What would be the greatest strategy game of all time!

[Grade A Kill]

I have had the greatest idea for a video game, ive had this idea since freshman year. if you like SC2 like it no longer if i make it in real life which im realy considering doing just that. PLEASE READ IT ALL BEFORE REPLYING!

The game: the game is to be based in WW II, my goal to make this game would be to make a great realistic strategy game that actually implies REAL Life strategy and Real Life Battlefield tactics. the game would be centered, NOT around ballance like most games, but just ensureing that the game is FUN and no longer fustrating and stressful like in C&C3 and SC2 (only my opinion)

What makes my game so special: The fact that my game uses strategy game and actual tactics is only Sudden Strike 2 RWM and supreme commander accomplished, and that it would be so realistic. most games center around graphics, the graphics i would just make good enough, not like in C&C 3.

The Realism: how realistic would my game be? lets look at the Sherman tank, the Sherman tank was a light tank used by the U.S. it had few AT(anti-tank) Capabilities, is was lightly armored, its gun was weak. but it was fast and easy to repair, and it did its job just well, which is supporting infantry. that is EXACTLY how i would make it in the game, giving a few tweaks here and there to ballance everything out. i would make units EXACTLY as they were in HISTORY
Theres more, when a tank shoots another tank in any other video game, what happens? it takes off a set amount of health which is reduced according to the enemy units armor rating. IN MY GAME it would be like in RWM, the tank could miss its target OR it could hit BUT when it hits it could take off around 15%-100% of its health OR the tanks armor will hold ferm taking no damage, you just here a flat CLUNK of an explosion and there is no damage. NOW the fights very and are much more interesting.
Infanatry would be much more advanced as well, EX you can order infantry to TAKE COVER, OMG SO NEW!!! only faces of war accomplished such a feat. When ifantry take cover behind a wall, so long as they stay in cover bullets can hurt them, only when they reveal themselves to shoot back will they be able to be harmed. Infantry can also miss. AGAIN more interestig and Accurate fighting.

How it would use actual strategy: look at it this way, say the enemy is taking cover and so are you, you can either let them fight which may take a little time, OR you can try to flank the enemy, a flank in any other game is hard to pull off and it doesn't realy have any tactical advantage. In my game however you can attack from the side or behind them, NOW they are not in cover to them are they, that is a good example of strategy i think. another example, ifantry can take cover behind tanks, as they make their slow charge towards the enemy, now MG 42s cant hurt you, BUT there is always a chance it may happen. much more.

The Base: in most games you start out with a command post and you gotta build up everything and you gotta make defenses, you make your army and they just hang around until you think you have enough to attack. IN MY GAME you start out with a fully functional base with a small starting defense force, and a small starting attack force, AND you have t go out and occupie areas, EX bridges, Ports, Repair stations, Train Stations, Anti-air guns, artilery platforms (because it would be annoying if you could make 100 of artilery and roll right out side the enemies bass and pummel it) artierly platforms would be found on ocean cliffs to give you a naval advantage, or on a hill to support nearby areas, NEVER close enough to shell your enemies base, because that would be cheap ass! NOW the game isn't build up a base from sctratch in a dirt lot, build up and army and just keep it there, no, you now go out and take over places that could help you win. SO NOW, the game is more about being out there and fighting, your base will basicly supply your forces out on the field. AND you can't build a base any where else, resources will be unlimited, in other games you can build 8 bases all over the map, you go through a lota trouble to destroy 1 and guess what 7 more to go -_-...

Planes: Airfields i think will come with the base, you can hold up to 20 planes on an airfield, in the places they will be parked at you can up grade them wo be hangers, that way planes cant fly by and try to destory your planes out in the open. Dogfighting willl be very advanced, like in Supreme Commander, your planes dont just hover there like in SC 2, or jsut do figure 8s and shoot one missle at a time like in C&C 3, no, they will now be like a REAL Dogfight, i would look up dogfight meneuvers and program it in, i would make planes like the P-51D Mustang just like they were in HISTORY, the performance, te armement, the armor of the plane, the meneuverability of the plane. so instead of hovering or just doing figure 8s, they fly around at DIFFERENT altitudes, doing what ever the hell they can to beat their oppenent.

OVERPOWER: overpower is a real problem in many games, Supreme command you can get a Robot the could step on your FREAKEN MANSION!!! 4 nukes it takes to take it down. In SC 2 the thor, BC, Mother ship, and the Pheonix are all overpowered. THE ONLY THINGS overpowered, would not be so damn strong that they can win an entire fight just because you had some, but they would be able to overcome alot of people, the only overpower in my game would be the German Tiger tank, Flame Throwers, the Russian Joseph Stalin, and the German ME 262 1a which is the first German Jet. i feel that in history they were pretty damn powerful and i would change that in this game.

Infantry: the M1 Grand is a U.S. gun, i would research it, read its accuracy, power, and Combat record and program it into the game, i would make tweaks to ballance evreyone out. so if you wanna build an infantry unit, you click on M1 Grand to make a unit that carries an M1 Grand, or a Thompson sub machine gun, or a Brittish Lee-Enfield. Infantry can take cover behind small brick walls, or behind tanks, and other buildings, basicly anything that would put something between them and the bullets. they would all follow a universal AI, they would automaticaly seek out cover while in battle, and will perform tactics of their own and work with other soldiers according to their present situation. the tactics they peform will not eliminate any tactical aid thay can receive from you, they may try to flank the enemy, but maybe not to what you would have done, besides its not like you can be in all places at once. Infantry will have AT capabilities, not like normal bullets can kill a tank, but normal infantry like an M1 Grand can try to run up to it and place a bomb on it, rocket soldiers will have secondary weopon like an M1 Grand so they don't shoot rockets at infantry. and rockets will have a chance to miss or if they hit they dont do some set amount of damage. more to this but not enough will to type it all.

Tanks: Tanks would be just as they were in History, i would research say a German Panzer tank, find out its max speed, its up hill climb rate and Climb limit, the gun it has how poerful it is, armor, as well as its combat record.
Most tanks in world war 2 were made to support infantry, tanks would have machine guns so that way theres no tanks are weak against infantry crap. of course that doesn't mean that tanks can srpay down infantry but it gives them something to shhot back with other than its main gun,l Tank vs tank, a Panzer tank wont have a solid chance to kill a Sherman tanks, even though it will be very likly that it will, it eliminates Rock-Paper Scissors, Where a unit is strong fight certain types of units and weak fighting certain units. it makes the game much more dynamic and the fighting now varies.

of some of the infomation i've explained about this game please tell me what you think, i feel i this is the best strategy game EVER!!!

