Starcraft 2 and Military Strategy

[Lord Zack]

I think that Starcraft 2 should be based more on real military strategy rather than the typical RTS mold of fast fingers and hot keys. It should be more about thinking and not about babysitting you're units. It should be based around the fundamental principles of strategy, whatever Blizzard thinks those are as they're is some disagreement as to what those are. But it should be based on strategy so much that it isn't fun. I believe that adding more strategic elements, in moderation, will make it funner however. It will make it so that skill is defined as knowledge of the proper strategy and tactics, not which buttons to press in which orders.

I suggest the principles list on Wikipedia, which I will relist here:

1. The Objective
2. Offense
3. Cooperation
4. Concentration (Mass)
5. Economy
6. Maneuver
7. Surprise
8. Security
9. Simplicity

Some of these are in fact in Starcraft, but I believe that focusing on them even more, as well as changing game play to ensure that it is the player's skill at accomplishing these, not his speed and reflexes that ensure victory.

The player must be able to develop an objective or accomplish one defined by the map. Even if the map has no written objective, it will typically indirectly require one of a group of strategies to succeed at it, which will be learned as the player gets beter at the game. This is essential even if the objective is as simple as get to the enemy base, destroy anyone in you're path and reduce the enemy to rubble.

The player must be able to mount an offensive to take the battle to the enemy. While defense is important it will typically not be the primary objective.

The player should be able to coordinate his forces. However the game should not require him to "babysit" his units. I good two pronged attack can be alot more efective than an attack by one force, especially since the enemy can force you're units into poor positions such as in a tight valley, where you're units will have less room to manuver and may not be able to attack enemy unitrs at all. dividing they're attention to both sides of they're base or to multiple bases will increase you're chances of victory.

The player should be able to muster/create enough forces to destroy his opponent. Numbers are not so important for the Protoss as they're units are more powerful than others, but they should ensure that they're forces are powerful enough to take down the enemy. Conversly numbers are the primary aspect of Concentration for the Zerg. Upgrading will ensure that you require less units to out concentrate you're enemies.

The player should be able to maintain an efficent and secure economy. In the interest of fun however, this should be down played. And miners should automatically begin mining four seperate mineral clusters, as having that as a deciding factor is stupid and not fun (woowho! I started mineral production .09 seconds faster than my enemy, this game is in the bag!).

I think that having to sieze the map and manuvering you're units to block enemy attacks would be the funnist part of the game. That what war is about taking ground and keeping it, not attacking the enemy base. Consider that in WW1 they didn't even atack the enemy capitals, at least not successfully. The entire war was siezing ground and losing it. However it SC 2 the focus would not be on trench warfare, but rather on breaking through enemy lines and you're enemies's response, you're counter response, ect.

Surprise can be a deciding factor in battles. If you attack an opponent when he doesn't expect you, you can defeat him rather easily if he doesn't respond quickly. It's inportant to keep tabs on you're opponent to make sure they're not planning a surprise attack or deception of some sort. And I'm not talking about saccing an ScV to check on you're oppent. I'm talking about radar, spies, special forces, ect. Of course the Comstat, Parasites and Overlords will help with this like they did in SC 1. Conditions like Parasite should require an invisibility-seeing unit or medic to detect.

Security is important. However, though a lines of fortifications can be useful, static defense should not be the only thing used. Espionage can be useful as well as patrols and having units onhand to repulse attacks. It's important to ensure you have enough defenses to repulse the enemies. Of course intercepting you're enemies or taking the oppurtunity to attack them when they are attacking you can help with security, though this can be hazardous if you don't have enough units to attack and defend. The best security maybe, however taking the offense and sepecially taking out production centers and resource gatherers, ensure that you're enemy never gets the units to atack you in the first place.

Don't get bogged down with complex plans unless it's necessary and don't make more than you need. For example if you know you're opponent has alot of Scourges, don't even build a physics lab. Instead, try sending in Marines to counter the Mutalisk they probably have and possibly Firebats againist they're ground units, backed up by Medics. If you're able to remove the threat, fine then you build the Physics Labs and Battlecrusiers.

