Thrik Posted February 8, 2007 Pretty much why I consider Dawn of War one of the best RTS games ever, and apparently Company of Heroes is up there too. You're so much more immersed when you've got a detailed squad of blokes in front of you and some big, dirty, fuck-off tanks covering them; games where you're more zoomed out and the individual soldiers are 2mm tall feel distant and like they're isolating me from the battle. I just can't enjoy it as much when you've got a billion soldiers swarming everywhere, even if better players can make it strategic (though more often than not it just boils down to overwhelming with numbers rather than cunning). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brkl Posted February 8, 2007 Can you even call the Total War games RTS games at this point? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Redwall Posted February 9, 2007 I love playing Total War, but I autoresolve the battles whenever possible (i.e. whenever my troops so massively outnumber the enemy that I can take the exaggerated troop losses the computer calculates) because the strategic (turn-based) game is much more interesting IMO than the tactical (real-time) battles. It's like Civilization light. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrChlorophyll Posted February 9, 2007 It's like Civilization light. Really? I think of Civ as Total War light. Or TW as a more intensive Civ. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Redwall Posted February 9, 2007 Military wise, TW is obviously more intensive. And I suppose the character management thing is more complicated. And the taxes and population and... okay, maybe you're right. I was just thinking of Civ's broader scope, I guess. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coldkill Posted February 9, 2007 Company of Hereos I'd say is the best RTS out at the moment. The individual units are extremely detailed and you can even zoom in close enough to see the hairs on their face. Yet even with this amount of detail it is supprisingly not a system whore. It runs everything on high detail on my PC which is around 4 years old now (except the graphics card). Dawn of War is good, it's detailed and is quite fun to play but I don't think it matches up to CoH for individual detail. Supreme Commander doesn't give, even close to, that amount of detail. It is about the "big plan" and not really the micro-management of squads and units. Even Generals has some amount of detail and micro-management which made it playable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brkl Posted February 10, 2007 Even Generals has some amount of detail and micro-management which made it playable. I find this impossible to comprehend. The one thing that has gotten me interested in Supreme Commander is the scale of it. Micro management being a good thing eludes me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coldkill Posted February 10, 2007 I miss-used the word. But it has some detail of small scale fighting and command. Whereas SC is just like sending a horde to kill stuff. Cold Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
