this post was submitted on 12 May 2024
208 points (95.6% liked)

Games

32957 readers
1215 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Viking_Hippie 6 points 7 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?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 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 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 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.