Am I The Only One Who...

...doesn't like rushing in RTS games? I fully admit, it's a valid strategy, and if you can win with it, then by all means, do so.

I dunno, I just think that I more enjoy this game type when you're playing against a friend, or a low-level AI, where you can just turtle up behind lots of turret towers and build a big swarm of little units (or a little swarm of big units, that's fun too) and just throw them at the enemy to see what happens.

Am I the only one who enjoys RTSs for this kind of play style? I fully admit I'm not that great at RTSs, and I kinda feel out of my league here on the forums, what with so many of you appearing to be vets of the genre.

My recommendation is actung panzer by Heinz Gudarian this book is the pivital tactics hand book of the world wars. What it shows is that even blitzkrieg attack speed is a rush attack that uses all the elements of warfare coordinated at once. But the release of these units did not happen straight away, there was years of careful build up and research to add potentcy to the attack.

I dont like stealing knights job but this should be in general discussion forum. Also I to enjoy turtling up and just seeing what sort of clicks but that really is for single player against low level ais and friends online play is alot more competative like in most rts games map control is key to winning the more of the map you control the more resources you have the better ability you have to out produce your enemy.

Rushing is just an early means to dominate the map to ensure your enemy does not gain the economic advantage. Its brutish but effective and ill admit i use it alot in FA to gain that map control to then crush my enemy in endless waves of bots

You aren't alone. I tend to turtle and tech up too.

Rather than use a lowlevel AI I prefer to use mid-range AI and ensure there is another AI to distract it for a while. Assuming that is, the AI isn't badly programmed such that it always targets the Human Player.

I like to actively attack opponents, while stealing their tech. Haha, Guess that tactic is useless on PA XD

When I was newbier on FA I thought the same, but now, I played some really good games with rush, and it really looks awesome. 100 t1 units attacking another 100 units, massive battles (on Seton's ), air support, water support with rockets and big guns. And after everything, everywhere scrap, that you can use to build tech 2-4. You must just be good enough to not fail too fast. Once my ACU had 240 hp left after fast rush and taking some mass, but I survived thx to my tactic and strategy and won, even after our 2 guys death later.

I like early fighting, raiding, and trying to secure victory from the word go.

What I absolutely despise though, is "all or nothing" attacks, unless you are severely on the losing side of the battle.

I'm not sure if that's what you mean with rush, but any game that starts with building tanks and ends with game over after 5 minutes because your opponent quit since his tanks couldn't win instantly, is 5 minutes of time wasted.
On the other hand, securing victory after 5 minutes because you are just that much better isn't much of a problem.

Most games suffer terribly from "all or nothing" players who just want to win quick and give up when their first attempt fails because they don't want to actually learn to play the game.

I too love to turtle to get the AI to the point where you create an endless war of sorts so you can throw whatever you want at it to create epic battles.

I'll be that guy.

How long is the time between rushing and just normal attcking?

A "rush" is any attack that happens before 20 minutes.

A "normal attack" uses the highest tech units and 20 asteroids that a-move across the map and crush everything without an ounce of resistance.

To ensure a fun game, an intent to attack needs to be filled out in triplicate and sent to all involved parties. The involved groups then have 4-8 weeks to approve or change the terms of the attack, and are allowed a grace period to build up their defenses beforehand. Otherwise, you're just being a cheesy scrub.

Don't be an arse bob.

While it is annoying to lose a game in 2 minutes because some robots wandered into your base when you only have engineers and buildings around, I do like that rushing exists to present a near constant threat.

With rushing base building becomes a gamble. Do you blitz the mass extractors and generators to get an early game resource advantage while leaving yourself vulnerable for a while, or do you pump out some tanks and turrets that may or may not be sitting idle and could be a waste of time building because your opponent couldn't find you or is too busy turtling?

Id say that the time it takes for a player to build a few mass extractors, a few powerplants and a factory should be the minimum safe window for any player.

After that its hands off, as both players can build forces to attack and defend so any attack from that point is not really a rush as both players have had time to establish the infastructure neccesary for it to no longer have been a rush but a genuine attack.


This is of course dependant on map size but it should all be achivable by the 5 min mark, from that point the players can eaisly deploy radar and AA to fend of aircraft, as well as more engineers to expand your economy and defences.

not to mention the stuff needed to deploy attack forces without it destroying you economy in an all out attack.

You know it in your heart to be true.

Any time an attack isn't possible is a missed gameplay opportunity. The more options that get removed, the worse off everyone will be.

For everyone else, there's an Uber Cannon to shut down rushes.

+1 Bobucles

I think, "rush" is in game as long as t1 is possible choice. Or as long as you're unprepared to any attack. Its hard to say, some may be still unprepared even after 20 no rush timer (I crushed one guy with army of t1 bots created 2 min before norush end, silly death. He had "turrets", but thats not enough for an army of dangerous robots!), or just after 20 minutes in normal big game. And t1 can be proper choice even for a long FA game sometimes. So "rush" is abstract thing, that newbies use to say "thats not my fault!" Just sayin'.

Rushing really is the means when an enemy hits you with an attack you are really not prepared to deal with.

being hit with 5 tanks after the first 3 mins is what I would classify as a rush, succesful or not.

A similar thing can be said about being immediatly hit by aircraft, and unlike in every TA like game your commander has no possible way of defending himself without building another unit.

If it get's beyond the 10 min mark and you get called out for attacking then yes, they were poor at the game.

But earlier then 5 mins? that's kinda a **** move just to win, and there is no way this type of RTS should be design around that kind of attack.
Massive scale RTS games don't live up to their mark if only 2 or 3 units won you the game, if you wan't that go play starcraft or command and conquer, Hell even play SupCom 2 and you can achive a similar effect.

You really shouldn't have much trouble holding off 5 tanks with your commander, though.

The only rush that bothers me (like I said before) is the kind where you D-gun 5 tanks and your opponent quits because his rush failed and he doesn't know/care about following up with an actual match. Otherwise, it's just an early probing attack and that should be fine. Players will learn to deal with them one way or another.

True.

That and air rushes becuse your commander is a dog who can't look up.

Maybe **** move, one or more tanks, but thats life. Its war, we dont give each other ponies and hot chocolate talking, near nuclear fireplace, about friendship and love. We use everything to get advantage in game in every second of game. I destroyed your pgen after 3 minutes of game? Too bad I say, deal with it and fight like badass ACU. I failed many times because of rush, but I did not cried, I learned from failure and become better.

you cant rush across a galaxy