What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Sleksa
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2244
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:26
Contact:

Re: What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby Sleksa » Sat 9 Sep 2017 21:29

Saavedra wrote:
Razzmann wrote:
Aikmofobi wrote:[*]The phase system.
For example, look at every other RTS ever.

In other RTS the player decides when they want to get into the next tech level, not the game.


At which point the game stops being about tactics and becomes all about who can choose the correct army composition to win against the enemy first.


Yeah you can completely ignore any kind of tactics/micro/macro aspects as long as you choose the correct army composition first, and there's nothing the opponent can do against this.
Image

User avatar
Saavedra
Warrant Officer
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu 10 Apr 2014 21:53
Contact:

Re: What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby Saavedra » Mon 11 Sep 2017 12:01

Sleksa wrote:Yeah you can completely ignore any kind of tactics/micro/macro aspects as long as you choose the correct army composition first, and there's nothing the opponent can do against this.


That is a bit of an exaggeration. What I mean is that when an RTS presents a technological curve together with an economic system, moving your units around and executing combined arms properly becomes a secondary concern, the first now being teching up faster than your enemy into the most meta-approved combination of units.

Steel Division does away with the technology curve and economic system. The technology curve works almost exactly the same for all divisions, and the economic system depends on tactical movements. Granted, divisions get paid differently in each phase, but if you are just better than your enemy at tactics, you are very likely to win, whereas in other RTS, being good at tactics is secondary. Of course, there are other things that help Steel Division follow that paradigm, like there being no health bars for vehicles...

Sleksa
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2244
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:26
Contact:

Re: What worked and what didn't of Steel Division's innovations?

Postby Sleksa » Mon 11 Sep 2017 13:36

Saavedra wrote:
Sleksa wrote:Yeah you can completely ignore any kind of tactics/micro/macro aspects as long as you choose the correct army composition first, and there's nothing the opponent can do against this.


That is a bit of an exaggeration. What I mean is that when an RTS presents a technological curve together with an economic system, moving your units around and executing combined arms properly becomes a secondary concern, the first now being teching up faster than your enemy into the most meta-approved combination of units.


I originally wrote that this makes me want to question if you've ever even played rts games, but on further thought this is such a wrong statement that it warrants a bit better reply. First of all what you're saying is that micromanagement and "executing combined arms properly" -of which the latter i'm unsure of what on earth you're even talking about (but i presume using a mix of different units or types of units) but also generally comes from the mouths of people who have very little clue about how the gameplay works, becomes obsolete as long as you can tech up faster than your enemy. And this whole package is offered without any kind of backup or sourcing to the argument whatsoever, but i can offer a few examples that run against that argument:

In starcraft it's possible to have every kind of tech building possible but still ending up buying a mix of low tech units together with the higher ones even at the later/end stages of the game, examples include zealots to frontline for dragoons, buying marines even when there's tanks or battlecruisers available, or buying zerglings despite having access to mutas/lurkers/ultras. Some of the greatest gaming moments in history even include such moments of dismantling higher tech units with the use of micromanagement, low tech units or both.



In age of empires it's also possible to counter higher tech units with micro / unit compositions including lower tech units, such as buying basic light cavalry to soak up conversions and damage against monks and crossbows/gunpowder units or mixing pikemen into your composition or against catapults



In red alert it's possible to spend the entire game pumping out riflemen and rocket soldiers as well as apcs despite having access to superunits like tesla troopers/tanks, mammoths, artillery and so on, while keeping their micromanagement relevant



In total annihilation the game basically revolves around mixing up units and creating certain compositions that work even if your enemy has teched up.

http://www.tauniverse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33452


Even in games that don't really follow the classical rts genre it's possible to see the same lowtech unit usage and micro trumping against high tech things, in company of heroes it's also basically mandatory in certain matchups



With a direct wargame comparison This is would be more less equally translateable to saying that you don't need to micro or buy anything smaller than a superheavy in wargame as long as you have your superheavy tanks out in the field, or that heavy ifv transports turn cheaper transports useless, which is something I'd expect out of a 10v10 player's mouth, but I don't really see them as people so their opinion is discarded. On the other hand hearing things like the quote below makes me believe you belong in the same pile

Granted, divisions get paid differently in each phase, but if you are just better than your enemy at tactics, you are very likely to win, whereas in other RTS, being good at tactics is secondary.
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest