Adams on the state of RTS

Tiberian Sun

Rise of Nations was an awesome game, albeit it looks a bit dated now. I still love it, and I'm pretty excited about Rise of Legends. There were some issues with the demo (like it wouldn't play music on my gaming desktop, but would on my intel graphics CHIP powered laptop...), and occasional crashes, but it was fun to play, and satisfying to win.

You know, Battle for Middle-earth 2 is a game that I plan on getting, which would be the first RTS that I have ever bought for a console. I think that it will be a success, especially since I plan on getting it, which is saying a lot since I hate the damn genre and wouldn't be caught dead carrying thatkind of game in my hand in public. I dunno why, but I have a weird attraction to this game.

Westwood's Command & Conquer series. I must stretch the word "Westwood" when I mention C&C. Even though Tiberian Sun wasn't well liked overall, Westwood Studios sure pulled it off when they did Red Alert 2, being one of my favorite C&C games.

Sadly, after Renegade the series just went straight down hill when EA took over and shut down Westwood for good.

Emperor: Battle for Dune is another good RTS. Again, by Westwood Studios.

Petroglyph Games is sure slowly rising(after the well received Empire at War with critics). Give it some time and hopefully we'll see some great RTS like when they did Dune 2, C&C and Emperor.

For my money, it just doesn't get any better than StarCraft.

(AKA StarCrack)

Hey Joystiq! You have Civ4 in your pic for this article, which is turn based, not real time.

I'm currently playing Pikmin 2 and its so far departed from any other RTS I've played you can hardly put it in the same genre. So much fun, but so horrible when my little Pikmin die :( Seriously, I'm more attached to the little guys than I ever was to Alyx Vance or Barney...

Total Annihilation.

9 years later and I still have it installed on my machine. I can't wait to see what Chris Taylor comes up with in the "spiritual successor to TA" called Supreme Commander.

Westwood's Red Alert 2 and Blizzard's Starcraft. If only Westwood could magically return to make RA3 or if Blizzard would get off their fairy/orc asses and make Starcraft 2, but no go just yet. Would consider rts ONLY on the revolution. The freakin controller can act as a mouse! The revolution will own all.

Warcraft 2 and Starcraft.

Warcraft because besides being a great rts, it is the only rts that I know of that has any sort of humor in it. Good humor, that is. Well, besides Starcraft.

And Starcraft because it is amazingly well balanced, with distinct and unique differences between the factions.

To me, this was pretty much the pinnacle of RTS games. No rts that I know of is superior to Starcraft. Which is why I've pretty much stopped playing rts games, other than the occasional Rise of Nations/Age of Mythology/Age of Empires(they are all basically the same) game.

Now if they came out with Starcraft 2, I'd be back on the bandwagon in a heartbeat.

btw, Civ is, by definition, not a rts. The operating words in rts being REAL TIME. Great game though.

DUNE II will always be the first RTS in my heart. I was playing that when I was 8 years old. Hard to believe it has been 14 years, since then. To this day I argue that game was better than Command&Conquer and Warcraft (though those are #2 and #3 on my list).

My very first tank rush...

Warcraft 2 was great as was red alert and RA2.
I would love it on the '360 but ONLY if MS build in mouse/keyboard fuctionality. Or even just mouse.

The controller is fantastic, but just can't play these sorts of games.

No love for warcraft3?

And the problem with RTS on consoles is the lack of hotkeys and quick groups I think. Even though the revolution has the whole mouse thing possible, you can't beat a good ol keyboard + mouse for ...

[Based off of Warcraft 3]

Left Click Select Unit -> B -> A -> Select Location -> #4 -> B -> G -> TAB -> T -> #1 -> A -> Left Click -> F1 -> NumPad 7 -> C -> Left Click -> (Sound File Plays: YOUR BASE IS UNDER ATTACK!) SPACEBAR etc.

There! I just selected a worker unit, built a structure, selected my group of buildings, built a unit(s), selected another group of buildings, built another units(s), switched to my control group of 10 units, ordered Attack + area, selected my hero, used a Mana Potion in my inventory, used a special spell on an enemy, and centered my screen to my base after hearing I'm under attack from something, all in about the span of 10 or 15 seconds depending on how fast your fingers move around. Now try doing the same tasks using only a mouse, our Revolution controler, scrolling across the screen, taking your merry time. Not to mention how that would get really tireing from all the quick wrist flicks over the course of a game.

Now granted this is really more of a multiplayer issue, I can see single player games not being so difficult since your only playing an AI, but really... in RTS multiplayer is where its at, it's just not as enjoyable to beat a computer when you can have the human factor involved and strategies flying left and right.

Just my two cents but honestly I think most people who play RTS feel the same way GENERALLY. This was all too obvious if you ever tried to play a copy of Starcraft for the Nintendo 64 ughhh.

Oh and I know consoles usually have a keyboard and mouse that you can purchase for the respective system, but seriously, how many people go and buy them. And if you DO get one and play people that never did, well you should almost always the upper hand. Oh and as a small footnote I've never been quite comfortable trying to use one on my couch or in a chair in front of the TV. Unless you get a small desk in front of you (which sort of defeats the whole.. console and comfort of your couch thing instead of a computer desk and chair) it can be rather annoying trying to find a comfortable position to be in.

I could be very much mistaken, but wasn't Dune II on the Amiga (where I first played it) long before it was ported to any consoles? And the eventual port, Dune 2000, was pretty terrible.

The RTS that has a special place in my heart is the age of empire games. I remember pirating Age of Empires I back in 1997 because I couldn't afford the game (I was 9..)
To this day I play a game of AOE I, II, or III every once in a while.

I played Populus on the Amiga sometime between 1988 and 1990? Lets just call it 20 years ago. I really liked it... the RTS has pretty much stayed one of my main gaming interests.
My son and I play Warcraft 3, Age Of Mythology and he(we) will probably get
Battle for Middle Earth 2 instead of Easter eggs...

I used to love RTSes before they were known as 'RTSes'. RTSes began to fail and lose mass audience for a very specific reason.

The novelty of RTS was that it was strategy in real time. The real time made the game exciting as you couldn't sit there all day taking your time such as in turn based games. Warcraft 2 may seem very simple by today's terms, but it was very intense type of frenzy.

What killed the RTS were the whiners. Red Alert was a glorious classic of a game yet everyone complained about 'tank rushes'. In Warcraft 2, they complained about 'grunt rushes'. In Starcraft, again, they complained about 'marine/zergling/zealot' rushes. Whine! Whine! Whine! These players expected multiplayer to be like single player. They could throw up some towers and play sim-city. "It's so unfair! I am making these elaborate strategies and he comes in with level 1 grunts to kill me! How dare level 1 units kill me!"

Game companies began to react to the 'tank rush' whiners. After Starcraft, RTSes became slower and more technical. RTS stood for Real-Time Strategy and the games kept promising "more strategy" even though the real-time began to slow to a crawl. Warcraft 3 is a very complex game filled with items, heroes, and creeps, but it is also much slower paced than Warcraft 2. Before everyone writes to disagree, yes, I've been at the top of the ladder with Warcraft 3 but it is much slower because there is more 'busy-work' to do. Tiberian Sun was insanely slower paced than Red Alert. Red Alert 2 did well because Westwood realized what they were doing wrong and made 'the real time' speed a major factor of the game.

RTSes do not need to be complex. But they do need to be fast in order to be intense. This is the reason why games like Starcraft remain insanely popular today. Simple and fast. The more 'complex' the game gets, the more it bogs down the real time. So the more 'upgrades' and 'units' added to the RTS actually hurt it than help.

The best RTS game I saw the IGN article skipped over (but strangely included its mediocre sequel) was Dark Reign. Dark Reign was the fastest RTS game I've ever played. Its 'fake' 2d elevation really made "line-of-sight" something spectacular in the gameplay. I still play Dark Reign today and still hang out at the Chronicles IRC chat on effnet. The single player failed me but the skirmish and multiplayer was where it was at. I played many a game with a professor at the University of Texas on a GIGANTIC map he made of North America. We would conquer Florida, Texas, and all the rest. Using elevation and terrain, he was able to make the American map drawn to exact topographical scale. Now THAT was the power of its map editor.

Dark Reign introduced amazing gameplay elements I haven't seen anywhere else. Incredible unit ai allowed you to program your units. You could set their damage tolerance, if you wanted them to harass, to flee, to hunt and destroy, and so on. You could combine this and create new strategies that would have been impossible in other RTS games. My favorite would be to make many sky bikes (a cheap air unit). I would set the AI on the sky bikes to have low damage tolerance (to immediately repair if shot). And then, I set them to harass (where they would fly around and once seeing the enemy, fire a shot, move to find another enemy, fire another shot, etc.)

