A look at micromanagement in RTS games

H

hellocomputer

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
83
Some people say that all the micromanagement in games like Company of Heroes is just 'work' and takes away from the gameplay. But I think it's only work if you're no good at it. So who is good at RTS games? I think it's people that are good at mathematics personally. Math has you performing various complicated patterns, functions, etc....Your thoughts?
 
LOL company of heros and micro that's funny. There's hardly any in CoH. Go take a look at top wc3 or starcraft players. That's micro. Micro requires skill which leads to competition. It's bad for single player experiences as it's usually frustrating but for multiplayer you need to have micro based gameplay in order for the game to last in competitive play.
 
I believe that the very essence of a good strategy game is micromanagement. It is about being able to lead an army into battle and control all of the logistics required to have an effective army.
 
Personally i think micromanagement is good if the game is fun. Some people who play the civilization series games and others like it may think of it as work building up forces and technologies and all that, but to others, the satisfaction of massing up a powerful army or navy, ect; and gaining skills to crush your enemies be they human or computer makes up for it imho.
Would like to see more games come out that let you do more first person and micromanagement though.
 
There is intense micromanagement in CoH when your opponent is good. Yes Warcraft III is where it's at when it comes to micro but both games scale dependent on opponents.
 
CoH forses you to be doing something all the time because the AI is persistent and wont just amass and attack you, they send out patrols and lots of anoying shit... it keeps you on edge... if I find myself idling in CoH, I start anticipating something horrible and freaking out...
 
I'm not sure how much a person's skill at mathematics factors in...more easily equated to chess I suppose...people who can think ahead and formulate a plan on the fly based on a solid gameplan...

edit-

also, does the term micromanagement almost sound like a negative thing to anyone else? I never even considered what I was doing in RTS's as "micromanagement" until I read a review where the term was used in a somewhat negative way (IE, "IF you like micromanagment....")...to me its just part of running a war/battle/civilization. Grow, expand, build, relate, war, ect...

I think people that LIKE RTS games dont even know they are "micromanaging"...they are just playing the game the way its supposed to be played: completely.

also COH isnt very micro heavy...seems like you can often do a LOT with very little actually...
 
hellocomputer said:
So who is good at RTS games? I think it's people that are good at mathematics personally.
Click to expand...
Nope. I'm pretty good at maths (doing the 3rd year of a maths major at uni) and I'm fucking atrocious at strategy games.
 
That may be so but I wonder how well you'd do if experts taught you. I'd imagine better than the guy who is an English major. Some RTS games are very much about numbers and statistics like Warcraft 3. Think of all the different types of units that each have their own set of statistics. That stuff relates to gameplay probably more than a lot of people know. Someone with an understanding of this is much more efficient at the game than the average Joe that just masses a bunch of stuff and hopes for the best.
 
nicotine said:
I believe that the very essence of a good strategy game is micromanagement. It is about being able to lead an army into battle and control all of the logistics required to have an effective army.
Click to expand...

The very essence of a good strategy game is strategy.

The very essence of a good micromanagement game is micromanagement.

Strategy != Micromanagement.

If the core focus was on strategy, it'd be better to trim down micromanagement so that the player can spend the time on thinking strategically instead of clicking frantically. For example, you can increase the micromanagement of anything drastically. You could be forced to tell individual units to move one leg, then the other to run forward, but that has little to do with strategy. Great micromanagement though.

It's why we have rally points. Saves time on going back to direct each unit one by one to the same spot.

Logistics is a critical part of strategy, but it doesn't have to involve micromanagement. (Again, see the example of moving feet). You should be able to communicate your strategic aims quickly and simply. Then the focus is fighting the other opponent's strategies, not who can wrestle the control interface better than the other.

When games proceed quickly and in real-time, small details and micromanagement in general becomes difficult and it becomes an issue of speed clicking. There are turn-based strategy games with far far more management. Having more options is fine here since you can take all the time you want to put your strategies in motion.


Another example is the various levels of command in a military organization. Each leader gives out a strategy, and the subordinates give out the tactics that put it in motion. General says take the city. Lower officer says hit from west and south ends. Next lower officer points out the path in, Squad officer tells the squad where to take cover. The individual soldier is in charge of his own body.
 
Another example is the various levels of command in a military organization. Each leader gives out a strategy, and the subordinates give out the tactics that put it in motion. General says take the city. Lower officer says hit from west and south ends. Next lower officer points out the path in, Squad officer tells the squad where to take cover. The individual soldier is in charge of his own body.
Click to expand...

President sits at the ranch.
 
One thing I hate about recent RTS is that they FORCE you to select a whole group instead of individual units. I hate having to move the whole damn group just because 1 unit in it is getting attacked. It is very hard and frustrating to micro with that unit selection method.
 
kelbear said:
The very essence of a good strategy game is strategy.

The very essence of a good micromanagement game is micromanagement.

Strategy != Micromanagement.

