3rd Best RTS, EVER!

[Huzurdaddi]

And, IMO, that's pretty high praise.

Sure it does not have the same insane frenetic building and resultant massive assaults of Total Annihilation, but then again, no other game yet has matched that.

It also does not have WC3 visceral tactical combat and sheer style. But then again, that's what Blizzard is great at.

But it does have a wicked economic model and a great technology/upgrade system. Also the concept of borders is a great one. One that I'm sure will become a de facto mechanic in all RTSs to come.

Kudos guys on a really, really swell game.

[Imp]

I'll eventually rank it higher than WC3 if they make better balance adjustments and improve the gamespy connectivity.

[FrostyBoy]

I thought WC3 sucked

[UnOrthOdOx]

Sucked is a strong word...but I bored of WC3 quickly.

TA, though. Hectic battles in that game, though not all that 'strategic' IMO

[alva]

It's been a very long time any RTS was able to hold my attention longer then 2 minutes ( yes, I'm still playing the demo), that in itself says a lot
-
And WC3 was very boring..

[Mahdimael]

WC3 was awful, IMHO...no strategy at all, just run your hero around gaining experience, memorize a build queue and go from there.

I liked TA, but it was just a matter of how many tens of resource collectors you could get going before being attacked. It was still fun, though, and it was cool that you always had a chance.

RoN is great, so far. I can think of some cool things I'd like to see with it (random events in CTW, governments, etc)

[Inverse Icarus]

please. wc3 rocked by comparison to other blizzard RTS. it's their style.

WC3 was streamlined. the upgrades were very broad, etc, etc.

it's a good game. i still play it with my buds. RoN isa completely different game

[UnOrthOdOx]

I really don't feel WC3 added anything significant over Starcraft. Heros were interesting but IMO detracted from the game for the most part.

I would list Shogun as my favorite RTS despite some of the cheaper strategies people employed in MP (super Ashi's anyone?) But then, I've always preferred the RTS's that force you to make the most of your units since there WILL BE no reinforcements, what you start with is what you get. Myth, Myth II, Shogun, etc.

[Mahdimael]

Originally posted by UberKruX
please. wc3 rocked by comparison to other blizzard RTS. it's their style.

WC3 was streamlined. the upgrades were very broad, etc, etc.

it's a good game. i still play it with my buds. RoN isa completely different game

Streamlined != fun to me (necessarily). I don't like a game that unfolds exactly the same way every time. Every time I played, either against the computer or in multiplayer, it always boiled down to who could run their heroes around the map collecting experience and gold mines fastest. It forced a certain play style- you couldn't just turtle in one place if you chose.

the one thing that it did have going for it was a vicious computer opponent. That's not as impressive, though, as RoN, to me, where the randomness of the map is something even the computer needs to adapt to.

[Huzurdaddi]

Streamlined != fun to me (necessarily). I don't like a game that unfolds exactly the same way every time. Every time I played, either against the computer or in multiplayer, it always boiled down to who could run their heroes around the map collecting experience and gold mines fastest.

Honestly I think that you need to play a few more games on b.net before making such comments, at least if you want to be taken seriously.

WC3 is all about mirco, unit maneuver and unit abilities are all important. A person with superior micro will quite commonly beat a person with inferior micro who has a superior number of troops. Although in practice that case does not come up too often. More commonly a person with superior micro will combat someone with inferior micro with roughly equal troops and take little to no damage, while destroying all of the opposing troops.

WC3 is also about hero leveling and creeping it's true. The beauty of creeping is that it is micro'ed resource gathering. And I personally think it was a beautiful addition to the game genre. However, most ub3r players (and, honestly you do not sound like one) do not like it since it removes the focus from the other player to the Player vs. Machine game.

Make no mistake, WC3 did not sell in the millions simply because of the blizzard name posted on the box. It has a refreshing number of additions to mainstream RTS gaming. It is the most intricate tactical game out there. It does not have a lot of strategy it's true, but wrt. tactics it's the best. And it has the blizzard style, whatever the heck that is, that makes it just "fun" to play, at least for most people.

[Mahdimael]

I've played enough battlenet games to know that I can't click as fast around the map as everyone else, at the very least. I don't mean to say that the game can't be enjoyable- I know I'm awful at it and need practice, for certain. I think blizzard did a wonderful job of trying to add something to the genre- it just isn't my cup of tea.

My main point is that the game really comes down to two main things: getting heroes around to the monsters on the map, and taking over enough gold mines to keep your hero supplied with cannon fodder. There's nothing wrong with that, necessarily. I just like more open-ended games where I can choose different strategies to try and win, rather than simply different avenues of attack. I liken it to risk- there's a lot of dice rolling, but in the end, it all comes down to who turns in their cards at the best time. In WC3, everything is superfluous except the heroes. If you can get your hero the most experience, you have a very high chance of winning.

In terms of tactics, I would say a game like american conquest or the total war games have more tactical options. Again, your tactics come down to the ability your heroes have.

All of this is my opinion based on my experience. I may try WC3 again and find a completely different game awaiting me, but for now, that's how I feel.