Other things:

there would be no fog of war, or there would be but there would be no "fog" in the fog of war, you cant see your enemies movements, but there isn't any kind of annoying fog in your way. The fog of war would either have no fog or it would, be very light fog, but your units have a very long line of sight. either way, its not like you can see your enemy inside of a city if there are buildings in the way.

Naval Battles: naval battles will vary and will have diverse outcomes, coastal artillery guns give you an advantage, but not a very big one that you WILL win, the artilery will be just like another gun on your side, of course all shots even from artilery will have the chance to miss, and you can target certain parts of the ship, order your ship to target the others bridge, or guns or the bow, stern, or the middle. a naval choke point, a place in which there is little space to meneuver, you have one ship block 2 ships in a small area, and you have a realy big advantage, your ship is at it's broad side and can bring all of its guns to bare, the others are traped in and will have a hard to meneuvering to bring more than there frontal guns to bare.

Cool Battles: one thing i could never make my game with out is BEACH ASSAULTS!!! ingame you can make bunkers and sea walls just like in Normandy, you can even make Tank traps, those spike things. Soldiers will come up in transport ships, be released on the beach, they make a mad dash for the sea wall, some take cover, some hide in fox holes created my explosions machine gun fire blazing, the machine gun when ever it fires the bullet could miss and just hit the water, or the ground showing the spash effects, machine gun fire also wont be just a spray, they will fire in particuler areas in rapid fire, have a small spray effect in the area in which they fire at, constantly changing targets to force some units into cover. then when you defeat the sea wall it is now safe to bring in your transport ships and they start the task of unloading everyone, so you see a crap load of tanks coming out of the transport 1 at a time, along with 100s infantry walking up the beach. it would just be freaken cool!

 

[PurplePoot]

• You want it to be realistic, but you can't artillery the hell out of enemy positions?
• You say you don't want it balanced, and yet you do?
• You say SC2 units such as the Battlecruiser, Phoenix, Mothership, and Thor are overpowered without even having used them?
• You will purposely overpower units? Do you even know what overpower means? >_>

 

[Grade A Kill]

1-my focus is to keep a game fun, and i said you can artilery the hell outa the enemy base, the artilery platforms you can capture can pummel any one that gets in it's range.
2-i said it is'nt my primary focus!!!
3-its not like abuncha flame throwers can kill you no matter what, nor can you mass abuncha tiger tanks and win like in SC2.
4-yes, there are some things in history you can't change, adn overpowered would be like the mothership, open black holes and suck in 10 BCs, planet cracker?

hey wait a minute, how much did you read?

 

[PurplePoot]

I'm going to quote the commentator when he said "nothing is final" on that S t a r ]C[ r a f t video. Also, there have been many updates since then, you apparently have not been following them however.

In StarCraft you cannot simply mass one unit type and win. Go ahead, name me one type you would mass. (Carriers come close in PvT, though)

Also, are you sure a game which would be this micro intensive would be fun?

 

[Grade A Kill]

ok, BCs, not on money maps, i dont play those, i dont play SC 1 anymore either,
but people still have done it to me!

as for SC2, well, can you stop 25 of them? they got yamato guns and plasma guns, oh sure get an OVERPOWERED mothership and just open a black hole.

and this is a game that CAN be micro intensive, its no longer just click on someone then make him do an ability, you can do much more, things you could do in real life. infantry will attempt to do it on there own, as i said, it may not be to your satisfaction, or the way you would do it, but they will still try it, and it makes the fighting realy cool

 

[PurplePoot]

25 of them... First, if you had that much money, and I wasn't putting enough pressure on you to make you use them and lose some, I'm doing something wrong.

Second, that's 150 supply at 6 supply per Battlecruiser (sc1 build). Doesn't leave much room for flexibility (or the kind of workforce needed to mine enough minerals for such an army).

Third, I would use Ghosts with Lockdown and Nuke if I was Terran, and Goliaths/Wraiths would be fine choices too.

With Protoss, Arbiters and Scouts would be your doom, with Dragoons and High Templars providing heavy ground-to-air firepower.

With Zerg, Scourges, Mutalisks, and Devourers would spell the end of those Battlecruisers in a rather quick time. Defilers with plague, or Defilers with Dark Swarm accompanied by Hydralisks would also help.

Satisfied?

as for SC2, well, can you stop 25 of them? they got yamato guns and plasma guns, oh sure get an OVERPOWERED mothership and just open a black hole.

Please read my post about the mothership before you go on about that.

 

[Grade A Kill]

im not satisfied, first thing, this is my post for what i beleive would be the greatest strategy game, not SC2 vs my idea. mine kills sc 2 anyway, and i was protoss in that game, thing is he build 100 missle turrets around his base, and about 25 seige tanks to defend them, all of those were located on the cliffs around his base, inpenatrable, i didn't know this was coming btw, i couldn't keep pressure on him with that kinda of defense, i tried realy hard but it only thinned my forces, i attacked him again and he had destroyed his seige tanks to make more BCs, what does a game come to when you have to kill your own units just to make your army bigger?!? its not like(thnx to the pop limits) i had abuncha dragoons and templar to counter them, AND you have made a fine example of rock-paper-scissors, thank you for making my point!

 

[PurplePoot]

im not satisfied, first thing, this is my post for what i beleive would be the greatest strategy game, not SC2 vs my idea. mine kills sc 2 anyway, and i was protoss in that game, thing is he build 100 missle turrets around his base, and about 25 seige tanks to defend them, all of those were located on the cliffs around his base, inpenatrable, i didn't know this was coming btw, its not like(thnx to the pop limits) i had abuncha dragoons and templar to counter them, AND you have made a fine example of rock-paper-scissors, thank you for making my point!

• If it was not SC2 vs your game, why did you compare your game to SC2 so often?
• 200 population limit is very high, with a protoss infantry unit costing 2.
• It is, to a limited extent, rock-paper-scissors: anything is. There are other units you could use to counter the Battlecruisers. I simply picked the best choices. The main reason StarCraft does not turn into a counter-this counter-that game (though SC2 may turn out more so) is because you normally use a balanced army, not a clone army of one type of unit. Is the fact that an Antitank Gun is an ideal anti-tank weapon rock-paper-scissors? Of course.

