How lucky we are

[Nooble]

Warcraft also gives you A LOT of replayablity, since there are so many custom maps that people make. In all other RTS games, it's the same old boring ladder/melee games over and over again. Only Blizzard RTS games have an advance map editor that allows people customize triggers and others to create fresh new maps to play, instead of the old boring build up an army and take over the map gameplay.

And in Warcraft, you actually have to MICRO, to win. You don't just send a thousand men in and watch them fight to the death. You actually have to command your units and make sure none of them die. The battles are usually small, around 20-30 in an army for a player.

But at least the battles aren't dull and boring like other RTS (RoN) (AOE series). All you do in most other RTS is build up a large army as fast as you can and attack move to the other guy's base, and the armies duke it out.

 

[Vietnamese Guy]

i actually liked the aoe series up until 3... it lost it's flavor for me.


though i know this topic is mainly on tbs or rts i really loved the DnD series games (BG, icewind, NWN) and they have been good to me so far (well except Icewind dale 2... LAME)

also the total war series are also fricking incredible, especially the new rome total war (well not so new now), imagine microing thousands of troops (yes thats right) and watching them kill each other in a violent carnage..

however the civilization series wins due to its endless playability because of a vibrant mod community as well as the games inherit requirement for adaptability


Oh and nooble i agree with you, thats what kept me hooked to starcraft for 5 years (im 15 now..) and i stopped playing it solely because i lost my cd and i didnt have the money to buy a new one

 

[Willem]

though i know this topic is mainly on tbs or rts i really loved the DnD series games (BG, icewind, NWN) and they have been good to me so far (well except Icewind dale 2... LAME)

Neverwinter Nights is great. And there's so many player designed modules out there you could play it forever and not get tired of it. NWN 2 is supposed to be coming out in the spring I hear.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

I agree with you there. I gave up on the skirmish games against the AI since the only thing I could do was try and build like it and just be first at everything. It didn't leave you any room for choices or options.

Eh you can try ANYTHING against the AI and win in WC3, so I don't see how the options are limited when playing skirmish against the AI.

 

[Willem]

Eh you can try ANYTHING against the AI and win in WC3, so I don't see how the options are limited when playing skirmish against the AI.

Because all it involved was building an army as fast as possible to counter the AI hordes that would eventually descend on me. I finally just started copying the AIs build order in order to keep up with it's unit output. There's was no point in building up your base, just pump out the units as fast as you can.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

I had never really played Civ before civ4 except for civ1 in which i had no idea what to do as i had no manual. I had always been into age of empires and empire earth but they were getting a bit boring because it was just who could click on things the quickest. I got civ4 and AOE3 on the same day and I played AOE3 for about a week before moving onto Civ. That was about 3 months ago and I cannot get over how much better it is being able to form and adapt a stratagy throughout a game without having to worry about someone surging ahead. If they do it now however it is because my stratagy sucks so no excuse LOL.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

Because all it involved was building an army as fast as possible to counter the AI hordes that would eventually descend on me. I finally just started copying the AIs build order in order to keep up with it's unit output. There's was no point in building up your base, just pump out the units as fast as you can.

Why did you copy the AI build order? To keep up with it's unit output? You shouldn't be losing units at same pace as the AI when going against the AI, cause AI just sucks. And there are much better build orders than the ones that AI uses for more specific strategies (early expo, tower rush, tech rush, etc.).

As soon as you start your game you have a 3 distinct choices (unless you are playing really competative games, than it's obviously better to stick with widely tried&tested strats) in strategy (even more with maps that have tavern) by choosing your hero. In fact someone even demonstrated a 10+ games winning streak without ever getting a hero in ladder games. I say there are lots of options in that game.

 

[Commander Bello]

Strange, that most of the discussion is about other games.....

 

[calyth]

It's the most balanced RTS game out there only comparable to Starcraft.

Oh Warcraft 3 is balanced how? In an RTS, if you can't kill a unit with about 12 other units gang-up together, it's not balanced. Their Hero system has just degenerated the game to how fast can you level the Hero. And no, I tried, you can't kill one of these Heros with a dozen units if they're anything but level 1. I rather take the more bland but slightly more balanced approach of WarCraft 2, thank you.