Just imagine the poor opponent. All of a sudden, countless "You are under attack" messages would flood his screen with red beeping all the time. Every second, he would get the 'your unit/base is under attack!' message. This was psychological warfare. It drove my opponent insane. And, even if the little sky bikes weren't doing much damage, the opponent always covered his base with anti-air turrets just to get rid of those pesky sky bikes.

While all his money was going to anti-air turrets, I would build a huge squadron of tanks and infantry and conquer his base once he got done with the many air turrets.

We need simpler but faster RTSes like Starcraft, Warcraft 2, Red Alert 2, and Dark Reign. RTSes became boring once developers thought they were making strategy games instead of REAL TIME strategy games.

The Tank Rush rocks, BTW. Go go soviet heavy tanks!!!

Dune 2 (on PC) is still my favorite RTS of all time. Since then I didn't really find the same joy in a RTS even if Warcraft 2 and Starcraft were not too bad. Warcraft 3 is good but I must admit that 2D had its charm in this genre. Oh well, I must getting old ^_^,

I completey agree everyone seems terrfied of fast rushs and quick gameplay this is what these games are about. Total annihilation and taspring are perfect for rushes and fast battles but all the current players want to play at 1x speed making it mind numbingly boring and slow whilst me and my friends play the max speed possible making the game much more exciting and planes actually go fast enough to look like they are flying instead of crawling. Fast gameplay needs to be there so people do make mistakes and bad snap decisions!

I still have fond memories of the Ancient Art of War. Even Ancient Art of War at Sea. It wasn't until Battle for Middle Earth and Dawn of War that I have gotten back into liking RTSes.

Normally the whole resource management thing bugs me so my idea of a good RTS was M1 Tank Platoon or Steel Beasts.

The only RTS's that I have played to date are Westwood's Red Alert Games, the AoE games (excluding the one with the Gods), and Starcraft & Warcraft.

Starcraft was always too fast for me. I would be on the verge of starting to build a massive fleet, and I would get rushed and die. I don't really remember Warcraft, but I do remember that I loved the cheats in it.

Red Alert and AoE 1 were my favourite RTS's, and they still are to this day. Go Rome and Go Soviets!

I will always have a soft spot in my heart for the Command & Conquer series. The Warcrafts and Starcrafts are good, too, but the original C&C (and its dial-up multiplayer) is what got me into RTS.

I second Dark Reign. What an awesome game. You could create a spy, and have it morph into some landscape item like a tree. Then you sneak over to the enemy's base and your spy would clear the fog of war to allow long-range strikes. So out of nowhere your enemy's base is being bombarded and he's pulling his hair out trying to find out what happened!

Best handheld RTS, "Warfare Incorporated," for Palm and PPC.

RTS don't do well on consoles because ritalin-junkie console kiddies don't have the attention span or intelligence neccessary to play these kinds of games. On top of that, you really NEED a mouse, and a keyboard is almost essential as well. I guess if they really dumbed down the AI and game speed to a level that the console crowd could handle it might work okay.

Best RTS ever was Starcraft, still have it installed.

My favorite RTS of all time was Red Alert, following closely by Urban Assault and AOE. Unfortunately, when I made the switch to XP and put in my Red Alert CD hoping to play it, I find that it is incompatible with XP and we no longer have our old 98 computer which is unfortunate. I would probably play some strategy games on the console if and only if they were done right.

Age of Empires 2 was and is the best RTS ever made. Its pace may upset you adrenaline junkies out there, but nothing compares to it in terms of depth and strategy.

As for console RTS's, you can't replicate the simplicity and versatility of the mouse and keyboard on a console for traditional RTSs. For RTSs to do well one the console, they have to be built from the ground up with the limitations and strengths of the controller in mind, like the Pikmin games. PC to console ports don't succeed because the mouse and keyboard style has been grafted onto the traditional controller. It's just like why most DS ports fail, because the traditional console experience has simply been grafted onto the touch screen.

Huzzah for Dark Reign! I picked it up because the box looked cool and I'm glad I did. Brilliant RTS and my first experience with online multiplayer. The AI was killer some of the units were just awesome. Laying down a rain of heavy artillery never felt so good. And this was heavy artillery in the clearest sense. Not some tank or cannon that you still had to sit basically next to the attack area to use. These suckers were LONG range. Man, I still have that game somewhere...should go dig it out.