 

[Grade A Kill]

1-you are bringing our arguments to this thread, if you have questions about the game ask them here, but dont bring the SC 2 thing here. I dont compare every game to mine and judge it that way, i judge agame on wether or not its fun, or if its just RCP(rock paper scissors) or fustrating.
2-games are better if they have NO pop limit.
3-the best choice is RCP, the game doesn't have to tell you that these certain types of units can kill these certain types of units.
4-if you have further arguments about SC2 plz let us have them at my SC2 thread 8 )
5-if you have questions or compliments about my game plz say so, do you think it a good idea? and before you answer that question plz read the entire thing.

 

[PurplePoot]

I have read the entire thing already.

About the pop limit, that is an opinion, it is fine to think either way, but there is no definite right answer.

The main concerns I have with your game idea is, as I said, the micro, and the artificial handicaps to stop anything that you don't like when you play a game. Basically, what I mean is the fact that you're saying "Let's do this... when it suits me."

 

[Grade A Kill]

there may not be a RIGHT answer but would you realy prefur a pop limit for a game like this? and would these "artifical handi caps" realy irritate you while playing it?

 

[PurplePoot]

Yes, artificial handicaps would irritate me. I wouldn't know about having a pop limit or not until I had played the game; different styles call for different mechanics.

A solution? Make ammunition cost money. Since artillery are quite inaccurate, that would solve the mass artillery problem.

 

[Grade A Kill]

why cant i have artilery capturable? and if i gotta make ammuntion cost money that means i gotta re supply every unit i made, its not very annoying to deal within RWM but they give you supply crates, would you prefur that someone can pummel your base with 50 artilery guns just so an "artifical handicap" wont exist?
you saying you would like to be pummeled? are you saying its fun?!?

you say i had this idea because it suits me, just so i can have these handicaps, you think the whole infantry thing, the dog fighting, the whole tank thing was made up to be a handicap? i'll admit i thought of some of these things because i wanted to keep cheap ass out of my game, i would hate it if someone won because they moved abunch of artilery outside my base, my aim is to make a fun game where you lose because someone perhaps thought of something you didn't, because he saw something you didn't, not because they killed all my resource gatherers, not because they nuked me. its annoying and fustrating and that is what i'd keep out of this game!

 

[Sansui]

so you are keeping strategy out of your game?

 

[PurplePoot]

If someone is pummeling your base with 50 artillery, go kill them goddamnit.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Not only do you contradict yourself, but this isn't even close to "the greatest game ever"... WW2 shooters are old and tired.

 

[Mechanical Man]

But this is strategy game.

 

[Cheeder]

Your deal with "OVERPOWER" has everything to do with balance..

A flank not having any "tactical advantage" is obviously false, and might i add that it's not a matter of getting behind your enemy, it's not as if they can't turn around, but it's a matter of surprising them; making them think something else is happening.

What type of style would you have, the Blizzard style or a FPS? With an FPS your whole deal on "taking cover" then becomes a matter of personal skill and choice. If you control army men like WC/SC style well then you are able to see the enemy's position and it would be a harder game to create. It, and FPS, both have their draw-backs.

As for the realism of not having any one specific goal regarding "winning" (most likely an epic battle of mass people that ends when it ends, last man-standing? Motive?), You'd have to program many different options, so many that no one can remember them all. You say it's all about tactics, well then that means there needs to be a lot of players to observe hints and clues to which tactics are being used, otherwise you have no use for tactics/options.

There would need to be rules. How do you expect realism and an epic battle and have someone who died one minute into it to wait for possibly an hour? Or waiting 45 minutes for people to join the hosted game?

I suggest you take a look at www.americasarmy.com because that game seems to be closer to what you're looking for than anything else i can think of.
I don't mean to discourage you, i hope you refine your ideas and perhaps do some more research into games to help generate ideas. You can't see what you want, you need to see every single aspect of it and even then it must make an impact on whomever you're trying to sell it to, otherwise it just won't fly. Keep at it.



I have a good idea for a game that i will share later.

 

[PurplePoot]

Another reason for flanking, Cheeder, is that if they are obviously going to lose the battle, they can't run.

 

[Cheeder]

Ok, here is my idea for a great game. It's based off of Fallout because everyone knows that's the greatest game ever and everybody would love to have no sense of morality and/or be the last person or one of the last few persons on earth with everything else the way it is as it is now.

Instead of a simple game the size each Fallout maps were, the playig field is the ENTIRE PLANET! To get this done realistically, as it should be, a program using Google Earth/Maps would be needed. What happens is the developer selects any area of city or buildings and the program traces the top outline of the buildings and places them in their correct position in relation to the size of the virtual planet. When the developer selects a huge area and there are some natural formations which are selected as buildings the developer just overlaps the traced outline to the real picture and can edit things fast and easily. Eventually every piece of land is labeled what it is, tundra w/ice-cover, desert, jungle (density), pavement, road, etc.

Now when it comes to detail with the landscape no one is going to send out a team to cover the entire planet in one lifetime, let alone a few. Then there becomes the issue of space needed to actually run the game. By creating static scenarios you increase the file size and we don't want that. So in order to save tons of space each different piece of landscape will be assigned a piece of code. The code will be read when the player stops in that area and generate random placing of trees and what have you. For every ground tile it will automatically be randomly chosen from a large database and placed randomly. The laws governing placement will keep things in enough order that things makes sense and that you could get out of that "field".

When it comes to the 3D environment there are sattelites that can calculate how far above something is from sea level.. For the sake of the game the developer just has to hope there is such a similar tool that determines how high something is from ground level, be a means of laser-measurment from a sattelite.
Since the field of view is N,S,E,W at all times, if you are viewing a hill that runs downward from West to East then the ground-level would be tilted to give that effect, so no static ground-level like in Diablo or WC/SC.

One way that a developer could go with it is having your player be in FP while inside a building and 2nd-person outside; all cities would be static in regard to the buildings positioning, though. So instead of having a static angle of view like in the original Fallout one could manually look around in their 3D environment. The reason i suggest this is because i don't know how you could imply a 50-story building in a NSEW angle of view and your character is on the North side of it.
Also, if two people wanted to duel with melee or hand-to-hand combat, again i stress a mutual duel, then it could go to Tekken-type play.

All landmarks (like Stonehenge, Mt. Rushmore, buildings of importance) would be statically detailed.

