So it has come.

[Arizona Nova]

It's still a little presumptuous to say that about a game which hasn't been released.

Nonetheless, lets compare the Halo 3 trailer to the Starcraft 2 trailer. Halo 3 trailer: music that causes nerdgasms, epic vistas, huge arrays, Covenant super-carriers flying all over the place, the delicious promise of Cortana going rampant... versus a Terran marine getting dressed for the morning grind, grunting "It's about time." That is a little disappointing (especially as the BC trailer was so badass).

[Central Facehuggeria]

I was kind of saddened by the impracticality of how the marine suits are applied. I was kind of expecting an assembly line similar to Mars Attacks or something.

That's just more proof that the valiant warriors of the UEF are superior. Unity. Strength. Peace.

Sigh, why the hell did you go and have to make a response that only serves to incite anger?

...Incites anger? That's frightening. Arenumberg, dear, this is the interweb. You really shouldn't get worked up over stuff like this.

I already said to let it go.

It's a free interweb.

If your just going to flamebait all the time i really cant be bothered.

Troll. I'm trolling right now, not flamebaiting. In this case it's even a relatively benign trolling.

[Aegeus]

Well CF, I can understand your desire for impressiveness, after all, I completely agree with you that SC's nukes are tiny, and kinda flimsy looking, but I dont agree with you on the premise behind that.

SC is about gameplay, supreme customizability, and unit diversity.

Supcom is about AMAZING you with insane everything.

You ask that you have a huge, world-crushing army, which supcom delivers. Supcom is a game that is on an entirely different scale than starcraft. A single large-scale battle in supcom is the equivalent of an entire SC game (even in ther ate of time it takes to play)

You ask for properly scaled units, which is understandable. The original starcraft came out before there was even the remotest chance of having 1600 independant 3d units on a battlefield. This means they needed to make the game run smoothely, and distorting perspective was an amiable way of doing it, considering the alternative would be to remove the disproportionate units entirely (completely screwing with the game) Hell, the mouse-wheel wasn't even common when SC came out, and it's 100% necesary for supcom.

They aren't scaling the new units because they want the game to be operatable within the same environment (think screen size or zoom) as the previous ones (all the War games and SC). They dont want to impliment a zooming system, which often times pisses me off to no end in supcom because you cant tell where the hell your looking from the strategic map.

Another difference is unit quality. Supcom units are essentially clones of one another with racial sterotypes added on (Aeon shields on everything for example.) Then there are like 8 units that do other cool stuff (The Cybran destroyer.) The bulk of all the units are essentially the same between the races, a tach bomber is a tach bomber is a tach bomber. In starcraft, almost every unit behaves in a way unshared by it's fellows, generally in a major way, carriers behaving differently than BCs and Guardians (the only exception I can think of is the Hydralisk being a big angry marine.)

In short:

If your looking for super-"realistic" combat on a hugely epic scale in a sci-fi environment, super "realistic" resource management, with huge playtimes, go with supcom.

If you want to play a smaller game with way more unit diversity, more micro, Operability on a less-imba pc, less resource wars, and an amazing map editor, go with a blizz RTS.

@ AZ,

Well, it finaly explains how the hell you train marines in like 60 seconds. all the coll shite after he got dressed as pretty awesome too.

[Hyperspatial Travel]

You fools still play RTS games that aren't made by Paradox? I weep for you. I weep.

[Neo-Mekanta]

... Until there's a new single player Ultima game released that doesn't suck like all the whore houses in Asia combined into a single godly blowing machine...

You RTS players can all shut the hell up... Or I'll have giant Neo-Mekantan robots storm at you screaming "KEKEKEKEKE TENTACLE RUSH" before leaping upon you will all the violent lust a giant Korean tentacled robot can manage.

SupCom and SC2 both look orgasmic. However, the issue here is that comparing the two is like comparing, say... Fallout II and Disgaea. (Wiki it if you don't know.)

Both have the same basic idea... Completely different objectives.

... Better example for this topic: Ccomparing SupCom and SC2 is like comparing... Defense building and rushing.

