I want an actual real time strategy game. All popular RTSs are actually just about tactics and micro. I mean every SC2 guide will tell you that up to a very high level of play, if you're just doing more you'll be more efficient and win regardless of strategy. Why can't you just set a standing order of "make unit x" or "make unit x while we have gas until we get to 50 of them"? That's strategy. Having to tab back to a building and manually queue a couple of units every several seconds is just creating busywork for players, but thats what's necessary and optimal for playing SC2 and most RTS games well

[–] MHLoppy@fedia.io 28 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Rise of Nations (originally released back in 2003) had/has some interesting ideas to reduce some of the busywork:

Worker units will automatically try to gather/build nearby after a short (configurable) delay if they're not doing anything.
Cities (the main worker-producing structure) has a rally point option that's essentially "all nearby empty resource gathering", so you can queue a dozen workers and they'll distribute themselves as they're created.
Production buildings can be set to loop over their current queue, letting you build continually without intervention as long as you maintain enough resources each time the queue "restocks".
Units that engage in combat without being given an explicit target will try (with modest success) to aim for nearby units which they counter.

For the most part, none of the implemented options are strictly better than micromanaging them yourself:

You will always spend less time idling workers if you micromanage them yourself.
The auto-rally-point doesn't always prioritize the resources that you would if you did it yourself.
Queueing additional units is slightly less resource-efficient than only building one thing at a time.
Total DPS is higher if you manually micro effectively.

But the options are there when you need them, which I think is a a nice design. It doesn't completely remove best-in-class players being rewarded for their speed as a player, but does raise the "speed floor", allowing slower players to get more bang for their buck APM-wise, and compete a bit more on the strategy/tactics side of the game instead.

[–] aegis_sum@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

By far one of my favorite games!

[–] kurushimi@lemmyonline.com 20 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I love this concept; I had a friend from school viscerally defend SC: BW as superior to SC2 because in his words SC2 removed skill because of not having the unit select cap that BW did. That’s just less, as you put it, busywork, and then the player is more free to consider army compositions and positioning rather than drawing tons of rectangles. Removing more busywork in favor of actual strategy would be amazing.

There’s no micro in Chess, just strategy.

[–] MHLoppy@fedia.io 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

There are types of time management which I think can still be interesting. For example, are you able to afford -- in the resources of time and attention -- optimally micro'ing this important fight? Or are you going to have to yolo it a bit so that you can do multi-task economic tasks at the same time?

Some (much?) of the problem is that (for better or worse) skilled players can and will squeeze the game to optimality in terms of win rate, and that tends to collapse viable tactical and strategic choices. Once those choices have been optimised (the game is largely "solved"), the main way to get better is by being faster, not by being smarter.

[–] toastus@feddit.de 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'd argue there is only micro in chess and no macro, but I get your point.

[–] kurushimi@lemmyonline.com 2 points 6 months ago

Good point. I suppose I was combining the intended definition of micro as in issuing individual or otherwise sufficiently granular actions with the extra categorization of busywork, and indeed in that regard chess is pure micro.

[–] baldingpudenda@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Supreme commander was what you describe. You setup your factory to make a unit or a set of units and repeatedly build them until canceled or not enough resources. You could zoom out to view the whole map. it was very much a strategy game and not really tactics or micro.

[–] Olap@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

Beyond all Reason in a similar space

[–] poVoq 16 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You might like: https://www.beyondallreason.info/ (gratis and open-source)

[–] Morgoon@startrek.website 3 points 6 months ago

BAR is an amazing RTS! So many units on screen and 24 player games!

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Hell, I should be able to upload an economic playbook with hundreds of rules like the one you described, and load it on game start. Then all I have to do is the actual unit movements.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Why can't you just set a standing order of "make unit x" or "make unit x while we have gas until we get to 50 of them"? That's strategy. Having to tab back to a building and manually queue a couple of units every several seconds is just creating busywork for players

I agree completely. Related: have you considered turn based strategy games?

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 months ago

Personally I like the PDX style where it's "turn based" but the turns happen rapidly enough to feel like an RTS, and you can pause them at any time.

[–] PapstJL4U@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I feel like people dont understand, that the RT part in rts will always be the important part.

If you free up macro work, people will micro harder. WC3 got rid of most of the macro demand of SC and in consequence you will lose if you dont micro your units ik battle.

SC1 had build pipe lines and it wad still better to issue commands seperatley, because the player is more flexible.

A strategy is worthless if it csn be executed and the limits of execution create strategy.

Extraordinary pathing and all-select created the a-click deathball, that is one of the most boring ways to see, play and lose to.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 6 months ago

Yep, take some ideas from single player colony management games.

It's astounding how much you can "automate" when fully using the filters and rules options in vanilla Rimworld. Mods increase that exponentially. Granted, different genre, singleplayer, and pausable while you configure things.

I think the challenge is balancing that with the real time events you have to react to, so it doesn't further compress the meta to an even smaller set of "optimal" options.

[–] FalseMyrmidon@kbin.run 3 points 6 months ago

Because too much of SC2's design catered to the progamer crowd that liked that kind of stuff. They made some things easier from an APM standpoint but intentionally added more things to make the have not APM intense.

They really bet wrong on how popular that approach would be.

[–] alvas_man@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

That is not true, at least in Age of Empires 2 which is the RTS I'm most familiar. Have a look at the limited viper series to see a good player destroy using only 60 APM. If you make good decisions, you don't need to click as much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7moDQK1Yng&list=PLrFe08sgKX493Gax5DFNkpEbgICGDc0YJ

Why can’t you just set a standing order of “make unit x” or “make unit x while we have gas until we get to 50 of them”?

Because while this will make casuals that will play the game for 3 hours and drop it happy, the typical RTS fans will not enjoy this. There is a trade off between queuing a lot of units and having more resources available for other techs. Having units auto produce without any disadvantage is just kind of boring. Then you are just watching the game, not really playing it.

Maybe you should try turn based strategy, if you don't like real time strategy. In the later, like the name implies, time is the most important resource. You don't need a lot of clicks, but you need to use it wisely.