The actual gameplay would be similar to Fallout. The storyline is a nucular and chemical world warfare wiped out most of the population. There are main quests for each region but no initial main quest and no quest ends the game (you have an entire world to explore! And tens of thousands of quests). Hmmm, that got me to thinking..
Perhaps a way to create quests for other players could be made. If you ask someone to get you a special item on the other side of the planet and they don't quite make it there or don't care or whatever then they are able to "quit quest". If they have a one-way radio (which sends a signla around the world in about a second) and you have one too then you each could communicate that way. You could also plan to meet somewhere at a certain time to pickup an item and that way you are not stuck in one place waiting.
You would also be able to take a vehicle and a safe and pin-point a random area on the map by going to it and dropping the safe off. If someone else, by chance, stops by and is a master lockpicker or has some explosives then no more goods! That chance is unlikely however after awhile of gameplay the world may be littered with them, but you'd have to be quite lucky to cross with one. This brings me to another aspect..

Time. I haven't quite figured this out but let's say you are traveling accross the land and you just want to ignore everything to get to your destination, sometimes, in Fallout, you'd be forced into a scenario. With other people playing it may be harder to figure this out, as if they see you coming and they want to encounter you. Actually, "within range" they may see you as a beacon on their device that reads nearby lifeforms. They can click on your beacon and meet you. Again the timing.. You don't want to wait a few hours to get from the East coast of the US to the West coast so when you come in range of someone and they spot you, how they are able to click on you to meet you when it shows you going over the land so fast and they are static is, as of now, beyond me.
Another point to be made is the time regarding the date. If you are traveling accross the land so fast and the date is rapidly changing, how it is to match with another is again beyond my thinking as of yet.

Using real-world GPS-like systems, if you have a vehicle and you are traveling along a road a 2D view of the cockpit looking out the window would be shown. Again, gahh, traveling accross the land like that would take as long to do it in the real-world..

A goal to be made for this game is utilizing almost all different aspects of previous games. You have the 2D view, the 3D view, FP, 2nd-person, 2D driver, tekken-style dueling (not regarding projectiles, but maybe), Sims-styled cities, etc.

If you can pin-point a small plot of land like in the Fallout scenarios then having a couple hundred million people playing at the same time may not affect the storyline all that much; not because there would be just a couple hundred million but because they would be so split up and hard to find other then in hubs/cities.

Another toughie is if you kill the president then is he dead for everyone else, too?

Lets say we want each person to play this game for 10 years at the least, if we can live 100 year old then that could be the time-frame of your character's life, 10 real-world years. Every 2.4 real-world hours equals 1 virtual day. Let's say it takes us 10 real-world hours to drive or fly somewhere, in the game it will be 1 hour (distance traveled depends on speed of means of transportation). So almost everything is done in 1/10th of real-world scenarios.

For the sake of the timing mess the era could be set in the 22nd century, that way space-bound aircraft could be found easily. Once in space, after you take virtual flying lessons (where available) or go with a buddy, you just need to wait a moment before returning to earth on the other side of the planet.

Fork.. this game is starting to sound as mindless as any Blizzard game, or like GTA without the specifically concentrated violence. There's gotta be a main quest and there must be specific sub-quests otherwise the plot is needlessly specific.
The whole thing about creating 3D environments using real-world sattelites and various technologies is what i'm really interested to see be implemented into any sort of game.. Fallout plot just rules the fantasy world.

whatever
/ranting ideas

 

[Cheeder]

...i would hate it if someone won because they moved abunch of artilery outside my base, my aim is to make a fun game where you lose because someone perhaps thought of something you didn't, because he saw something you didn't, not because they killed all my resource gatherers, not because they nuked me. its annoying and fustrating and that is what i'd keep out of this game!

I can agree with this concept, i believe anyone would. A drawback is, for instance if FP, you'll need a great amount of detail. Now the detail is not the problem but rather the virtual technology employed by the soldiers. For instance, i'f have it very very VERY hard to make sniper because with detail or no detail it's going to be hard to spot a sniper killing off your men through a space between leaves in a tree(s).

I wish i could see your vision but i can't, so i'm going to relate to you how your vision sounds to a vision of my own.
- I want to create a movie with a title similar to "The 5 Deaths of Mr. Brown". How the storyline unfolds is the testimony of the witnesses is being told to a detective who is piecing it all together. In the end it shows that from these 5 person's point of view it looked as if he died 5 different ways by 5 different things or people. Where to begin to envision even one perspective is beyond me.
- You say you want to create this WWII game of almost pure strategy. A strategy game is based on that which is unknown; play one of your levels enough and it becomes known, therefore creating a large number of possible strategies is very hard. If you can't think of several possible strategies, complete with detail-specific scenarios/environment, then creating many possible ones for many maps, let alone one, is an unlikely achievement.

Let me restate, you can't see what you want, you need to see every single aspect of it.

 

[Grade A Kill]

A flank not having any "tactical advantage" is obviously false, and might i add that it's not a matter of getting behind your enemy, it's not as if they can't turn around, but it's a matter of surprising them; making them think something else is happening.

What type of style would you have, the Blizzard style or a FPS? With an FPS your whole deal on "taking cover" then becomes a matter of personal skill and choice. If you control army men like WC/SC style well then you are able to see the enemy's position and it would be a harder game to create. It, and FPS, both have their draw-backs.

As for the realism of not having any one specific goal regarding "winning" (most likely an epic battle of mass people that ends when it ends, last man-standing? Motive?), You'd have to program many different options, so many that no one can remember them all. You say it's all about tactics, well then that means there needs to be a lot of players to observe hints and clues to which tactics are being used, otherwise you have no use for tactics/options.

a flank does have a tactical advantage, i just said in most games they dont. in SC2 for example, thanks to a short fog of war, and pop limits and its fast paced fighting and gameplay, by the tame you can even move in position the fight will probebly be halfway over, and what would flanking them do? you attack them from the side and what? do they think "uh oh the guys probebly planning something, i better pull back" no, and if you attack from the side...well what does that do?

the "Blizzard" style, you mean the way people fight, move and get resources? and FPS im not familier with how you actually make a strategy game, its programm etc. i would have my own style, not blizzards.

and as for realism, realsim practicly makes the tactics and strategy, your idea of strategy is Rushing for example. games seem to have a list of strategies, ive seen them at blizzard sites. how would taking cover and flanks not make the game tactical? if you flank from the side or behind in real life you have a clear shot at the enemy if they are taking cover. my idea is to make everything as it would in world war two, and the realism and the setup of the game would make it flexable, unlike in other games where they program all the strategies in the game.

i say there is no better way to reflect REAL LIFE strategy in a game than to make the game as close to how it was in real life!

and about my deal with overpower, i worded it wrong up there, you see i play supreme commander and some guy sends two giant spider robot things at me and that obliterates everything, about the things i listed as overpowered, well i have seen alot of documentaries on WW 2 and tiger tanks, flame throwers, and the ME 262, those things are freaken powerful. and i wanted to mention that there are very powerful units.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Grade A Kill, let me explain to you how much of an awful game concept your game is.