Other than that, Rise of Nations and Starcraft. Rise of Legends looks like a beautiful love child of the two, but we'll see.

Oh! Myth and Myth II...effing "A"

Gah! No! Anything but f*ing Dark Reign (the whole series is on GameTap, btw). I played the demo and while they had some neat concepts, I found the brain-dead pathing and the horribly implemented terrain height and LOS completely killed it. I could tell 10 units to go through a pass, and the one in front would decide it was ahead of the group so it'd turn around, completely blocking the path and everything would sit there, instead of going around and finding the other path that was inches away. And the damned turrets that wouldn't shoot a unit that was TOUCHING them because of an invisible incline. Dammit that game pissed me off.

I've always been a big fan of Westwood, the original C&C was one of the best multiplayer experiences. RA and RA2 were very good, but I think they lacked the ... purity(?) of the original C&C in multiplayer. I liked TS well enough but after it I lost interest in the series. Damn you EA!

Bar none, my favorite is Total Annihilation. I still play it almost every week with friends. One of the greatest things is the modding community. Anyone with a copy of TA, I strongly recommend you go track down the Absolute Annihilation mod. It increases the scale of the game and does a very good job balancing the many many units created by the community. It has such a breadth of strategy on so many different fronts, with so many possible tactics (granted I'm not familiar with modern RPGs, so I don't know of anything that competes now), I just can't imagine playing any other RTS afterwards.

TA:Kingdoms was crap.

I've never been a fan of blizzard, and the WarCraft games were ok, althought I didn't like their resources system and the feel of the game. StarCraft though, I hate with a passion. I can understand that it might be someone else's cake, but if you put me in front of a computer and make me play StarCraft, I'm just going to get pissed off. Dunno why exactly. Maybe just because it's fun to say "I don't like Blizzard" in certain company and observe the aghast expressions. :) (Yes, I did play WOW for a while, it was fun, got old fast)

Rise of Nations Gold Edition! My fav. hands down.

fast, fun, addictive! Complex yet easy to learn.

PC Gamer and GameSPY RTS game of the year!

I've played Starcraft, and it's a sweet game. I've played Red Alert 1 a little bit, and that's a sweet game.

The best memory I have regarding RTSes is my bro playing Syndicate on our 80Mhz pc. Those were the good ol' days for me (I'm too young to even remember much about the NES). I don't know if that can be considered an RTS, but more than 10 years after my bro first played it, I have that game now installed on my PC, and is in fact the current game that I'm playing in my spare time. That game is FUN. Crowd control with a flamer... now that's cool.

Powermonger on the Amiga.
(Syndicate and Canon Fodder although they were more RT point and shoot vs strategy.)

GOOOOOOOD TIMES.

"RTS don't do well on consoles because ritalin-junkie console kiddies don't have the attention span or intelligence neccessary to play these kinds of games."

Ah, but some of the comments here are advocating turning RTS into the very type of game that ritalin-junkies would love, with a manically frenetic pace that advocates formulaic build processes and turns them into frantic, mouth-foaming clickfests.

The reason people hate the "zerg" rushes is because there is little or no back-and-forth between the players...you know - the reason most people are playing a multiplayer game in the first place? It's not much fun to have one interaction with the other player(s), and to have that one interaction in effect decide the outcome of the game. This means you have five or ten minutes of preparation, and then ten to thirty seconds to see what your preparation wrought.

Much better to have several clashes, each successively more dramatic, involving increasingly greater numbers of units (of greater power). This was why Age of Empires II was so great. Your single scout generally had a minor run-in with someone; then you sent out a few guys and a villager to build a tower and then harrass someone, and so on and so forth until you build unique units, Empire-level troops, etc.

The state of RTS: Nothing new since Age of Empires!

This genre has been mined through and through.

Playing a RTS game these days is worse than working.

In other words, the genre started as quite a revolution, evolved for about 5 years as dozens of games refined its mechanics...and started to stagnate 2-3 years ago.

Warcraft 2 is the best RTS game ever created.

You mentioned Herzog Zwei and I couldn't contain my excitement: someone else knows about it! Every other gamer that I've talked to about that old Sega Genesis gem has looked at me with absolute bafflement when I've mentioned it. Herzog Zwei was a terrific RTS and one of my favorite games for the Genesis, but, because of its insane name, everyone thought I was chewing on the inside of my mouth in an epileptic fit when I would try to pronounce the title, so they’d throw me down and stick a belt or spoon in my mouth until I’d give up and pretend like the seizure was over… Heathens. Herzog Zwei was/is a terrific game and I'm stupidly pleased that Joystiq mentioned it. I bought an old Genesis off of EBay last year just for that game. Oh, and for Gain Ground too, but that's completely off topic.

Generally, as least in the blazzard games, early game rushes are easily countered if you know what the hell you're doing. Make sure your building your own low level troops, and get a defense tower early. I find that it is usually plenty to hold off early rush tactics. Make sure you scout. I like to send a spare troop or two just outsdie my opponent's base and when he does a mass exodus of his troops, wait a min, and attack his base. It'll make them think twice about being so foolish next time. Though in WC3 the demon hunter rush could be a major bitch to counter.... I haven't played in a while, so I don't know how the balance changes stand now. But people whining about rushes need to shutup and learn how to play.

I don't think he even mentions 'Z'. And he's supposed to be a RTS geek, 'eh, 'eh? No KKnD? Amatuer!

LOL, Z was so hard to comeback after you started losing. And Kill Krush and Destroy? Man, I haven't thought about those games for a long long time. Good times my friend.

//lol, I just noticed I typed "blazzard" in my previous post. //WTF is a blazzard?

"#14. I could be very much mistaken, but wasn't Dune II on the Amiga (where I first played it) long before it was ported to any consoles? And the eventual port, Dune 2000, was pretty terrible."

Dune II appeared on DOS in '92, then ported to Amiga and SEGA Genesis the next year, and Acorn in 1995.

DUNE 2000 was just a remake that Westwood did to revisit their roots.

Does anyone else agree that Soldier Heroes of World War II is the best RTS of all time? It certainly is, I'm really looking forward to Faces of War the Sequel coming this month.

My first RTS was the first C&C on the Saturn. Now I have all the C&C's, Warcrafts, Starcraft and AoE on PC. Obviously they are much better that way, but I've gotta admit, I just put my Saturn back onto my 60" HDTV saturday, and while it looked awful, it was a blast to chill on the sofa and kill those little GDI guys (I still love the "whyaaaa" scream). I am looking forward to seeing what talented guys can do with the Revo controller. There is no reason why it can't be done right. The remote, with a large top button and a trigger underneath, can serve as the mouse. The connected joystick has two triggers, and can serve to move the map and open hotkey/task bars. Make the keys and their icons large, easy to recognize, and give the player the flexibility to position them as they want, and it's good to go.

I've been a pretty big fan of RTS' for multiplayer fun, on a small scale (me and friends vs the Hard enemy onos!) and doing the campaign. I thoroughly enjoyed Age of Mythology and Rise of Nations, and even do enjoy a game or two of Warcraft and Starcraft. I'm just too casual for those kinds of games to play on 'the ladder' or anything.

Would I play 'em on a console? Maybe, if they got the controls right. I'd be a bit cynical about my experience with it though, but I'm pretty open.

I don't care what you people say. RA2, and RA2: Yuri's revenge is the best. especialy the skirmishes. The only other game that has good skirmishes is probably Empire Earth or AOE. Starcraft/Warcraft suck balls. Their horrible. there's little depth in it. Just build lost of units and attack and the other guy is pretty much dead unless he too has a lot of units. Then the guy with the most units wins. But with RA2 you actualy have strategy, strengths and other units that are strong against that. C&C just blows away anything blizzard made. Blizzard needs a RTS lesson from the former Westwood.

Mitsuo Yuikihiro:

Your obviously a leftover Westwood fanboy from back when Blizzard and Westwood were the only real players in town in the RTS genre. I loved the original C&C, and RA, but I think RA2 certainly lacked that wow factor that people had come to expect from Westwood's games. Personally I am more of a fan of Blizzard's games, not due to them being any "better," I just happen to like their sci-fi and fantasy universes, and find them more enjoyable places to play a game in than psuedo-real world of C&C. That's just a matter of personal taste. But to say "Their horrible. there's little depth in it. Just build lost of units and attack and the other guy is pretty much dead unless he too has a lot of units. Then the guy with the most units wins." Smacks of ignorance and fanboyism.

Then your next comment "But with RA2 you actualy have strategy, strengths and other units that are strong against that." If you actually PLAYED SC or WC3 (Ok, yeah WC1&2 had like the exact same units on each side, no one would deny that), you'd know that these games contain very much of what you describe. Races having very different units and skills, units that counter one style unit, but are countered by another, etc. It is certainly not about masses of troops but really the right kind of units to match up against your opponants. That means scouting, picking the right tech trees, adjusting when your opponant adjusts to you, etc. In fact WC3 has a rather low unit limit compared to some other games in the genre in order to avoid such situations as mass forces vs mass forces. It forces you to have the right units and right strategies to win.

Now I'm not trying to knock the Westwood games at all. They're definatly triple A games and worthy of being in anyone's collection. But if you seriously enjoy RTSes, I'd definatly have another look at least at Starcraft before running your mouth like an idiot fanboy.

I have to agree with Varian. He is absolutely right. RTS games are about speed and quick decisions, not prolonged and boring ass decisions. Warcraft 3 is boring, compared to Starcraft. You spend too much time *leveling up your hero! or or having the peons harvest certain areas of wood or or moving your units into pretty formations to best utilize their skills* Warcraft 3 feels like a chess game, because it sacrifices speed for depth, which ruins any RTS game. Command & Conquer is still the best RTS series out there. And I'm surprised no one has mentioned Command & Conquer Generals: Zero Hour, because that game was SO FAST, and had GREAT GRAPHICS, great gameplay, tons of armies, etc. Games can last from 5 minutes to 2-3 hours. Developers are listening to much to the bitches who whine because they can't win because they SUCK, and need to listen to their hearts. The roots of RTS, that is what RTS is, and always will be. (Go Red Alert: Aftermath! You rocked! Yay Telsa Coil rushes! Mammoth Tanks whooooooo! Damn you Tanya...)

PS. Reason I think Generals didn't do AS well was because it was more modern military, most RTS's and especially those in the Command & Conquer genre have had and have futuristic and crazy buildings and weapons and units, like how Generals got rid of Tiberium (i hate that they did that and added shitty supply drops, made it like Warcraft 3), destructable bridges etc. Generals also ditched a storyline and single player mode and replaced it with utter crap with little or no importance to anything. Which I remind all of you youngins is what made Command & Conquer so great, the single player. But besides these small and major flaws, the multiplayer is flawless, it is how all RTS games should be.

Oh and JP007, Warcraft 3 tried to eliminate single unit rushes by adding complex strategy, you know what happened? They made things worse. It's like fixing a motorcycle half way, it works then blows up. I can't tell you how many times I've been spider rushed, grunt rushed, footman rushed, and had units that clearly had an advantage to them. Yeah, Warcraft 3 tried to be something and fell short causing a world of more problems. Starcraft and Command & Conquer tried to be what they were, they weren't black people playing Texas Holdem, singing "Over the Rainbow", listening to Michelle Branch and Savage Garden, and living at McDonalds. (No one be a prissy about generalizations, it was only to make a point)

Anyone remember KKND (Krush Kill N' Destory)? That game was pretty cool back in the day.

I second #27. Age of Empires 2 is the best RTS of all time in my opinion, I've played all the others, and nothing beats the simplicity of it and the fast, but not too fast pace of the game. And the multiplayer is just great, I've been in games that have lasted 3-4 hours before and the battles are so epic and satisfying, hundreds of units everywhere and one little change in your strategy could make or break you, the online isn't just a rush, or some scouting and little skirmishes here or there, then its over either, there are sometimes very long periods of time where both sides are quiet, and then you would see a mass exodus of bases and a giant cataclysmic battle right in the middle, pushing back and fourth, the ground littered with hundreds of corpses and new units flooding in all the time until either one can't keep it up and loses all their rescources or gets sneak attacked somehow, the tide of battle could turn at any time, and I love that. The civs. are all unique in their units and unit attributes and they all require a very different magagement style to use them efficently, and if you don't know what you're doing you will be easily crushed (at least online). Bases require alot of planning to conserve space but also stay far from the front of battle, and also collect enough gold, stone, wood and food for your villagers and massive-looking armies. The single player dosen't have a very deep storyline such as a game like Warcraft but it is still very engaging and it kept me occupied for some time. If you haven't played it you don't know what you're missing and I suggest you pick it up, somehow, because this is one of the best, if not the best RTS you will ever play, almost impossible to dissapoint. Great game.

I think I will be going with Warhammer: Mark of Chaos for my next RTS purchase.