• 🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. 🔗Click here to enter!
  • It's time for the first HD Modeling Contest of 2024. Join the theme discussion for Hive's HD Modeling Contest #6! Click here to post your idea!

What would be the greatest strategy game of all time!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
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...
Betcha never heard of hit-and-run tactics.
 
Level 6
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
213
you missed my point...as usual, and my point is, units should come from off map, and that there should be no resources, and yet again you think im complaining about resources hording, when actually im saying its too unrealistic. and yeah ive heard of hit and run tactics, but not fire a shot, run come back fire a shot, run then comeback, fire a shot , run then comeback, rinse and repeat until you win...that is incredebly retarded.

and Germany did claimed alot of resources, but it doesn't mean victory no matter what, it all comes down to the decisions and moves you make out in the battle field. + extra resources mean they get a steady flow of tanks coming off of the asembly line, not extra tanks, not 2X more tanks just the same. when Germany claims oil, they now get a steady supply of feul, thats all, when the claim metal resources, they get a more steady flow of materials for tanks.

My whole idea is to make strategy games have more realistic combat, the tactical decisions and strategy, not resource hording because in any battle field, you cant just horde resources nad run because they are miles away, you gotta fight all the way there.
 
Last edited:
Level 26
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
you missed my point...as usual
And you're being a jackass, as usual.
and my point is, units should come from off map, and that there should be no resources, and yet again you think im complaining about resources hording, when actually im saying its too unrealistic. and yeah ive heard of hit and run tactics, but not fire a shot, run come back fire a shot, run then comeback, fire a shot , run then comeback, rinse and repeat until you win...that is incredebly retarded.
No, dude, you just suck at this game. Horribly. Those are hit-and-run tactics.
and Germany did claimed alot of resources, but it doesn't mean victory no matter what, it all comes down to the decisions and moves you make out in the battle field. + extra resources mean they get a steady flow of tanks coming off of the asembly line, not extra tanks, not 2X more tanks just the same. when Germany claims oil, they now get a steady supply of feul, thats all, when the claim metal resources, they get a more steady flow of materials for tanks.
And just where the hell is the fun in that?
People don't want to play a fucking game where you already have all the units. THAT WOULDN'T BE FUN. People want to see their army expand the way they built them.
My whole idea is to make strategy games have more realistic combat, the tactical decisions and strategy, not resource hording because in any battle field, you cant just horde resources nad run because they are miles away, you gotta fight all the way there.
You have no strategy if you're whining about that shit.
 
Level 6
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
213
ok you know what...i just fucking give up, i'll make this game, and if you guys dont wanna play it, fine, your loss it will be. I dont even know what the hell were arguing about anyway, it went from artilery, to C&C3, to starcraft, to the Blitzkreig and to resource hording and only one guy ever said it probebly be a good game, everyone else never said anything about it, all you guys say is its ok to be able to capture someone elses construction yard instantly and sell it instantly...JUST WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU GUYS SEE IN STRATEGY GAMES...GOD DAMMIT >< !!! you guys have never even played a realistic strategy game how do you guys know its not fun, of course its fun, and it brings REAL LIFE TACTICS and strategies into the game. and what the fuck is wrong with real life tactics and strategies!!! seriusly, tell me why they are not OK, and selling your enemies command center is ok!!! tell me and then someone please fucking close this shit!!! i made it to find out if people think i have a good idea, and all i learned is people think a 2 Zergling rush is a fucking strategy and is realistic!
 
Last edited:
Level 6
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
213
And you're being a jackass, as usual.

No, dude, you just suck at this game. Horribly. Those are hit-and-run tactics.

And just where the hell is the fun in that?
People don't want to play a fucking game where you already have all the units. THAT WOULDN'T BE FUN. People want to see their army expand the way they built them.

You have no strategy if you're whining about that shit.

holy fucking god and you say i have no sense of strategy, if you were to play a realistic strategy game you'ld die 2 minutes in the game when you try to go command and conquer style on a fairly well fortified position with an army 1/2 the size of yours. a hit and run is like with planes, fly in, bomb something then get out there, not use a marine or two, attack, run until your persuers give up, comeback fire a shot, run then comeback, that is fucking bullshit, BULLSHIT I SAY!!!!!!! and you think, whats wrong with that? EVERYTHING GOD DAMMIT ><!!! EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

how do you close a thread?
 
Last edited:
Level 6
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
213
before either someone closes this for me or i figure out if i can, someone please explain to me what the hell is wrong with realistic combat in a strategy game, someone please just tell that to me, you never ever ever did explain why you dont like realism.

hey purple poot, your a forum modderator, close this for me, after explaining whats wrong with realistic combat.
 
Level 2
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
20
I don't know which is more annoying in this case:
Grade A Kill's pissed off whimpering or Slaytan's continuous retarded spam...

both maybe :xxd::xxd:

but i LMAO when hes said " fuck i just give up .. or .. holy fck.. --- u say i have no sense for strategy. " hahahahhaahah
 
Level 25
Joined
Mar 31, 2004
Messages
4,468
what is wrong with realism in strategy games?

It won't sell as much compared to unrealistic strategy games

I mean, seriously, you even admitted it'd be slow paced earlier. You overestimate how much patience gamers have. They want instant results, they want systems that look both complex and simple at the same time, and, above all, they don't want to take too much time to do something

Unrealistic strategy games drop realism for fun. And when push comes to shove, that's all anyone really cares about if they're buying games

Personally, looking over your entire thing, my main criticisms are that it is overly complex and the varying factors are all pretty much a slave to realism. Also, making a highly complex AI system that takes in all those factors in an RTS setting where you control large groups of units... Yeah, good luck with that
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top