As to Civ 4 - I'm kinda disappointed that they weren't good with 3D programming and the game just sucks up resources, and the civilopedia wasn't well done, and the interface was quirky, like not remembering any settings for creating the last game, including your name (instead it defaults to your machine's name, which some might leave it as HOME-Q2AS#F8), or how the unit/building/wonder list in the city screen just jumps around like crazy. But otherwise, the game play is good.

 

[Bast]

We are very lucky! Thanks Firaxis.

 

[Willem]

Why did you copy the AI build order? To keep up with it's unit output?

Exactly. Just when I thought I was getting something accomplished, along comes a bunch of units and wipes out most of my forces. I found the only worthwhile strategy was to outproduce the AI so I started watching what it was doing and mimicing it. Until I completely lost interest in the game. In Warcraft 2, not only would the AI send out raiding parties to your base, but it would build city defenses and develop defensive positions. It made skirmishes much more interesting than the all out brawl that WC3 offered. It's only about who can build the biggest force the fastest. I find the same to be true of C&C Generals as well. I was quite disappointed when I started to play it.

 

[Nooble]

Willem, seems like you have not played Warcraft 3 online. Who plays skirmishes offline against the A.I? That's just boring. Try playing custom maps online with other players.

And actually, Warcraft 3 isn't about building big forces. The largest armies you can get are about 20-40 men.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

And no, I tried, you can't kill one of these Heros with a dozen units if they're anything but level 1.

3 raiders, gg lone hero. I don't know what 12 units you used lol.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

Exactly. Just when I thought I was getting something accomplished, along comes a bunch of units and wipes out most of my forces. I found the only worthwhile strategy was to outproduce the AI so I started watching what it was doing and mimicing it. Until I completely lost interest in the game. In Warcraft 2, not only would the AI send out raiding parties to your base, but it would build city defenses and develop defensive positions. It made skirmishes much more interesting than the all out brawl that WC3 offered. It's only about who can build the biggest force the fastest.

It's not that hard to out micro the AI in WC3. Sounds like you are not used to micro controlling your troops in rts games.

 

[Willem]

It's not that hard to out micro the AI in WC3. Sounds like you are not used to micro controlling your troops in rts games.

Not in WC3 that's for sure. I've played alot of C&C Tiberiun Sun but just couldn't get used to the way things worked in WC3.

 

[Nooble]

Because in Tiberian Sun, all you do is click and attack. Absolutely no micro. It's all about numbers.

And the A.I cannot micro.

lol

 

[vonGazza]

Ugh. I'm playing the beta for HoMM V right now. "Bad" doesn't really cover it. I'm hoping things really change before the final release, but I'm not holding my breath. I've played enough beta games to know that most things are set in stone by the time of the beta. Oh, well. Back to Civ IV!

Thanks for the warning NikNak!

 

[Zelpo]

I view WC3 as one of the most disappointing games I've ever played, like others have mentioned it was just a major click-fest & a race to build units/buildings/upgrades. And I spent $50 on a game I played for about a week. Last Blizzard game I bought, too bad.

 

[Ogrelord]

Oh Warcraft 3 is balanced how? In an RTS, if you can't kill a unit with about 12 other units gang-up together, it's not balanced. Their Hero system has just degenerated the game to how fast can you level the Hero. And no, I tried, you can't kill one of these Heros with a dozen units if they're anything but level 1. I rather take the more bland but slightly more balanced approach of WarCraft 2, thank you.

It's balanced because each units strategy has more than one counter for all 4 race. And i don't know if you play long to understand the true mechanics of the game. A level 5 melee hero can't even hit tier 2 air units unless he bought the right items. A Hero is essential but they aren't the win all.

And it isn't a click fest, you actually have to manage/micro your troops in combat....alt-tab and hotkeys. Your Undead opponent cast raise dead, you have to select your priest to dispel, frost dragons attacks, you tab to your sorceress and cast polymoph to turn them into sheep, and at the same time you're focus firing your motars against your opponent heroes...all in real time.

just clicking your units to attack enemy units asap is just ummm noobish.
Try a 4 vs 4 game.