RTS Stereotypes- and how to break them

[Hugo Rune]

I think Joe Bourque is on to something- let's see what RTS stereotypes there are which we can, er, coerce BHG into adopting. I'll start by throwing up a few seretypes.

* Strict, Mission Based Apporach to scenario design. Earlier actions do not influence what happens later in the game, other than winning means progress and losing means Game Over. There is no flow from one mission to the next, but they are all discrete, separate missions. The game is completely linear.
* The best tactic is inevitably to stock up a lot of the strongest land units and attacking the enemy base en-masse, aka the "Tank Rush".

How do you solve these two? Do you have any more?

[Saint Marcus]

Not always true. In Tiberian Sun tank rushes won't work thanks to the EMP Pulse Cannon. Also, playing skirmish/multiplayer games are like RT civ games without diplomacy Really cool when playing with friends!

------------------
Lancer: MarkL, well said, everything...

"Only resolution and habit can let me make an entry tonight. I am too miserable, too low-spirited, too sick of the world and all in it, including life itself, that I would not care if I heard this moment the flapping of the wings of the Angel of Death."

[Urban Ranger]

Any campaign that is nothing more than a pile of scenarios lumped together is awful. There is absolutely no sense of continuity whatsoever.

Regardless of the style (RT or TB), there must be something extra in a campaign to make it more than just a loose collection of scenarios.

By this standard all campaigns in any of the Blizzard games are bad. Even in Starcraft where there is a "story" since it is just color/flavor.

Panzer General and Warlords III are better. In the former you get a core group of units. In the later you get some heroes. These move from scenario to scenario and can gain experience along the way.