Mlai wrote:If you've looked at CoH and still feel SC is better, then I'm not going to waste my breath. IMO, DoW is more advanced than SC conceptually, and CoH is an advanced evolution of DoW, therefore CoH concept >>> SC1/2 concept, since SC2 is just a better (or not) SC1.
Your statement is worth nothing without arguments.
WC3 is a micro fest with imbas, where the hero takes too much of the glory. It's not worth mentioning in a debate about the pinnacle of strategy. It's not a bad game, but it's not great enough to be used for dissing HoMM.
There is some slight imbalance in W3 indeed, but it is only something in the order of 10% in favor of one race (for ex ORC vs HU is evaluated to 40%//60% by some good players, it is the worst imba). It's already quite big, but if you admit yourself that CoH is imbalanced, it's quite not a good argument to diss w3. Also, CoH is mostly micro too, so again what's wrong with W3 ?
Huh?! I'm pretty sure i can argue that "attack, move, build etc." are a rigid set of instructions too... so i don't actually get what you mean by that.
All computer games have a rigid set of instructions, some just more then others... it's the nature of computer programs.
not making any point
And again, speed =! strategy... so it's not a good argument that in one game you do stuff every few seconds is more strategic then another... one choice can count way more then 10 different choices made in the same amount of time... so "in SC it happens faster" proves bubkis (sp?).
obviously I was pointing out that Heroes or Civ extend games on a very unnecessary long time... and strategic choices being rare within them, it does make them poor. It means you are rarely thinking or reacting (isn't that obvious ? did you really read ?).
Huh?! I don't know what Chess you've been watching but time limits are not mandatory and are used in tournaments so that a game won't take 5 hours... not because it's more strategic that way.
no, ask a chess player. Chess can be played without a time limit but it becomes flawed.
That's what i'm saying, that they are... one is what is refered as Micro and the other Macro... i wasn't referring just to the one time you rush or harass the other player, but as play styles... that's why i used the Micro vs Macro players example... strategy = play style.
then yes they do vary a lot, and a player's play style is far from limited to "micro player" or "macro player". what you said shows your lack of knowledge or understanding of the game.
There you go... you think that actions in Heroes or Civ are redundant... i don't.
And are you implying that there are no "build orders" in SC?!
I think build orders take up all game on most map in Heroes V, Civ is like a huge conditional build order to my eyes. I've read reports from "good" players and it seems I'm right. Now I could still be wrong ;D But you're not really giving any arguments to explain why Civ isn't like that.
There are build orders in SC as in any game. They last only a few minuts at maximum. They are the launching of your game plan.
You can argue that an adaptable strategy is better then a rigid one, but not that a rigid strategy isn't a strategy.
Wikipedia says you're wrong, and I think that page I linked too. A strategy is adaptable by nature, else it isn't a strategy. Now let's say a big group of people still call that kind of rigid plan a strategy : then Heroes, Civilization, Shoot them ups, any of the simplest arcade games, and well any game that was ever created can be played with strategy ^_^ But in that case, it doesn't mean actually playing them requires ANY strategy skills. So okay, call your H5 or Civ games strategy games and use plans without being able to do anything else that executing algorithm. What a skilled strategist you are.
All battles in Heroes are pure tactics... no matter how limited they might or might not be.
Yep, there are still degrees of tactics and you could argue two tactical games have different tactical value. H5's tactical value is certainly very low compared to most RTS or FPS, and that's what I've already been arguing before. If you got any argument, bring it on...
Sorry but all those definitions are saying the same thing with very different words... it's a thing humans do.
You probably didn't understand much of what was written there at all T.T
CoH is more realistic then SC... which is more abstract so it can be more balanced. Kinda like real war vs chess...
What is your point ? greater realism = greater complexity ? Don't make me laugh.
"the practical adaptation of the means placed at a general’s disposal to the attainment of the object in view."
Notice the words practical there? It kinda has some implications for the meaning of adaptation.
lol you're destroying yourself here because this very sentence says you were wrong when you said a strategy isn't necessarily adaptable. This sentence says strategy is the ACT of adapting your means to attain your goal. It really couldn't be a rigid plan, according to this quote.
Again, it doesn't have to be fair to be a strategy... cheating is also a strategy. Using machine guns against people with spears is also a strategy, one much used in RL.
just read again, seriously...
Nice one... from someone that claims there's no strategy in Heroes or Civ...
but I don't lose in Heroes ^^
See, it's a funny thing... when you are very into one thing and don't bother with getting very into others you tend to think the thing you're into is the most complex thing ever...
Mlai maybe too harsh because he's had enough of people praising SC like it's the best thing since buttered bread, but SC isn't the best thing since buttered bread either, so relax.
Not a bad point, but that's not what I do and it's why I'm kind of trying to discuss it here. Although it seems obvious seeing the huge design flaws of Heroes that it couldn't reach anywhere near the degree of complexity of a good RTS.
You mean the guys that where screaming that MBS will make SC2 so easy that the pro's will lose to n00bs?! Seems they don't agree with you that strategy is more important then speed... (i don't agree with them btw, this is just something i found funny).
not what they said, or you read some noobs posts. The point of good players who don't like the multiple building selection idea is that it will make playing slowly easier, and it isn't cool because RTS are about strategy AND speed / control, so they consider removing the speed factor from them is a loss.
AND maybe i missed it, but you still haven't answered this:
But are you actually implying that some strategies aren't better then others and that whatever you do the result is the same = all Civ PvP games end in a draw?!
No, why ? It's quite a dumb question.
How ?
Scary, huh?
)
) and I don't play just other than turn based strategy games. 