[Xenonier]

Okay, since kanuck split my post into a completely different thread I'll just repost. Either way, I'm not trying to flamebait or troll anyone, I'm just trying to prove my point that there is a very high level of actions other than micro occuring in Starcraft BroodWar. If anyone thinks I'm somehow baiting, just tell me and I'll stop.

Professional player? You have to be a bloody professional paid gamer to beat your average Korean? That just proves my point.

Not really, it's just that On the whole the koreans are simply so much better. It's not mass clicking, it's about strategy. when one looks at this context. After all, Micromanagement itself isn't so much the rate of clicking as it is the click management. Hence TheSTC[gnh] won the latest CEG Xiang championships. STC did it with an average apm of 175 per minute, beat players clicking at an average of over 300, and did it not because of his 'clicking', but because of his ability to hit 200/200 population in under fifteen minutes and sustain perfect timing pushes. The top foreigners have the same APM as the top koreans atm, we just don't use it effectively.

My ass it is. It's all about micro, and that isn't strategy. Hell, it's barely tactics.

Time for a look at the latest OSL round game, and an Worldwide invitational game.

OSL Ro16 Week 2
May 18
18:30 Korean

Group A

By.Flash (T) vs. Light[Alive] (T)

Both open with the same build orders, those being macro-orientated 1 fac -> expo builds. Light goes for an early choke at his mainpoint with a bunker and marines, however he's unable to scout Flash's main. Now Flash, who was at this point going to go Dropships, scouts that he's the got late factory, holds off on the starport, hides a group of four Goliaths while using the scan to catch Light's dropship, destroy it, counterdrop Light's expansion and wins because he played a whole lot better and changed his strategy+used an early scan to find the dropships.

The key that won flash this game was a very, very clever little strategem. By delaying his construction of the starport, but holding off on the drops he convinced Light that Flash (who has slightly better macro) was actually already on his way with a drop. He was then able to lure in the drop and destroy the dropship, through clever and unusual use of Goliaths + his scan to scan his own base rather than Light's. This gave him a solid advantage which he tied into a double drop, sacrificing one half of his army so he could kill an expo. Simple, but not often done and a very effective little feint that wasn't planned for in his build order.

Futhermore, this was a bit of mindgame, using the pressure + flashes position as a new player to take advantage of Light's build order weaknesses.

Worldwide Invitational.

Nada (T) vs. Bisu[Shield] (P)

Nada skips early detection in a silly mistake while going for a fast expansion, Bisu uses a couple of goon scouts which makes NaDa expect a fast reaver, but changes into DT drops, aiming to take out Nada's detection (and slaughtering SCV's along the way) and moves in with a unit of goons to disrupt Nada's economy. Bisu perfectly zealot drops on Nada's incoming attacks, but it doesn't look to be enough.

Two base protoss vs 1 base Terran, but Nada's army is massive due to bisu's techswitch and he's pushing in. Bisu macroes a huge army out of absolutely nowhere, and switches to carriers (a big risk, given NaDa's on his doorstep). NaDa, who given the map, Bisu's economic advantage and the fact he's losing his push is completely shocked by carrier/goon/templar that is being massed, and concedes the game.

I could talk a long time about poor tactics by both NaDa shown here. I really could, although Bisu played very cleverly, swapping strategies from false reaver -> DT - > DT drop+goon attack -> Stalling the timing push with harassment -> Carriers+goons to finish (even if they weren't nessecary). But it's too difficult to explain fully without a VOD and ventrilo or something similar. Suffice to say, the strategies were switched many times this game.

...Timing yes. (Build order FTW!) Macromanagement? Strategy? I haven't seen anything like that.

This shows that's you're not judging Starcraft with very little depth at all. It's got far, far wider meanings when we refer to 'timing'. A good example of this is expansion timing in the TvP Matchup. Terrans have to expand to remain on an equal base ratio, but can't overexpose themselves to protoss harassment. Plus, their timing pushes have to be good to slow down Goon/templar/carrier construction.

Watch any high level nonkoreans, and all the korean professional leagues. If it was truly micromanagement as you say, then 'micro based' players would rule the entirety of the leagues. Unfortunately, that doesn't stack up either, the trend isn't there. If you want, I can direct you to commentaries and other data that will show you were is a very high level of strategy and macro in Starcraft Broodwar even to this day. I don't have any on me right now, but I am sure there are a couple on the last MSL finals between Savior[gm] and Bisu[shield] I could try and dig up for you.