You want realism, but you don't want planes on the ground to be mowed down? You want realism, but you won't allow for artillery to shoot from anywhere? You want realism, but you want everyone to be invulnerable while in cover? Here's a hint: bullets can pierce walls too*. You want realism and for actual tanks to work exactly how they work in real life, yet you'll purposely balance some of them or leave certain units out of your game?

You constantly compare yourself to SC2, which hasn't even come out yet. You constantly call other games worse than yours. You want something new, yet you make a World War 2 shooter?

Don't start shouting amateur game design crap and say it's the best game ever. You think realism is easy to make in video games? Do you have any idea how much time and effort it takes to implement all that? I'm starting to doubt you even know the basic mechanics of video games.

 

[Grade A Kill]

1.) i didn't say planes on the ground cant be mowed down, i just say you can upgrade hangers so that it would take more.
2.) you would prefur that i can move 100s of artilery just far enough from your base a pummel it in sceonds? i make artilery captureable for a reason.
3.) i dont constantly say my game is better, though i think it because i dont think much of starcraft.
4.) not every tank i put in will be balance, but some should because wouldn't it suck if you couldn't win as Russia because Germany has tanks so good you cant deal with it.
5.) and i didn't even say more than infantry can take cover.
6.) i named my post "what could be the best strategy game" not "the best strategy game i thought of" it is because i am realy considering designing this game that i want to know what people think of it.
7.) completly realistic and this game may prove only to be annoying, fustrating and very damn difficult.
8.) just because i dont know how to program a game, doesn't mean i cant imagine one.
9.) people would complain that realism wouldn't be very good, but your yelling at me that my game isn't realistic enough!
10.) you say my game sucks because i've said bad things about SC2, well dammit by all means you can still like that game, i wont, and may never understand what people see in it.
11.) i compare some examples in my description of other games so people can see what point im trying to make over what exists.
12.) is my game an awful concept because i say bad things about starcraft, or because im trying to make a game more than "fun" than realistic?

 

[Elenai]

One word....customization.

 

[PurplePoot]

a flank does have a tactical advantage, i just said in most games they dont. in SC2 for example, thanks to a short fog of war, and pop limits and its fast paced fighting and gameplay, by the tame you can even move in position the fight will probebly be halfway over, and what would flanking them do? you attack them from the side and what? do they think "uh oh the guys probebly planning something, i better pull back" no, and if you attack from the side...well what does that do?

I have won a game in StarCraft before by flanking a group of hydras.

i say there is no better way to reflect REAL LIFE strategy in a game than to make the game as close to how it was in real life!

And yet handicap anything that you don't like.

and about my deal with overpower, i worded it wrong up there, you see i play supreme commander and some guy sends two giant spider robot things at me and that obliterates everything, about the things i listed as overpowered, well i have seen alot of documentaries on WW 2 and tiger tanks, flame throwers, and the ME 262, those things are freaken powerful. and i wanted to mention that there are very powerful units.

They're usually called "super-units".

2.) you would prefur that i can move 100s of artilery just far enough from your base a pummel it in sceonds? i make artilery captureable for a reason.

Which contradicts the quote two above this one. Read it. Also, if they can get 100s of artillery, then

• You should have already won because they were not putting any money into units to defend a normal assault.
• They would be easy to attack and destroy due to a lack of money for defences

3.) i dont constantly say my game is better, though i think it because i dont think much of starcraft.

I quote the title of this thread: "What would be the greatest strategy game of all time!"

4.) not every tank i put in will be balance, but some should because wouldn't it suck if you couldn't win as Russia because Germany has tanks so good you cant deal with it.

Russians had the Russian Winter. This also contradicts that realism quote.

7.) completly realistic and this game may prove only to be annoying, fustrating and very damn difficult.

Very contradictory to your earlier post. By the way, if you hate losing so much, how come you play video games at all?

9.) people would complain that realism wouldn't be very good, but your yelling at me that my game isn't realistic enough!

We were complaining it would be bad?

12.) is my game an awful concept because i say bad things about starcraft, or because im trying to make a game more than "fun" than realistic?

Because you're handicapping everyone who uses strategies against you that you don't seem to understand are counterable.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

This is ridiculous, Grade, you obviously have no organisation... Think for more than 5 seconds on how your game will work.

You're basically saying "My game would be perfect" without even realising what that implies.

 

[Grade A Kill]

the "my game would be perfect" is just my opinion basicly because i thought it up, and my game is supposed be fun, realistic, slower paced as well. and purple poot, i dont hate losing, i hate losing to cheap ass strategies, like in C&C 3 once for example, some guy attacks me 45 seconds in the game, my army vs. his i would easily have won, except for the engineer i spotted at the last second when he capture my construction yard and sold it instantly. thats just messed up.

and how should bases be? i thought about it for a while, would the game become massing powerful units like the tiger tank if i had a base, because obviosly you can just build one after the other.
or should it be like Sudden Strike 2 RWM where you get reinforcements from off map for capturing certain objectives, so far i like RWM's way because it gets rid of rushes which are unrealistic and very very cheap, and the limited units gives you an incentive yo keep them alive, and it also gets rid of massing one type of unit.

 

[Cheeder]

I'll make a point and ask a question..

amassing anything in a WWII game is unrealistic.

have you played america's army yet?

 

[Lightskin]

i like idea, if u complete it some time count on me for testing

also if u need help in something with photoshop, i can help u

for those who think he can't do it, well, this thing just take knowledge and time, if he got those, then i don't see why it wouldn't be completed.

 

[DarkDenizen]

That and a full team of expert coders, modelers, artists, etc. There's a reason not not many people have a professional-quality (or any quality) game out on the market.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

i hate losing to cheap ass strategies, like in C&C 3 once for example, some guy attacks me 45 seconds in the game, my army vs. his i would easily have won, except for the engineer i spotted at the last second when he capture my construction yard and sold it instantly. thats just messed up.

So the only reason you want to make a game is so you won't lose to completly legitimate strategies.

 

[alfredx_sotn]

I find a simple game of Reversi be more strategic.

EDIT:

i hate losing to cheap ass strategies, like in C&C 3 once for example, some guy attacks me 45 seconds in the game, my army vs. his i would easily have won, except for the engineer i spotted at the last second when he capture my construction yard and sold it instantly. thats just messed up.

You just got outplayed. Obviously his strategy worked on you, how is that messed up? You want a game that involves strategy, but you disapprove a strategy you lost to because you weren't paying attention. Contradicting ourselves now aren't we?

 

[The_wand_mirror]

Greatest strategy game would be somekind of RTSMMORPG =D

I've thought about it, it seems hard to create but listen;

You have one world (Just like the world map) and within that world you start with your tribe/civilization depending on the race you picked. Now the whole world lies open for you to conquer. You will kill enemy NPC's and take over they're territory etc. Meanwhile you wage war and get more territory you also upgrade your age. From stoneage to spaceage (or however you want to call it lawl it was just a stupid name i made up). You can do everything you want, like having all territories and creating one huge country (will be very hard to protect from invaders) or you can just keep your country normal sized and forge alliances between your country and start trading and get a balanced economy. You will also have heroes (offcourse). Dunno what the maximum could be, like 3 or 5 i think and also will be fully customizable with armors, swords, helmets and other gear.

But does this make it a MMORPG you think? Well thats the stupid idea, you cant put everyone in one world because others will be much more advanced. Also its stupid to make a start point because it will be crowded with heroes and starting units. You cant transfer your country to a Multiplayer server because its possible that someone else could've already taken your spot and everything would be fucked up. No instead of that you can enter, together with your whole country, a Multiplayer server that pastes all countries to eachother having somekind of maximum like 50 players with epic countries, 100 players with large countries, 250 players with medium countries, 500 players with small countries and 1000 players with tiny countries. The main goal of the multiplayer server would be to fight and pillage other players' towns and cities. But also you will be able to trade with other players or create quests like escorting a great trade caravan from your country to one of his allied countries and you will receive money for it.

Something like that >.<

 

[Night_Gob]

ever tried company of heroes?

 

[The_wand_mirror]

Mh i don't think thats the same. Maybe it comes close with the hero concept but my idea is way of.

 

[Grade A Kill]

have you guys ever played a realistic strategy game? check out sudden strike 2 RWM (real warfare mod) its on youtube.

before i go on, let me just say i dont hate massing armies, just massive armies that is just "1" type of unit, its just kinda stupid. i want a mixed variety, then thats cool.

let me try to rephrase the whole tank section with an example:
lets say im gonna make a Soviet ISU-152, it a SPG (self propelled gun) basicly a long ranged tank, cee pictures of it on Wikipedia, i have looked up its abilities:
fireing rate- 1-2 rounds per minute
power- a powerful shell with 400 pounds of TNT, and it does a bit of fragmentation, but it can only hold about 20 shells max.
speed- i dont remeber that exact speed, but is was slow.
armor- pretty think, i dont remeber the exact thinkness.
it had a little more i beleive but im not going over everything.

all these things is what i make it then i stop there, you put in its capabilities and stop! also make that armor thinner in some areas as it was in real life.

now let me make an example if real life tactics: 5 Shermans find 1 tiger tank, what do you do? go command and conquer style on it? try to attack from the side? well in real life what they did was 1 tank would distract the tiger while the others snuck around it to destroy it from behind where its armor is thinnest.

you dont need to program all these things into a game to make it strategical, if you wanna make a game invilve real life strategies, make it real! Not completly real because thats no entertainment, its a headache, how would you like it if it took 4 days to repair a tiger tank? or your expensive tiger tank lost to a crappy light tank because its steering broke out in mid combat, one of your planes crashes into your army by accident.

Now the infantry thing, if you guys are wondering why i want them to be able to take cover its because of this: it adds to the realsim and varies the fights, as in you get a different result everytime, or almost. it looks much cooler than infantry standing out in the open. and i saw it in Faces of war, it looked sooooo cool, the game is way too micro intencive though, however my goal with that is to make the fighting more interactive, as in you dont HAVE to be there guiding them all the way, but you can give them such commands. nothing that soldiers can do in the game will be ristriced from the players command. and again if you flank from the right of infantry cover, now they aren't exactily behind the wall to the flank are they?

i need your guy's opinions on a matter of Ambivulance. I am deciding what the means of unit production should be.

I can go with either RWM style where untis come from off map from mission triggers or capture objectives. OR bases, here are the good and bad of them.

RWM style: good,
Having limited units and supplies gives you an incentive to keep them alive, and having to work with what you got, fore example, in RWM i had to go without spare ammo for and hour, i had to think of a few ways to make my units last longer.

RWM the Bads- having a limited unit supply may make you a little timid about making some strategic decisions of fear of losing too many, although i suppose thats how it is in real life.

Bases: the goods,
having a base gives you access to more units, it makes the game fun, you can take more risks if you choose, its not the total end of the world if you lose one battle, and you get to make more units of the large cariety i would place in the game. for example in RWM there are 130 tanks divided among 5 factions, including alittle for italy and france but you can select to be them in multi-player.

Bases the bads: there is no incentive for your troops to live which gets rid of the strategical value. some guy could just make 100 trucks to move 100 artillery, move them close enough to your base far inside the fog of war, and shell it from afar easily, how ever i could make it so artilery is capturable, say you capture artillery platforms cant move them but they help out what ever is in range. im pretty sure there were more i thought up, but i dont remember

 

[SantaBla]

I don't know what you consider the greatest strategy of all time, but the most popular one is of course, Starcraft. Here's a list of best selling strategy games I found in my Guiness World Records book, Gamer's edition.

Starcraft = 9.5 million units sold
Warcraft Orcs and Humans = 8 million
Populous = 4 million
Cossacks: European Wars = 4 million
Warcraft 3 = 4 million
Civilizations 3 = 4 million
Age of Empires = 3 million
Command and Conquer: Red Alert = 3 million
Anno 1602 = 2.5 million
Black and White = 2 million
Age of Empires 3 = 2 million
Command and Conquer: Tiberium Sun = 1.5 million

 

[Grade A Kill]

I don't know what you consider the greatest strategy of all time, but the most popular one is of course, Starcraft. Here's a list of best selling strategy games I found in my Guiness World Records book, Gamer's edition.

Starcraft = 9.5 million units sold
Warcraft Orcs and Humans = 8 million
Populous = 4 million
Cossacks: European Wars = 4 million
Warcraft 3 = 4 million
Civilizations 3 = 4 million
Age of Empires = 3 million
Command and Conquer: Red Alert = 3 million
Anno 1602 = 2.5 million
Black and White = 2 million
Age of Empires 3 = 2 million
Command and Conquer: Tiberium Sun = 1.5 million

Here is what i think is the best strategy game:

1.) Realism- things like tanks can miss n' such because they add diversity to the fight.
2.) Interactive
3.) Cool fighting- as in people dont just stand in one place and shoot at each other.
4.) no cheap ass things like rushes, it is not a realstic representaition of real warfare, in RWM if you try to rush in a multiplayer game, well you will be anihilated. you capture territories to get reinforcments from off map, no base to worry about, no rushes to worry about.

Play RWM and you'll see, it's gamepay goes 5X deepere than that of starcraft's. And could ya answer my question up there i realy dont know which to choose.

 

[Mecheon]

like in C&C 3 once for example, some guy attacks me 45 seconds in the game, my army vs. his i would easily have won, except for the engineer i spotted at the last second when he capture my construction yard and sold it instantly. thats just messed up.

Would you have preferred him luring away your units with a distraction, then sending in a more powerful force to bomb the hell out of your construction yard before running off?

Because its the same thing, he just did it with one unit. High risk, high reward. Its your fault for not paying attention

4.) no cheap ass things like rushes, it is not a realstic representaition of real warfare, in RWM if you try to rush in a multiplayer game, well you will be anihilated. you capture territories to get reinforcments from off map, no base to worry about, no rushes to worry about.

Um... Yes, it is a realistic thing

While I hate to bring this topic near Godwin's law, I think you'll find that the Nazis in WW2 blitzed France and completely took them over in a short space of time. That's a textbook example of rushing

 

[Instant Ramen]

There are no "cheap ass things" in war. Kill or be killed. The way to victory is by any means necessary.

Rushes, flanking, resource hoarding... Those are all valuable tactics in my arsenal when I play strategy games. I don't hesitate and think, "Hmm, is this "cheap ass" enough for me not to use it?" No. There is no fairness, it's using the resources given to you to destroy the enemy.

 

[LordDz]

4.) no cheap ass things like rushes, it is not a realstic representaition of real warfare, in RWM if you try to rush in a multiplayer game, well you will be anihilated. you capture territories to get reinforcments from off map, no base to worry about, no rushes to worry about.

I always have wondered what the Germans meant with Blitzkreig, do you have any clue?

But how long does it take to play? Should I try it out?

 

[Mecheon]

I always have wondered what the Germans meant with Blitzkreig, do you have any clue?

But how long does it take to play? Should I try it out?

Blitz: Lightning
Kreig: I'm unsure, however I'm pretty sure it means either war or battle. Someone should try to correct me on that

But seriously people, he hasn't posted for a fair few days, the topics are pretty damn useless at the moment

 

[Grade A Kill]

Blitz: Lightning
Kreig: I'm unsure, however I'm pretty sure it means either war or battle. Someone should try to correct me on that

But seriously people, he hasn't posted for a fair few days, the topics are pretty damn useless at the moment

the Blitzkreig was not exactly a rush, fast attacks yes, but it wasn't, start with 0 units and build up alota tanks (while on the battlefeild) early in the fight and charge. no, the Germans Prepared massive amounts of tanks months before they even attacked Poland and France. in a game, both players enter the map at the same time, one builds up alota tanks very eraly on and charges, its like Germany entering the battle feild with 100s of tanks, France appears with what they got but it was also Frances command cycle, it was not as fast as the Germans was, Germany could order an attack more quickly than France could order something.

and i haven't been posting because im Learning C#. but im gonna repost the idea right here, try to re explain things.

 

[Grade A Kill]

Read this all, it may be kinda jumbled but ii wont give up in explaining my idea.

Heres how the infantry will work, because infantry are the core unit in WW II, i want to be able to more than just tell them where to go and what to kill, i want to be able to order them to take cover, behind a brick wall, a building, or even a tank. and every infantry unit has an A.I. if under fire they will automaticly seek out cover, they may even try to flank the enemy if they have enough troops. (when i make this game i may change that up)

Heres how the tanks work, a Sherman tank for example, fighting a Panzer tank, there are many factors that can create the outcome, the tanks armor, the tanks gun, the position of the tank, the angle of the tank, all these factors can affect the battle, just like in real life. the Sherman A.I. will know that the Panzer will have thick armor on the front, so it will try to go around and make a side penetration where it's armor is weaker. with the whole armor thing, if you flank a tank, you can get a good side penetration adding tactics into the gameplay.

The gameplay:
Unlike in other strategy games, where there are no tactics, and because of so, they are too fast paced, WW II will have a slower paced gameplay so that the player can make tactical decisions. In a Normal skirmish map, you start off calling reinforcements from off map, like an infantry platoon, AT infantry, medium tank platoons n' such. you go off and caputre strartegic locations that give you an advantage over your enemy, for example a port, where you can gain extra reinforcements by see, repair stations, train stations for supplies and ammo, and air fields.

A tank fighting a tank, obviosly a Sherman up against a tiger means your doom, even if you have 3 or so, your still likly yo lose. But...if you flank it, use a few buildings to cover your movement while 1 or 2 f your tanks distract it, then attack from the side. Now if you have a Losif Stalin (Russian heavy tank) against a tiger tank, you can either let fate decide who wins or you can try other things depending on the terrain. if ther is a building near by, park your tank slightly behind it, so make the tiger accidentaly hits the building instead of the side of your tank.

the A.I. of course does not mean your units are gonna scatter out and get lost, it means they will automaticly take cover whil;e underfire, unless you prefure they shoot back while out in the open. and its not like infantry units can completly make decisions on there own, my idea is to make the game more interactive.

If you catch an airfeild you can order planes in from off map, an air transport to drop supplies or troops around the map, you can call in bombers interceptors, and reconasance planes. But mostly you have to call in planes from off map.

In this game you do not just build a base like in other games, but you can build things, you can setup sandbags to fortify a location, anti-air guns, and camo nets to make artilery implacements invisible to air reconasance. each costs supplies from a supply truck which you order from off map.

