzers with associated defensive guns on the island. I went airborne and flew recon passes to spot for him, and we shelled everything to shit. Meanwhile myself and the other American player built up tanks and the shelling was good enough that despite a couple of speed-bumps we basically steamrolled all 3 players. Haven't had a random team like that since. :(
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,082
136
If you know what your'e doing, Supreme Commander CAN be very fast.

Also, Act of War, by Eugen Systems. Of course, its kinda slowed down a bit.
 

PowerYoga

Diamond Member
Nov 6, 2001
4,603
0
0
Company of heroes. But play on the maps "lyon", "the scheldt" and "vire river valley" and make sure you are the axis. They are campy maps which are quite popular and if you want a long game these are the you're best bet.

Correction. Don't play on Lyon, Scheldt or Vire river valley ever. Those are fucking idiotic maps where if you cap one single point in the map and keep it held you win. No amount of skill needed if you just tank trap/barb wire the only way through, because the only way through tank traps are tier 4 tanks. Also don't play that tiny 4 player map where all you need to do is shove a ketten in the bridge to prevent the other team from accessing the high fuel/ammo res points.

Playing those maps make you a terrible player and cuts you off from the truly strategic portion of the game, which heavily involves flanking, scouting and countering instead of facerolling with panthers, ostwinds and tigers after camping for 20 minutes. Or bombing the whole entire team to nonexistance with stukas if that's your thing.

If anybody wants to play some COH hit me up some time. I'm way out of practice though, so don't blame me if I seem a bit slow. :) I usually play americans or whermacht.
 

exar333

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2004
8,518
8
91
I agree with the OP. I miss the days of the original SC where my buddies and I would play a pretty resource-rich and VERY large map to facilitate a fun and more entrenched game. With SC2, most maps are tiny, resources are scant, and its always a 10-minute race to finish. Loved the single-player adventures, but the multiplayer just gets started when it ends. Really lame IMHO.

You never even get to build a lot of the more fun buildings/upgrades/units. Its a bore-fest that repeats over and over again. I am not asking for an AoEII-length game (although it was fun) but somewhere like 30-75 minutes is really fun.
 

Maximilian

Lifer
Feb 8, 2004
12,604
15
81
Correction. Don't play on Lyon, Scheldt or Vire river valley ever. Those are fucking idiotic maps where if you cap one single point in the map and keep it held you win. No amount of skill needed if you just tank trap/barb wire the only way through, because the only way through tank traps are tier 4 tanks. Also don't play that tiny 4 player map where all you need to do is shove a ketten in the bridge to prevent the other team from accessing the high fuel/ammo res points.

Playing those maps make you a terrible player and cuts you off from the truly strategic portion of the game, which heavily involves flanking, scouting and countering instead of facerolling with panthers, ostwinds and tigers after camping for 20 minutes. Or bombing the whole entire team to nonexistance with stukas if that's your thing.

If anybody wants to play some COH hit me up some time. I'm way out of practice though, so don't blame me if I seem a bit slow. :) I usually play americans or whermacht.

You severely underestimate the fun of doing this to people over and over again :D
 

poohbear

Platinum Member
Mar 11, 2003
2,284
5
81
Dawn of War 2 is the best RTS out at the moment IMO. It has a bit of a steep learning curve for multiplayer but its as balanced as its gonna get. Its intense as it gets in terms of RTS as its all about strategy and not base building. Love the 40k universe too, and the graphics are gorgeous! its big on unit preservation unlike other RTS games wherein u just lose unit after another.:p
 

Shmee

Memory & Storage, Graphics Cards Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 13, 2008
8,266
3,154
146
CoH is good, also, I would try SW: Empire at war. Land battles typically aren't as fun as the space though.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
CoH is good, also, I would try SW: Empire at war. Land battles typically aren't as fun as the space though.

This x infiinity. SW EaW AI is horrible during ground battles. All you need is a shield generator, a barrack, 2 infantry and 2 rocket infantry. I've defeated entire enemy land stacks, AT-ATs included, with that combination simply due to stupid AI. Attacking is slightly more of a challenge, but basically comes down to a head-butting contest or just waiting and air-striking everything.

Space battles are hella-fun though. :) They really got the mood right, blowing up star destroyers has never been so satisfying.
 

jacktesterson

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
5,493
3
81
Age of Empires: Rise of Rome is still my favorite game all time.


I think you would like World in Conflict
 

TidusZ

Golden Member
Nov 13, 2007
1,765
2
81
X2 on the SupCom: Forged Alliance recommendation. Solid game with plenty of satisfying Experimental goodness.

