Homeworld 1 & 2 Remastered!

Speaking of space strategy, I just stumbled across this:



http://store.steampowered.com/app/322540/

terrain is absolutely necessary for a good RTS, otherwise it'd be like playing supcom or TA on just a flat plane with no features, it's not fun.

Today's friendly reminder:

Fun is subjective.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subjective

Well, I can say with relative certainty that most supcom players would not play the game if there was nothing but a flat map to play on. Space RTS games are no different, it's a 3d map but still no terrain features.

I think you're the minority here mate, Space RTS adds an extra dimension. Who doesn't like to see all the amazing explosions in 3d, huge battleships with multiple batteries and lasers beams. It also had a great balance of fightcraft all the way up to capitol ships.

EVEN if you hate the gameplay, the game is still worth playing for the story alone. It's an epic tale.

Have you actually played Homeworld, you'd know the maps actually have a lot of interesting features to them like huge monolith structures, ancient ship graveyards, gorgeous nebula's and asteroid belts.

And the irony of your statement is PA maps are mostly featureless maps. Having planets curve around on themselves doesn't really add as much depth as you'd think.

Don't take this the wrong way, I don't mean it as an insult, but how old are you? I get the feeling that a lot of these games were before your time, or maybe you were a console gamer.

Truth be told, that's one of the things I like about PA.

The difficulty in walling off an area because of the lack of naturally defensible positions is awesome.

1. The extra dimension of the space RTS is the problem, there are no obstacles because it's much easier to avoid them in space.
2. As graphically pleasing as homeworld remastered is, graphics are still second to gameplay and quite frankly there have been plenty of graphically pleasing games with terrible gameplay. Homeworld included.
3. PA maps are perfectly fine, you've just got to create them yourself, look at eroticburrito's new mesa map.
4. 42, homeworld was not before my time, neither was TA or even dune.

I'd argue that given an extra dimension, the "need" for obstacles to create interesting scenarios goes away. A third dimension allows for more variation in the number of units and formations that a position can be approached by in a period of time.

That said, it sounds like you're just a person who likes terrain. You're like the board game people who won't play miniatures games because they have terrain and that ruins the idea of a strategy game.

Like what you will, but the truth is there are advantages to the things you're calling bad. You just don't care about them.

You can't ambush in space and you can't flank in space. Those are important things in a strategy game.

Wrong on all counts.

If visibility is limited somehow, you can totally ambush. Either through cloaking or understanding some sort of present fog of war equivalent.

There are actually more directions to flank from in space. It's like you didn't read the point about being able to approach a single point from more directions. That's what flanking is.

And neither flanking nor ambushes are necessary in a strategy game. Especially ambushes, since that would entirely undermine the validity of all games without information denial. And the people I talked about would claim that any game with information denial isn't a real strategy game.

Guess what guys?

Internet Rule #3'2: What is true for you may not be true for the entire planet (and may not be the ultimate truth either).

Information denial is a key to strategy games. That's why nobody plays with fog of war off - and why space rts games are ****, because there can't be information denial in space.

Chess doesn't have information denial (or terrain), yet it's often seen as the strategy game.
Also, Homeworld does have information denial - you don't have visibility over the entire map, and you have limited sensor range.

Unless, you know, you fight over something that isn't open space, which would be pointless.

You know, like a planet, where your information is limited by the horizon and the speed of light.

Where enemy's fight at speeds and distances that makes light based communication slow, making voyages across the great black perilous, as such vast distances means that you can get no help in time for an enemy to appear as dust on your sensors only to laser off your communications with weapons that may have travel across half a solar system, possibly even have been fired minutes ago, even though they travel at the speed of light.

The problem is mistaking homeworlds interpretation for what space wars would be like.

When in reality, the idea of seeing an enemy ship is ludicrous, and the battlefield over a small patch of asteroids minuscule to what it'll actually be like.

Terrain my dear, is the vast depth of space time, and the light speed barrier.

Information denial but it doesn't mean anything because units can move anywhere unrestricted.
Chess also isn't an RTS.

By your definition PA has no restrictions and Terran doesn't mater either. There are a few obstacles in PA but so are there in homeworld.

I think it's strange you can completely right off all the other great things about homeworld and get hung up on the the extra axis in space making the game awful in your eyes. I think if you honestly played it and gave it a try you'd enjoy many aspects of it.

I am not hung up on the extra axis, three dimensions still works well on an actual surface. With terrain. To actually encourage tactics other than "set waypoint, win"

You just described every RTS that doesn't put a massive emphasis on unit abilities. Setting a waypoint is directing your units.

And I don't even know if Homeworld has unit abilities or not. Haven't played it. I'm just annoyed by your faulty arguments.

My point is that there should be tactics other than movement in a straight line towards the enemy mothership. Homeworld was a 3d game but by its nature was also 1 dimensional