Here is how I intend to form the combat engine, this is hard to explain...When an rifleman fires shot,the bullet is like a rocket in halo, you may miss your intended target, but the rocket will keep going and may even kill something else it runs into. such is the same here, but the Bullet does not take time to travel, but the unit may miss it's intened target and hit the guy behind him, that i think will be very damn cool.

Medics have an important role, when an infantry unit gets wounded that he cant fight, his freinds or a medic will pull him out of harms way unless hes already in cover. the medic will patch him up to keep him alive, after the battle, he will be taken back to an aid station so that he can fight again later. after a battle you will not have time to get the wounded to an aid station everytime, so perhaps he can just heal over time after the battle, so the guy who was just shot in the leg wont come back 1 minute later in the heat of battle.

I may include Naval battles, most likly for the pacific campaign. but i have not yet decifered the fighting yet, perhaps i will watch dog fights on the history channel for ideas. (yes the show "Dog Fights" does sometimes cover naval battles)

for Each tank that i will include in the game (which will be almost everything) i am researching them to make them exactly like they were in real life and put the into the game.

 

[Grade A Kill]

There are no "cheap ass things" in war. Kill or be killed. The way to victory is by any means necessary.

Rushes, flanking, resource hoarding... Those are all valuable tactics in my arsenal when I play strategy games. I don't hesitate and think, "Hmm, is this "cheap ass" enough for me not to use it?" No. There is no fairness, it's using the resources given to you to destroy the enemy.

Resource hording isn't the same in a video game than in real war, you know where we get Uranium and other metals for tanks and planes? 1,000s of miles away from the battle field. You know where we get your tanks and planes asembled, 1,000s of miles away from the battle field. We send them in from all the way back here at home, obviosly...Resource hording in a strategy game (and these example realy did happen to me) is flying in with a buncha mutalisks, blowing up the resource gatherers and running before the anti-air can destroy all of them. Resource Hording is massing Hypogriff riders, flying behind my base and demolishing the gold mine, why it should cost gold to create units...i cant say.

A cheap ass strategy is capturing the enemy construction yard 30 seconds into the game and selling to win...how is that even remotly realistic, how is that not cheap ass!!! just WTF was EA thinking when they made C&C3?!?

flanking is not cheap, a flank in world war two against a tank and you could blast it in one shot. cheap? no. REAL. It is a realistic representation of war, but it almost never exists in a game. (except RWM)

Rushes, well seeing as though tanks and vehicles are not constructed on the damn battle field, you come in with what units you already got. rushes are cheap and are NOT a realistic representation of war. A rush is an attack early in the fight when one player constructs 1 or more units redicuolsly early in the game when the oppentent didn't make any yet.

In the Blitze, Germany enters France with a crao load of tanks, all were constructed months before then, they attack with Panzer tanks, Infantry, and all the vehicles they had in there arsenel at that time. they both didn't enter battle at the same time, Germany did not build up a couple of tanks 2 minutes into the war, charge and beat the French forces that they could assemble. no!

Can you just give me you damn opinions about the game instead of yelling at me for saying a rush isn't realistic! thats the whole reason i made this. And incase your wondering, no this game is ultimate realism, ultimate realism isn't fun, go to google and type in ultimate war simulation and see what i mean, its a realy funny article.

 

[Grade A Kill]

I always have wondered what the Germans meant with Blitzkreig, do you have any clue?

But how long does it take to play? Should I try it out?

How long does it take to play RWM? well buy the game, download RWM from youtube (thats the way i did it but you can try typing RWM 6.71 in google) download it to the sudden strike folder, switch the mod with the mod switcher and bam your playing the greatest strategy game known despite how many games were sold. and you guys never heard of RWM because its a mod and its a mod from Europe. so yes LordDz i recomend this game, play it then know what a true strategy game is.

 

[PurplePoot]

the Blitzkreig was not exactly a rush, fast attacks yes, but it wasn't, start with 0 units and build up alota tanks (while on the battlefeild) early in the fight and charge. no, the Germans Prepared massive amounts of tanks months before they even attacked Poland and France. in a game, both players enter the map at the same time, one builds up alota tanks very eraly on and charges, its like Germany entering the battle feild with 100s of tanks, France appears with what they got but it was also Frances command cycle, it was not as fast as the Germans was, Germany could order an attack more quickly than France could order something.

Err, no, it's not like when you rush you start off with hax free units to do the job for you, while your enemy starts with nothing.

Rushing would be like if one country in a war didn't build any military then was invaded by someone who did...

flanking is not cheap, a flank in world war two against a tank and you could blast it in one shot. cheap? no. REAL. It is a realistic representation of war, but it almost never exists in a game. (except RWM)

I think your old artillery argument just died with this quote.

Can you just give me you damn opinions about the game instead of yelling at me for saying a rush isn't realistic! thats the whole reason i made this. And incase your wondering, no this game is ultimate realism, ultimate realism isn't fun, go to google and type in ultimate war simulation and see what i mean, its a realy funny article.

And this one just killed the previous quote.

 

[Grade A Kill]

Well dont worry, the old artilery argument no longer matters, seeing as though you call artilery from off map, you can buy 20 of them yes, but then your are now considerablbly weak in the tank and infantry fields. so, that is settled now i'd say.

Did i say that this game is ultimate realism? sorry realy bad typo, i meant to say isn't, no unit statistics or anything like that, just realistic combat, and i dont see why realistic combat is such a bad thing to you guys... just what the hell is wrong with realism, really.

Oh and could you answer my quotes about Resource hording? because you seem only to argue with me about typos and when i say a game is cheap ass.

 

[Grade A Kill]

Rushing would be like if one country in a war didn't build any military then was invaded by someone who did...

rushing can only be describe in a game, i cant explain how a rush would work in real life, i could say, its like two countries declare war on each other, one builds a stronger military faster and cahrges before the other one is ready...

Thing is, in a real life battle, there are no bases where you build units, you come in with what you got, you can attack early in a battle...i guess, but the other country will already have their army, they dont just build one on the battle field. so there isn't such a thing as attacking early in the battle before the other side has build up it's forces.

A rush is when two players start out, one builds, say, a marine, then charges to the enemy base, the enemy has 0 people except workers, so you make the marine attack, then run when they come at you, then when they give up, you come back take a bunhca shots, then run when they attempt to defend themselves until they're all dead. War never has been and will never be like that, if it ever does...then all i can say is...wtf...