I realize most of this does in fact apply to Starcraft. However the emphasis should be on fun strategy. After all it is caled Real Time Strategy. Also note that this is my opinion. I'm not saying that if you don't think this that you are stupid. Most of you probably think this is a bad idea, I think. I even think that Blizzard will most likely stick to the tried and true methods of RTS design with the occasional Blizzard-style twist. I think that Starcraft was one of the greatest games I've ever played, but I think it could be better.

[TwoTimer]

and the point of the essay is? where's the hook?

[UED_Marine]

If you are gonna REALLY incorporate strategy into the game, you might as well just make a Starcraft game like Hearts of Iron II or something.

That is an intriguing idea.

But yeah, real strategy does not belong in RTS.

[Proceri]

Starcraft has a proper level of strategy. You said you wanted to loose the baby sitting on units, I say it should be there even more or at least expanded by other factors. I think that you should have more control over you units. This would be done by having bigger maps and many more units and allowing you to micro them at the same level in Starcraft.

By having more units and more room to micro them you could add more strategy to the game on an open battlefield. Think of Supreme Commander, however maps not quite that big and having more control of each unit.

What could be implemented is making the races even more diverse in terms of how they are each played. That is one of the greatest things about Starcraft compared to other games.
*Thinks about AOE2, Rise of Nations, TA, etc..*

[Bullet2head]

Yeah....No. that idea sucks. Starcraft is an awsome game because it has strategy, but not in that sense. Starcraft is PERFECT. The only thing that needs to be added is the end of the storyline.

[UED_Marine]

Starcraft is the greatest of the 4X games. Thus, I think it should stay a 4X game.

eXplore
eXpand
eXploit
eXterminate

Just because a work of art has been copied in lesser forms several times, does not lessen the value of the first piece of art.

[Lord Zack]

Starcraft is hardly perfect. If it were perfect, for one, it would not need patches. But perfection is irrelevant as long as it is good.

I disagree that a Real Time Strategy does not need real strategy. As is it's more about tactics than strategy. I think that being able to button press should be left to FPSs and Platformers. I think that if they keep the gameplay the same I'll look on like Google Video to see some recordings of the game rather than blowing my money on what I already have.

[UED_Marine]

Starcraft is hardly perfect. If it were perfect, for one, it would not need patches. But perfection is irrelevant as long as it is good.

I disagree that a Real Time Strategy does not need real strategy. As is it's more about tactics than strategy. I think that being able to button press should be left to FPSs and Platformers. I think that if they keep the gameplay the same I'll look on like Google Video to see some recordings of the game rather than blowing my money on what I already have.

I am sure Blizzard will care. The copy of Starcraft that you didn't buy will be bought up by some crazy South Korean kid.

[Lord Zack]

I am sure Blizzard will care. The copy of Starcraft that you didn't buy will be bought up by some crazy South Korean kid.

Hey at least I won't waste my money on a sub-optimal product.

[UED_Marine]

You don't even know what Strategy games are unless you have picked up a Paradox Entertainment game...so I have little reason to care about your opinion.

[Lord Zack]

I've learned about Strategy and I know that Starcraft is not even close. And if you don't care about my opinion why respond?

[Bullet2head]

I can smell this thread will be closed sooner or later...

[Proceri]

I've learned about Strategy and I know that Starcraft is not even close. And if you don't care about my opinion why respond?
Starcraft has plenty of Strategy, and if you cannot find it then you must be playing a bad UMS game.

[ArnhemKnight]

If you are gonna REALLY incorporate strategy into the game, you might as well just make a Starcraft game like Hearts of Iron II or something.

That is an intriguing idea.

But yeah, real strategy does not belong in RTS.

Hearts of Iron II is a very enjoyable and realistic RTS that's not exactly a simulation, much like Paradox's other games. Comparing the strategy used in HoI to other RTS's though would be a mistake. HoI is a game of grand strategic warfare, in that you do order individual troops on battlefields but rather handle armies, officers, and logistics on a map of the world.

I would personally love to see some more realistic tactical strategy in the Starcraft but the possibility does not exist. It would be too much of a jump from the original gameplay of Starcraft.