If the core focus was on strategy, it'd be better to trim down micromanagement so that the player can spend the time on thinking strategically instead of clicking frantically. For example, you can increase the micromanagement of anything drastically. You could be forced to tell individual units to move one leg, then the other to run forward, but that has little to do with strategy. Great micromanagement though.

It's why we have rally points. Saves time on going back to direct each unit one by one to the same spot.

Logistics is a critical part of strategy, but it doesn't have to involve micromanagement. (Again, see the example of moving feet). You should be able to communicate your strategic aims quickly and simply. Then the focus is fighting the other opponent's strategies, not who can wrestle the control interface better than the other.

When games proceed quickly and in real-time, small details and micromanagement in general becomes difficult and it becomes an issue of speed clicking. There are turn-based strategy games with far far more management. Having more options is fine here since you can take all the time you want to put your strategies in motion.


Another example is the various levels of command in a military organization. Each leader gives out a strategy, and the subordinates give out the tactics that put it in motion. General says take the city. Lower officer says hit from west and south ends. Next lower officer points out the path in, Squad officer tells the squad where to take cover. The individual soldier is in charge of his own body.
Click to expand...

Yeah but do you not have to have a strategic approach to micromangement?

I believe that micromanagement is another facet of the overall strategy to winning the battle. Take Rome: Total War (or any of the Total War games) for example. In the campaign mode you have to micromanage your settlements to power your war machine to continue to expand your borders and conquer more territory. Without the micromanagements of your economy you army would stop dead in it's tracks.

In a less in-depth strategic game such as Age of Empires, this micromanagement is still there though it is much less in-depth. In the early stages of the game you have to mange your finite resource gatherers to focus on the resources you need in the early stages of the game such as wood and food, whereas in the later game you focus more on stone and gold because you have already accumulated the wood and food from the early game and the resource gatherers already exist for the basic goods.

In essence, I agree with what Martyr said above, that good strategy players don't ever think of it as micromangement. It just becomes another facet of the game they have their own strategies for.
 
The Red said:
CoH forses you to be doing something all the time because the AI is persistent and wont just amass and attack you, they send out patrols and lots of anoying shit... it keeps you on edge... if I find myself idling in CoH, I start anticipating something horrible and freaking out...
Click to expand...
i mean like in the very best of say, starcraft. every single unit and every single building is doing something at all times.
 
kelbear said:
The very essence of a good strategy game is strategy.

The very essence of a good micromanagement game is micromanagement.

Strategy != Micromanagement.

If the core focus was on strategy, it'd be better to trim down micromanagement so that the player can spend the time on thinking strategically instead of clicking frantically.
[...]
Then the focus is fighting the other opponent's strategies, not who can wrestle the control interface better than the other.

When games proceed quickly and in real-time, small details and micromanagement in general becomes difficult and it becomes an issue of speed clicking.
Click to expand...

I could not have said it any better myself. Remembering when I played some RTS games in recent history, building the base in the beginning in the right order at the right speed was 1/2 the game. Oh yeah and clicking across the map really, really quickly and accurately...

As much as I admire people's micromanagement skills, I don't think there is a lot of strategy involved. I suck at strategy, but do OK at MM games.
 
Martyr said:
people who are good at rts are never idle the entire game. its crazy
Click to expand...
You should see people that are great. I would say I'm a decent rts gamer (never idle, build plans, etc...) but if you ever see the gods of the game (wc3 in my case) it just makes you seem like you are playing in slow motion :(
 
The Red said:
CoH forses you to be doing something all the time because the AI is persistent and wont just amass and attack you, they send out patrols and lots of anoying shit... it keeps you on edge... if I find myself idling in CoH, I start anticipating something horrible and freaking out...
Click to expand...

lol yea...i pretty much sit there and constatnly repair/replace units while i build up munition and man power...then press forward once i got enough to cause damage
 
hity645 said:
lol yea...i pretty much sit there and constatnly repair/replace units while i build up munition and man power...then press forward once i got enough to cause damage
Click to expand...

You arnt playing the game to full effect then. Play good players on multiplayer, or set the computer to hard. You WILL get out microed
 
What is the alternative?

when Dawn of War came out it was an extreamly micro-game and you really had to know what your units did and what the oponenents did (as well as customisation)

result: steap learning curve and steap master curve


Relic then brought out Dawn of War:Winter Assult and really changed the gamestyle
now when you tech a new unit it basically superceeds the previous (kask replace GM,Terms replace SM)...

result: low learning curve steap master curve BUT
the end games are more abt massing the Uber-units

take an end style for a SM,
all Assult-Termies (DS in) Land Raider and depending on who you play either all Dreds (DS in) or Dreads and Preds

no use for early units (esp with the IG where the likes of sent no longer used)



Relic for the next expansion/standalone (you don't need DoW or WA to play online with others DC is stand alone) they are putting hard-caps on the Uber units thus if you want a big army you will need to use lower-teir units

thus micro is needed


I personally love micro since it is no fun selecing a big army of 3 different units Alt-1 assign and right-click yr targets
 
AOEIII was a ton of micro when I played it online; I couldn't stand it myself. I want stragedy with troop design, composition, movement, base building, etc... not how fast I can move my mouse.

According to one interview I read, Supreme Commander is supposed to not favor micro - one of many reasons I am excited about it.
 
While I don't have any problem with the gameplay in these sorts of games with heavy micromanagement, I really think they should be called real time tactics to differentiate between real strategy where you take a much more zoomed out approach to warfare and the smallest decisions can help, but aren't game-breaking.
 
i don't think you need to be good a math to be good at RTS games.. or that people that are good at math would be good at RTS games either... that's just BS....

if you want to break it doen to a "type of person" that would be good at RTS.. i think Engineers would be better at RTS games than just a person that's good at math.. and engineers don't have to be awesome mathematicians...
 
I think that more micromanagement means a greater amount of flexibility when it comes to strategy. Anyone can order a group of archers onto a hill and melee units up front. But who can control the individual units in such a way that it makes the difference between an equally sized force?
 
math has nothing to do with playing an RTS. You need to know how to strategize(sp?). you need to have the ability to make or see windows of opportunity, and capitalize on it. Yes you need to click fast, but that comes with learning the hotkeys.

What game only allows you to select groups of units? thats the dumbest thing i've ever heard.

If anyone wants to play the perfect RTS, go pick up Warcraft 2 BNE. Theres still 1000 or so people on b.net (US East).
 
hellocomputer said:
I think that more micromanagement means a greater amount of flexibility when it comes to strategy. Anyone can order a group of archers onto a hill and melee units up front. But who can control the individual units in such a way that it makes the difference between an equally sized force?
Click to expand...
the guy who masters the gui more than his opponent.

The problem is that I don't want to spend 40 hours perfecting my build plan. Honestly, I could skip the first couple of minutes and just have it scripted.
 
Forgot to comment on micro =] i want both in my RTS games... it seems games like war3 have hurt the macro aspect.. I hope Starcraft2 is more like war2 or the original SC.

Taking micro out of an RTS game is like taking the crosshair out of an FPS.
 
drizzt81 said:
the guy who masters the gui more than his opponent.

The problem is that I don't want to spend 40 hours perfecting my build plan. Honestly, I could skip the first couple of minutes and just have it scripted.
Click to expand...

build plans have nothing to do with micromanagement man... im not sure what your complaint is... the fact that you have to build a barracks?

And no one good uses the gui. they use the hotkeys.
 
JSC450 said:
Taking micro out of an RTS game is like taking the crosshair out of an FPS.
Click to expand...
which would make it incredibly more realistic, wouldn't it?
 
no, because guns have sights, scopes have cross hairs. do not take the conversation in the direction you are trying to take it, your argument holds no water, silly goose.
 
drizzt81 said:
which would make it incredibly more realistic, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
Sure. Now ask yourself do you want that? I know I don't. I play games because they are fun. Realism is only good to a point.
 
bluesteel said:
Math skills do not = skills in RTS

Micromanagement is only one aspect of a rts.
Click to expand...
Macro is big part of an rts. Where to place forces, defenses, etc...
As much as people knock the macro in wc3 I have won two games due to some nice macro. You can come back from having an ally dying to an early hero rush in a 2v2 game ;)
 
To bluesteel:

I think you're wrong. Units have hit points, mana, armor ratings, etc. These things are important factors in RTS games especially when it comes down to the wire. If you think being good with numbers has nothing to do with being an RTS expert then you are no RTS expert.
 
Never said I was an expert. But, base placement, troop allocation, defenses, etc... are all macro. Micro is simply managing troops in battle. Macro/micro is not an either or thing as both are needed to have an rts.

Edit: Just re-read the post above this one. Ignore this :p
 
hellocomputer said:
To bluesteel:

I think you're wrong. Units have hit points, mana, armor ratings, etc. These things are important factors in RTS games especially when it comes down to the wire. If you think being good with numbers has nothing to do with being an RTS expert then you are no RTS expert.
Click to expand...


just cause you can hack out the numbers doesn't mean you're gona be good though... it's just one part of it..

of course you should factor numbers into your strategy.. but that's not the only factor..

if you play soley on numbers.. then i bet you lose more units than you really should in order to win.. playing on numbers alone is very brute for primative in my opnion..

I'm not saying that's what you do.. i'm just syaing.. soley playing on numbers isn't the best way.. you gotta to factor everything in.. that's what makes a good RTS player..

I'm not a big RTS fan though.. i like turn based strategy games like Civ III (unfortunatly i havne't had my hands on civ IV yet) a lot more..
 
hellocomputer said:
If you think being good with numbers has nothing to do with being an RTS expert then you are no RTS expert.
Click to expand...
If you think being good with numbers has anything to do with being good at maths, then you're no maths expert :p
 
Being good at RTS has NOTHING to do with being good at math, I don't know where people get this from.
 
Agree to disagree. You didn't read what I said. I said it makes a difference when it comes down to the wire. It may be only one factor of playing an RTS but it's a crucial one to be one of the greats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top