However, for the purposes of assessing your statement let's go deeper.

Now, if we look at the traditionally most famous Starcraft Brood War players in history and analyze their styles, as well as their championship wins, we'll see trends that disagree with the suggestion there is no macromanagement.

Slayers Boxer. well known for drop timing, unit pushes and arguably micro. Two OSL's, one MSL.
NaDa. Famed for having the best macro of any terran player in history (before the Rise of 00v) also known for being a timing push king, and having perfect harassment in that he was almost gifted with a 'sixth sense' for macromanagment. Three OSl's, Two MSl's
Iloove00v. Best macroer in history. There's really not much else to say about him other than his capacity to manage to expansions even at an economic disadvantage is legendary. Two OSl's, Two MSl's.
Savior/IPXzerg. Incredible macro an expansion timings. Considered to have the best ability use and patience in SCBW history. Three MSL's, one OSL, highest winrate of any professional videogamer in korea, only korean with < 60% in ZvT Matchup.
JulyZerg. Two OSl's, Two MSL's, incredibly agressive playstyle+use of often underrated strategies such as fake expoing, ling block and having in many's eyes, the greatest positioning of lurkers and strategy in flanking with lurkers ever.

Those are your big names in terms of Titles won. Of those, only Boxer is truly known for being entirely dependant on his micro. I could mention other top players, such as Nal_rA and Garimto, both of whom are known for Macro/strategies, not micro, or Gorush, Bisu[Shield], etcetera, but there's no point. Nowhere in Progaming is any player capable of being "all about micro". Otherwise, they just won't get anywhere (The exception here is possibly [iOi]Alive, aka Casy[alive] but he's in a massive slump at the moment and has never had good Terran vs Protoss). Even Boxer was known for his innovative builds more than his macro.

I'm just going to assume you mean Supreme Commander when you say SC here... because that's the only SC-titled game with anything approaching high levels of macromanagement.

This just implies you haven't studied or made an attempt to understand the game at a high level. Macro is the biggest key to doing well at Starcraft in terms of economic management. Watch pro replays. Watch their timing, and the significance of being able to make the most of your resources effectively particularly when overcoming sustained harassment/drops. The Macromanagement is there, even if it takes a form different to games of today.

SupCom games don't degenerate into who has the larger mass bill. Most ranked games end before T3 can even be reached. Besides, even if you're out econed you can still win quite handily through superior strategy and macromanagement.

I've been following the Gamereplays.org section on Supreme Commander and the ESL leagues since their release. I haven't seen a game in about 5 weeks ended between two competent opponents that didn't come down to who had more money. This is particularly interesting in the game between RS_Gollum and Eschez, in which Eschez, despite a ton of early damage due to flare raids on Eschez's base, Eschez simply had more mass, and eventually steamrolled Gollum.

I wish there were more Supreme Commander replays where the clever side won on the upper tier end of the ladder. There just aren't enough, although this could be as much a balance issue. However, given my experiences with the similar economic systems in TA against the gnug clain in our macrofests, I do hope I'm wrong. (same as CNC3, but that's another issue for another day).

It's all well and good to attack Starcraft for it's flaws. But at the same time, I've been playing competitive RTS for too long to let people say such mistruths about a game and use it as an excuse to hate the game. There is not as much clicking involved as people think, and myself as well as others such as By.Oldy are proof of that. If you want to think that way go ahead, but it's merely ignoring the facts.

[Kanuckistan]

And let's face it, the game sucks.

Different games for different tastes. Simple-as.

Both are very good games, but people that instantly declare that something sucks and that everyone in their right mind should agree with their opinion, just because it doesn't happen to apeal to their tastes... That's sad. And irksome - especially those that enjoy angering those who disagree.

Okay, since kanuck split my post into a completely different thread I'll just repost.

Wasn't me.

[Central Facehuggeria]

Not really, it's just that On the whole the koreans are simply so much better.

Indeed?

It's not mass clicking, it's about strategy.

Is it now? Yeah. It's so strategic to dance your marines.

when one looks at this context. After all, Micromanagement itself isn't so much the rate of clicking as it is the click management. Hence TheSTC[gnh] won the latest CEG Xiang championships. STC did it with an average apm of 175 per minute, beat players clicking at an average of over 300, and did it not because of his 'clicking', but because of his ability to hit 200/200 population in under fifteen minutes and sustain perfect timing pushes. The top foreigners have the same APM as the top koreans atm, we just don't use it effectively.

So it's basically his ability to rush and unitspam that wins. Gotcha.

Both open with the same build orders, those being macro-orientated 1 fac -> expo builds.

That's not macro oriented.

The key that won flash this game was a very, very clever little strategem.

Very clever tactic.

Bisu macroes a huge army out of absolutely nowhere,

I think you're misunderstanding the term macro.

This shows that's you're not judging Starcraft with very little depth at all.

Maybe. But you aren't doing a particular good job of providing evidence of this depth.

It's got far, far wider meanings when we refer to 'timing'. A good example of this is expansion timing in the TvP Matchup. Terrans have to expand to remain on an equal base ratio, but can't overexpose themselves to protoss harassment. Plus, their timing pushes have to be good to slow down Goon/templar/carrier construction.

Just like... just about every other RTS out there.

This just implies you haven't studied or made an attempt to understand the game at a high level.

I've tried to understand the game at a high level, I just can't see any of this supposed strategic depth.

Macro is the biggest key to doing well at Starcraft in terms of economic management.

Economic management isn't macromanagement. It's economic management.

I've been following the Gamereplays.org section on Supreme Commander and the ESL leagues since their release. I haven't seen a game in about 5 weeks ended between two competent opponents that didn't come down to who had more money.

Then you're watching the wrong replays. Seriously, have you played any ranked games of SupCom?

[quoteThere just aren't enough, although this could be as much a balance issue.[/quote]

The problem was siegebot spam at T3. It was so easy and effective. This has been rectified in the latest patch.

[Xenonier]

Koreans are persistent better, but you grow to expect that. Then again, in consistent line with your replies before, you've made no actual attempt to confront or disprove the point.

Is it now? Yeah. It's so strategic to dance your marines.

Never once was marines, or 'dancing' used as a context example. Futhermore, that's only the micromanagement side. Strategy in starcraft cannot be attributed to specific micromanagement examples.

So it's basically his ability to rush and unitspam that wins. Gotcha.

Real Time Strategy competitive terminology and even how 'unitspam' works is far deeper. A timing push is never a 'rush', rather most 'rushes' don't even occur in most matchups of starcraft. Indeed, we when consider the competitive technology of the game, Early gate zealots, an early ling push versus a fast expanding protoss/in zvz, or a bunker rush are the common 'rushes' and they're not particularly common enough to justify calling SC a 'rush' game. Rather, a timing push is a timed, concerted attack launched to end the game in a specific time. Technically all rushes are timing pushes (of a sort), but not all Timing pushes are rushes as they can often happen late into the game (for example, mass ultra/ling pushes in the nal_ra vs gorush 2005 Proleague finals) . Macromanagement, as we'll look at later is all about maintaining a constant level of production while managing the economic aspects of the game and one's troops in the field, all at once.

So in truth it was his ability to use his 175 actions per minute most efficiently, produce units in the most efficient manner, use those units in the most efficient manner and to perform all of this at the best possible time to expose weaknesses in his opponents builds (whatever those may have been) that gave TheSTC the title.

Ironically enough, this fits into the definition of macromanagement at wikipedia (or any one you'd find on a gaming website.)

In computer games, especially strategy games, macromanagement refers to the general economy aspect of the game. This includes constructing buildings, conducting research, and producing units, among other things involving the intake and expending of resources while also managing one's troops in the field..

That's not macro oriented.

In TvT on that map, they both went to macro orientated interpretations of One Factory builds into a fast expansion. Not exactly a 14CC build, but I wouldn't 14CC against a new osl player looking for a quick win or an unconfident TvTer who has been known to bunker rush in these situations either.

Very clever tactic.

There was a large account of how tactical or strategic this decision actually was, particularly by the observing ingame korean professional commentators. However, it was revealed by flash repeating the same strategy on a different side of the map and by comments made by the KTF team coach that it was both extensively permeditated, and practically rehearsed.

For those reasons I'd call it a strategy, as it's clear Flash had the whole idea planned from his game beginning, which implies long term planning with that specific goal in mind -> a strategy.

Maybe. But you aren't doing a particular good job of providing evidence of this depth.

You're challenging the Status Quo, the onus isn't on me to provide a decent argument. Besides, I've done a perfectly legitimate job of arguing the point if you can't 'see' what the entire competitve RTS community and years of gamers who've moved onto other games and dominated them can.

Just like... just about every other RTS out there.

Which contradicts your earlier post that timing only has one use in starcraft, which is in build orders.

I've tried to understand the game at a high level, I just can't see any of this supposed strategic depth.

The principle to each his own always applies in these situations, but I find it very difficult for anyone to have made a concerted "try" and not acknowledge there is a level of strategic depth that is often underrated in SCBW.

Economic management isn't macromanagement. It's economic management.

Economic management is just one part of macromanagement. We can see that in the definition of macromanagement on wikipedia, and you could see it in any commonly accepted definition of macromanagement in the RTS community. Let's not forget the "macromanagement refers to the general economy aspect of the game" idea. Hence "macroing" a huge army out of nowhere is both timing thte production right, and getting the money to do it (as well as having the production capacity/ability).

Then you're watching the wrong replays. Seriously, have you played any ranked games of SupCom?

Ranked games as per the supcom ladder in the post beta age? None this patch. Games against ranked players in the post beta age, many of them top players? About 75-85.

And in terms of replays and commentaries watched, just about everything in the gr.org replay section. Which I still wish was much larger.

The problem was siegebot spam at T3. It was so easy and effective. This has been rectified in the latest patch.

I was thinking more along the lines of internal balance of the factions, rather than balance problems on the whole. Those tend to appear a little later into a game's life. . Although I would be both impressed and pleased with Chris Taylor's community if they've sorted out all those in the beta, or that they never existed.[/quote]

[Aegeus]

Just to point out a small flaw in your argument CF,

Macroing and strategy are large scale views and usages of their smaller-scale counterparts, microing and tactics.

In a strategy, you object is to destroy the enemy (Nah, really?), and to do so, by lets say, heavy hitting and expensive air-units (Battlecruisers or Strat bombers).

In order to acheive this, you must get resources, tech up, defend, strike where and when your opposition is weakest, and choose the best positions for defenses. You intend to wait until you have a juggernaut army, and crush the oppositon.

Thats a strategy, a common one in SC, and common in Sup Com (replace bombers w/ artillery)

This is for some seperation

In order to complete this strategy, you must make "strategic moves." Which means that you must capture expansions etc, research better armor for your ships, upgrade their weapons, Build some sturdy defenses, and create a number of production facilities.

You need two expansions operating at maximum efficiency, this means with 7-9 scvs (or mass extractors) each.

You need to be able to marshal your troops fast so their siege weapons don't crack your defenses. this means you need 2-4 spaceports, and to place them where they wont get shot up. (or airfields)

You need to have a balanced defense net. You need to build defenders for all forms of incoming enemies at one of your bottle-necks, such as detectors, missile turrets, marine bunkers, and siege tanks. About 4-8 of each should do it (two or so detectors) (Or, Point def guns, Radar, missile defense, sonar, torps, and sheild generators)

You need to upgrade the unit's stats whilst you are expanding and building your defenses in order to use the money not being put to your fliers at this point via your armory. (Or in supcom your teching up your production facilities to unlock the craft you want.)

After all thats done, you start slamming out units as fast as possible and massing them at a rally point, which must be far enough from the enemy base and from your own so that your units aren't detected.

Everything above the bold is Strategy. Everything below it is strategy by way of tactics.


Simply, each game operates on a different scale Supcom on a Continent-sized one, SC on a 100-200 mile square scale.

They both contain both strategy and tactics (if you choose to play them that way), but their scales mean they play different levels of importance. It is simply foolish to assert that because you either choose not to, or choose to ignore one half of the game, that it is not still there.