I think Mad Minute Games' Bull Run is a good example of more strategy in a RTS.

A lot of companies choose not to have real strategy because they believe in "fun"... meh.

[Bullet2head]

But, as you said, Starcraft isn't like that. People love the game for the way it is. Why would they go change an awsome system?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Lord Zack]

I'm working on a second essay pointing out some possible changes for Starcraft 2 and ellaborating on why I think it needs change. But after some time playing SC I still think It could use some change, but nothing radical. A few tweaks to the system to put an emphasis on manuvering you're troops and gaining influence over the battlefield, instead of merely attacking the enemy bases and siezing reasources.

[RODTHEGOD]

what i would like to see is basically more realism in starcraft like for example a nuke would take out a large area and the carrier would be absolutly huge and the #'s of groups would also b huge

what i kinda want for starcraft 2 is kinda something like starwars empire at war or rome total war
like the weak units would be in small groups like for example 1 zergling unit would actually be like say 6 zerglings and maybe like a terren unit could actually be made like when your trianing them you could have the barracks make a specific type of squdren composing of different amounts of infantry
and the special ability units, their abilities could be much bigger and but in comparison would be the same as the effects in starcraft 1
like for example a psi storm would do so much damage to a unit but in this it would do the same amount in proportion just bigger

[Bullet2head]

So... You're saying make everything bigger and stronger....Doubt it will work.

[Bob]

The only thing I want to see is Marines aren't just one single unit but rather a squad of units. Same goes with other infantry units.

[Bullet2head]

The only thing I want to see is Marines aren't just one single unit but rather a squad of units. Same goes with other infantry units.


If you don't build just one, it works out like that. Or do you mean like in Advanced Wars, where everyunit has 5 actual guys fighting?

That wouldn't work in the sense that the more people they lost, the weaker they would become.

The only people that wouldn't work for, are the Ghosts. They're ment to be a single, commando-type, unit.

[Lord Zack]

They could do it like Empire at War. As the unit takes damage, guys die, and the unit gets weaker. But (1.) that's not really necessary and (2.) it's off topic. I don't see why the current system of unit squads doesn't work. At most maybe you could actually have the squads on the screen and if you click on the squad's button it selects that squad.

Should get that Essay up tommorow, if anyone cares.

[Lord Zack]

Here's what I think should be changed. The current game goes like this:

1. Build up your base and forces (your economy).
2. Locate and secure more resources.
3. Attack the enemy, attempting to deprive him of resources and destroy his infrastructure.

I think it should go like this:

1. Build up your base and forces (your economy).
2. Locate and secure more resources.
3. Secure the map, capturing strategic positions and out manuvering and defeating the enemiy's army, possibly raiding enemy bases
4. Finish the game, decisively defeating the enemy and destroying his bases

[Bullet2head]

Dude, you gotta let go of reality. You pull to much of your logic from the real world. This is STARCRAFT. Not much about it is real. Go with the flow, the game is fine as it is, new races and units and such, are ok. But putting artillary, water units... All that. It just won't work.

Let go of the real world when you are talking about Starcraft.

[TwoTimer]

Here's what I think should be changed.
I think it should go like this:

1. Build up your base and forces (your economy).
2. Locate and secure more resources.
3. Secure the map, capturing strategic positions and out manuvering and defeating the enemiy's army, possibly raiding enemy bases
4. Finish the game, decisively defeating the enemy and destroying his bases

Go play Age of Empires 3, or Age of Mythology (ive played both, they carry a different flavor then brood war, i appreciate both styles of play).

The technology that was available in 1998 wasnt enough to allow what you see from modern RTS's. The game would essentially be like that if u jacked up building armor. High-end progamer matches are like that, especially on newer maps, which take the engine to the max with new ways to do doodads. "strategic positions" are all those empty resource nodes, 2 and 3 are in essence combined because StarCraft is so fast compared to AoE or RoN. 4 happens earlier in brood war games compared to other games because buildings are in comparison so much weaker in brood war. where brood war buildings have +1 armor, armor on some of those other game's buildings take away 90% of the damage or more from most units.

[UED_Marine]

I think the current popular system of battalions is right for Starcraft.

Huge numbers has always been a Starcraft thing, and current gaming possibilities are gonna up the ante on that.

[Lord Zack]

Realism? However did you get it in you're head I was talking about realism?lenty of Fantasy and Sci-fi has Military Strategy and I hardly call those realistic.

[Bullet2head]

Realism? However did you get it in you're head I was talking about realism?lenty of Fantasy and Sci-fi has Military Strategy and I hardly call those realistic.

But having Starcraft the way it is, is fine. You want to put so many changes into it, that it may become unplayable because of the complications.

Basically all your ideas have come from our kind of world now. Water units, Artillery, Weather (I can give you that), strategey (sp?). It's just to much to put into SC2.

[TwoTimer]

give me an expansion to all the tech trees of current, some more diversified terrain (that has effects on units), and im happy.

[Lord Zack]

But having Starcraft the way it is, is fine. You want to put so many changes into it, that it may become unplayable because of the complications.

Basically all your ideas have come from our kind of world now. Water units, Artillery, Weather (I can give you that), strategey (sp?). It's just to much to put into SC2.

I don't think it would be unplayable. I just think that if you want to play a game with the same gameplay as starcraft, you should just play starcraft. I want a game that's different that what's come before. Something unique and fun.

I don't want Starcraft 2 to be about who has the faster hands and better reflexes. A Real Time Strategy should be about brains. Or at the very least, brains and reflexes. The strategy in Starcraft basically consists of which units to build. Not where to send you're units when. Not having to deal with tactical suitations, like weather, ect. Not deception strategies or ambushes. Starcraft is missing tons of thing that would make it more fun.

Imagine, you're facing an enemy who up to now has been doing good. They've captured the routes to they're bases and are blocking all you're attackes and unless you come up with something, you lose. So you scout you're enemies and find that they have a gap in they're lines. You send in a force of Siege Tanks and Goliaths to defeat the units at that fortification. They're units are thin at that postion, so you're Goliaths blast they're Scout and you blast the fortifcations to dust before they can bring in reinforcements. After this pivitial point you manage to flank and destroy all the enemy positions and fight off counter attacks. You eventually destroy the enemy base.

In another match you're enemy is attacking using Seige Tanks and Goliaths, as you did earlier. You send Zerglings to distract them as you're mutalisks move into position. Two seconds later, you have a group of mutalisks moving into destroy the enemy, the Goliaths are distracted and you take them out quickly. Then the Siege Tanks are defenseless and you destroy them easily. You intercepted them in stead of letting them take the initative and attack you're base. Sure you lost a few Zerglings, but least they didn't blow up any structures in you're base.

In another match you send in you're Ghosts and take down a fortification blocking the way to the enemy base using Nukes. Or you tap into they're communications network and find a weakspot in they're lines. Or arm him with explosives and take out supply depots. Ect. What's more you should have a low-levelunit, specifically for scouting, instead of having to send a resource gathering or fighting unit to do it, wasting those resources. They're are higher level, beter ones like the Ghosts and Observers. And they're should be other ways of gathering intelligence, like Comstat Stations should have a certain area which they can see, as well as being able to scan areas that are further away. And there are so many things on the Military Cannel and Movies like Star Wars, ect. that I would like to be able to do in Starcraft.

[Bullet2head]

I don't think it would be unplayable. I just think that if you want to play a game with the same gameplay as starcraft, you should just play starcraft. I want a game that's different that what's come before. Something unique and fun.

I don't want Starcraft 2 to be about who has the faster hands and better reflexes. A Real Time Strategy should be about brains. Or at the very least, brains and reflexes. The strategy in Starcraft basically consists of which units to build. Not where to send you're units when. Not having to deal with tactical suitations, like weather, ect. Not deception strategies or ambushes. Starcraft is missing tons of thing that would make it more fun.

Imagine, you're facing an enemy who up to now has been doing good. They've captured the routes to they're bases and are blocking all you're attackes and unless you come up with something, you lose. So you scout you're enemies and find that they have a gap in they're lines. You send in a force of Siege Tanks and Goliaths to defeat the units at that fortification. They're units are thin at that postion, so you're Goliaths blast they're Scout and you blast the fortifcations to dust before they can bring in reinforcements. After this pivitial point you manage to flank and destroy all the enemy positions and fight off counter attacks. You eventually destroy the enemy base.

In another match you're enemy is attacking using Seige Tanks and Goliaths, as you did earlier. You send Zerglings to distract them as you're mutalisks move into position. Two seconds later, you have a group of mutalisks moving into destroy the enemy, the Goliaths are distracted and you take them out quickly. Then the Siege Tanks are defenseless and you destroy them easily. You intercepted them in stead of letting them take the initative and attack you're base. Sure you lost a few Zerglings, but least they didn't blow up any structures in you're base.

In another match you send in you're Ghosts and take down a fortification blocking the way to the enemy base using Nukes. Or you tap into they're communications network and find a weakspot in they're lines. Or arm him with explosives and take out supply depots. Ect. What's more you should have a low-levelunit, specifically for scouting, instead of having to send a resource gathering or fighting unit to do it, wasting those resources. They're are higher level, beter ones like the Ghosts and Observers. And they're should be other ways of gathering intelligence, like Comstat Stations should have a certain area which they can see, as well as being able to scan areas that are further away. And there are so many things on the Military Cannel and Movies like Star Wars, ect. that I would like to be able to do in Starcraft.


Ok, now tell me. What would happen, worst case senario, if you send that SCV, Drone, or Probe? You lose 50 minerals... it won't slow you down enough to cause you to lose.

Ok, as to your situations... THAT IS STARCRAFT! That is what it's made for! Nothing more, nothing less. Starcraft is Starcraft. It isn't a copy-off of Starwars. As for communications, the only real use would be Terran Vs Terran. Zerg don't have lines, and the Protoss are telepathic.

Comsat stations have the ability to see. But because a base is spread out farther than the Station, you don't notice it.

Ok, as to what makes it less fun in your opinion. That (once again) is Starcraft. You look at ANY RTS game, and you will see, build orders, units and counter-units. And probably most importantly, if one guy has the same amout of units as the other, yet his are that much stronger, HE WILL WIN. An RTS is for building units.

Now if you would like to have Starcraft in your way, you're gonna go have to make it yourself.

[Lord Zack]

I still want to have a scout unit.

As for you're comment of this is what every RTS has, I tought Starcraft was unique. Guess it isn't after all. Face it, Blizzard will try to make they're games the best they can. If they feel that having the game focused on semi-realistic strategy is the best thing, they'll do it. If they want to change something they'll change it. And despite what you fanboys think, Starcraft is not perfect, it's a great game, but not in any way perfect. Blizzard will change it, that's the whole point of having a sequel. If they implement only the changes you want them to that's basically an expansion. Just play Starcraft 1 since you obvoiusly don't want an actual sequel. If I'm going to spend 50 dollars I want a new game with new concepts, not the same game with prettier graphics and the storyline, which I could get in a novel or by looking on line and a couple new units, which If I wanted I could spend the time to program my self or if I had a Warcraft 3-like campaign editor I could do it much easier. So they're basically selling me 3D graphics which I don't care about and are certaintly not worth 50 dollars.

I want Starcraft 2 to be the greatest Strategy game of it's day, not a rehash of Starcraft 1. I want to have a Custom Map mode where it's me aganist my opponents, my brains aganist his. Not my reflexes aganist his. I want to be able to, once I've built my base, develop my strategy and then respond to any developments that happen, such maybe the weather or my opponent changing his strategy. I want to have battle comparable to any Sci-fi Battle or any real battle. It's should be you're battleplan versus his. You're right in saying the features I've suggested don't fit in Starcraft. Because Starcraft 2 is a different game, so it should play somewhat differently. Also I know Starcraft isn't a copy of Star Wars, but they're the same genre so I can compare them. Alo you're example of more powerful units. That shouldn't be true. It should be the strategies which ensure victory. A skilled commander should be able to win with a weaker force, because he's better at the game. Skill should be measured in how the battles go, as well as how many units one guy can build. Deception, flanking, surprise, guerilla tactics, all these are tools for defeating a larger force or a better equipped one. The skill of the commander ensures that he forces can succeed even if outgunned. In Starcraft as it is now you need superhuman reflexes to do any strategy or tactic and real war isn't won by reflexes. And that's an aspect of real war which would enhance the game, especially for people who are predisposed to bad reflexes like my self. The skills needed to win at Starcraft should be similar to those needed to win at war, because it simulates war to a point.

[flavormanIII]

Here's the thing any RTS will require fast reflexes regardless of how much strategic depth it has. You may be the greatest tactician, but your opponent is superior in managing his economy and controlong his units, he eventually beats you. The problem is not the game but the actual interface of the machine(Computer) the game is played in...

the perfect RTS you are looking for must have a direct neural link to your head to be effective. As long as the game is played with a mouse and a keyboard, reflexes will always be a factor..

[Demosthenes]

I do see what you're saying and, to a certain extent, I agree. I lose almost all my games because I'm not fast enough, despite the fact that I have a fairly good grasp of the game strategically. Nevertheless, it's a fact that the quicker you can gather resources, the quicker you can build up a force and the quicker you can put your strategy into action. In that sense, I can't imagine how you can take the speed/reflexes aspect out of StarCraft (2) without changing the core design of the game.

Also, the scenarios you described are found in StarCraft (at least in my opinion).

[flavormanIII]

I do see what you're saying and, to a certain extent, I agree. I lose almost all my games because I'm not fast enough, despite the fact that I have a fairly good grasp of the game strategically. Nevertheless, it's a fact that the quicker you can gather resources, the quicker you can build up a force and the quicker you can put your strategy into action. In that sense, I can't imagine how you can take the speed/reflexes aspect out of StarCraft (2) without changing the core design of the game.

Also, the scenarios you described are found in StarCraft (at least in my opinion).
I couldn't have said it better myself....

[Demosthenes]

I couldn't have said it better myself....
Heh, I saw your post after I had already posted mine and literally said the same thing. ;)

[flavormanIII]

Well, though I do not agree with most of Lord Zack's ideas, I agree that many things in StarCraft are underused because they are too micro extensive, expensive and too high up the tech tree.

One Example in the Ghost's Lockdown; In theory it is useful but you will need intense micromanagement to Lockdown each tank the opponent has.. Tanks that he will probably have way before you get ghosts with lockdown.

I suggest an improvement in SC's micromanagement. They are on the right track with WC3's Autocast, Tab select abd Idle workers.

Another would be to revise the tech tree a bit so abilities like Lockdown will be feasable in actual gameplay.

And Improve the macromanagement system of SC or make it more macro oriented than micro. I think this is where Lord Zack is getting at.

[Bullet2head]

Well, though I do not agree with most of Lord Zack's ideas, I agree that many things in StarCraft are underused because they are too micro extensive, expensive and too high up the tech tree.

One Example in the Ghost's Lockdown; In theory it is useful but you will need intense micromanagement to Lockdown each tank the opponent has.. Tanks that he will probably have way before you get ghosts with lockdown.

I suggest an improvement in SC's micromanagement. They are on the right track with WC3's Autocast, Tab select abd Idle workers.

Another would be to revise the tech tree a bit so abilities like Lockdown will be feasable in actual gameplay.

And Improve the macromanagement system of SC or make it more macro oriented than micro. I think this is where Lord Zack is getting at.


Another thing like that is a scout. they are SO underused because they suck. There ground attack does almost nothing, and Corsairs beat them in the air anyday. I don't understand why they put it in there...

[flavormanIII]

^
You have to remember, there were no corsairs in vanilla only scouts. Corsairs only appeared in BW and greatly outclassed scouts... even with the price decrease, couts are still too expensive for what they are worth. The only way they can be useful is ifu spend more for their sight/speed ups.

[UED Special Ops]

Hmm, makes you wonder why Blizz has not increased their stats in a patch yet? :hmmm:

But I digress... onward with the thread!

[Lord Zack]

I basically want two things. Less micromanagement and more strategy. That means that the game should be more than build orders and counter units. I'm saying that the map should have strategic considerations, other than it's shape. What terrain you're fighting on would change the results of the battle and what's happening, like weather and time of day.

[Bullet2head]

And I want you to get that that is not how Starcraft works. Trying to force that kind of change upon it, isn't good.

[UED Special Ops]

Hmm, isn't SC1 heavly Micro. Seems like what you want is any game but SC...

[TwoTimer]

I do see what you're saying and, to a certain extent, I agree. I lose almost all my games because I'm not fast enough, despite the fact that I have a fairly good grasp of the game strategically. Nevertheless, it's a fact that the quicker you can gather resources, the quicker you can build up a force and the quicker you can put your strategy into action. In that sense, I can't imagine how you can take the speed/reflexes aspect out of StarCraft (2) without changing the core design of the game.

Also, the scenarios you described are found in StarCraft (at least in my opinion).

thats teh complaint of 80% of the SCBW population... give me 250 apm or more and see what i can do.

[Bullet2head]

Heh, Twotimer will kick ass.

That's what I've been saying about Zack all along. He wants to (in a sense) rip down the Starcraft universe...

[Lord Zack]

No, I like the universe. I don't like the gameplay as much as I would if it focused more on strategy, though. I'm not saying eliminate all micromanagement. I'm saying take some of that away and have there be more consideration on what would happen if you fought here instead of here. In the game as it is, you can park you're units in front of you're bases and have the same amount of success as if youn fought anywhere else. The maps are like big tactical/strategical blobs. No area is really different than any where else, unless it's a cliff or a tree.

What I'm saying is that the fights should go differently depending on where they are fought. If you fight at a bottleneck, where only a few of you're enemies units can get through to fight you'res, you will have an advantage. If you're enemy moves his tanks through a field of tall grass, you can follow them. If they'res fog you can't see as far. If you have to fight in a thick jungle it's harder to manuver and fight the enemy. Ect. In fact this is my most important point. More important than Water Units, or Long-Range Artillery or whatever.

[Bullet2head]

But that's just it. Starcraft wasn't made for focusing on stratagey. It was made so you could blow shit up and still get somewhere in the storyline. Unlike 90% of the other games out there.

I can see what you are saying, with the fog and such. But, on these planet, they have no grass. Everything is burnt. And unless you are a horrible player, those choke point can be blocked and slow enemies down IMMENSLY. (sp?)

The fog idea is a bit useless. In the sense that, it'll take you a second longer to search a certan area, because of fog.

[Lord Zack]

Than why is it called a Real Time Strategy game? And, yes there is strategy. Just not enough for my tastes. Also, several planets have grass, for one, Auir.

[UED Special Ops]

Umm, that is what every RTS game is called, duh. Different rts emphasize different types of gameplay. SC1 is one of em that doesn't have tons of the strategy you seem to want. And I doubt that SC2 will change that.

[Bullet2head]

Blizzard will get flamed if they do change it into much strategey...

[Lord Zack]

Well, I'm not saying make it just strategy and no micromanagement and stuff. I basically have two major points: (1) units should be smart enough to survive by themselves and; (2) not all combats should be the same.

Micro should be an aspect of the game. That i true. But, you shouldn't be required to micro every single unit you have just to stand a chance. They should make units "smarter" so people can focus on the big picture and not worry about a suprise attack wasting his units before he gets there. This should be accomplished by such features such as autocast. So while you have to micro sometimes to win, you're units can take care of themselves in some suitations.

Another aspect, not every place you fight should be the same. Every different battlefield should have strategic considerations. So while you're Zerglings can swarm and overwhelm the enemy Marines and Siege Tanks on the plains, in the mountains just north of them that's a different story. So the Terrans will take steps to ensure the battle occurs in the mountains, while the Zerg will either try to draw them out onto the plains, or they will try to avoid fighting the siege tanks and marines with the zerglings enterily. This is already true to a point, but it should be more true in Starcraft 2.

I don't see how this preverts the game play of Starcraft at all. If anything it just improves what's already there.