You should also give Sins of A Solar Empire: Trinity a try. A solid blend of RTS and 4X genre.

X3 on SupCom, its an amazing game that focuses on strategy and creative play instead of who can press buttons faster.
 

PowerYoga

Diamond Member
Nov 6, 2001
4,603
0
0
You severely underestimate the fun of doing this to people over and over again :D

Not really. I started by playing 1v1s and 2v2s and went through a whole learning phase of losing and adapting. Never touched lyon or scheldt or vire river valley because my friend advised me to stay away from them.

It's so much more fun to flank and setup machine gun cover while microing your m8, placing mines in strategic places and deploying mortar teams to covering advancing troops, and when the axis finally rolls out an ostwind to have a 76mm AT gun ready to tear it into pieces with riflemen support. Then you can roll out M10s to flank and tear down the inevitable tiger. My friends and I never lost to "scheldt warriors", you know those guys with 300 games under their belt but doesn't know you need to put up mines around the fuel points on hill 331?

Holing up and hiding behind tank traps and then pressing a -> click once you get 3 panthers? Not really fun. Once you actually play a real game of COH it's hard to go back to the derp map of scheldt.
 

Maximilian

Lifer
Feb 8, 2004
12,604
15
81
Not really. I started by playing 1v1s and 2v2s and went through a whole learning phase of losing and adapting. Never touched lyon or scheldt or vire river valley because my friend advised me to stay away from them.

It's so much more fun to flank and setup machine gun cover while microing your m8, placing mines in strategic places and deploying mortar teams to covering advancing troops, and when the axis finally rolls out an ostwind to have a 76mm AT gun ready to tear it into pieces with riflemen support. Then you can roll out M10s to flank and tear down the inevitable tiger. My friends and I never lost to "scheldt warriors", you know those guys with 300 games under their belt but doesn't know you need to put up mines around the fuel points on hill 331?

Holing up and hiding behind tank traps and then pressing a -> click once you get 3 panthers? Not really fun. Once you actually play a real game of COH it's hard to go back to the derp map of scheldt.

Ive played plenty of "real" games, when the panzer elite first came out i tore up the 1v1 ladder. Done plenty of games on the random maps it spat out. Played american airborne occasionally as well.

You shouldn't be so closed minded about other ways of playing the game. The maps I mentioned are epic and extremely fun battles can be had on them. My most memorable battles were 2 hour+ games on montargis. Campy is fun in CoH, maybe you don't think so but you shouldn't have such an elitist attitude about it, "real" games in CoH are whatever games you have fun in.
 

PowerYoga

Diamond Member
Nov 6, 2001
4,603
0
0
I've had maybe 1-2 "fun" games in scheldt. There's just no real strategy to the "campy" maps no matter how you put it. One single entry point that can be held with 2 mgs, a mortar and a cloaked pak and no way to crack it until you get a bulldozer/panther is not strategic in any way shape and form. All those games result in 2 calliopes + hummels and a bunch of 25 pounders shelling each other until the map is over because one guy got some lucky hits on an arty position. Any other "strategy" is pretty much useless because of the narrow point of entry. Don't get me wrong though, I enjoyed the first 2 times on the map simply because I never seen so much artillery and mortars before. The big bangs and explosions were fun to watch.

COH is a campy game in general. You take 2 VPs, fortify your position and repel the enemy until you win. You get a few AT guns, MGS, snipers, scouts, tanks, infantry and bunker down while the other team tries to crack you. There's a lot of dynamic action, which is fun for me.

The problem I have with maps like scheldt is it doesn't teach people anything about the dynamics of the game and people don't bother playing other maps because its not as easy as scheldt. I mean, what other map revolves around getting tank traps up on one bridge (2 if you count the out of the way south bridge) and winning because of it? I'm not trying to be an elitist here, but anybody that only plays scheldt is not going to learn jack about flanking and low tier units like the puma.

Also Montaris region isn't that campy, there's plenty of points for flanking and a lot of different strategies you can use for it. I was referring to a smaller map whose name escapes me but its similar to scheldt in the sense that whoever caps the eastern island wins.

Ultimately the better players all leave because they can't find games other than scheldt. I gave up searching for 2v2s and 3v3s months ago because all I can find are 9 game of scheldt and some poor scrub queueing solo for hill 331. But you're right, people can enjoy COH however they want and that's why I've stopped playing and moved on to other games.
 
Last edited: