I dunno. I find that given the generally somewhat shallow and micromanagey gameplay in RTSes, I crave strong scripting and storytelling to provide engaging context for shepherding my little mans.

I’d like a bit more of that in all of the Dawn of War titles since Winter Assault, but they at least provide a pleasing overlay with a few strategic considerations. Men of War is probably the only RTS I’ve encountered where I could see playing skirmishes entirely devoid of scripting or storyline and still enjoying myself completely, simply due to the depth of simulation.

DoW2: I bought it, played it, liked the shinies, hated the MP. I’ve been considering building a skirmish mod for it, trying to recapture the feel of the SP (or tabletop for that matter), but keep finding that I’ve got better things to do. Overall verdict? “Meh.”

I’ve not bought yet but I’ve got the SP demo downloaded so we’ll see.

But, DoW2 was a serious disappointment for me. The base-less missions are short and you can’t save mid-mission, the timer encourages you to rush through them, there’s not much story, and the strategic map is gone, replaced by something that *looks* similar but has none of that gameplay.

Total War isn’t really an RTS series at all, though a lot of people seem to think it is. It’s a grand strategy game with a combat resolution system that happens to be real time. Basically all grand strategy games have the kind of strategic context I’m talking about (from EU3 to Gal Civ 2 to Civ 4 and so on). It’s certainly one reason I’m an avid Total War fan, though, and an avid grand strategy fan in general.

I suppose I should have said “I suppose I’m a dying breed of real time strategy gamer.” The temptation is to declare that strategy is disappearing from real time strategy games, but that’s a level of dickish judgementalism I’ve not quite reached. I get the sense at least some of these titles still have real depth to them, it’s just not a kind of depth I can appreciate.

Getting used to the idea that losing isn’t always losing has made me much more critical of other RTS games where losing means either quitting or doing it all again like we’re back in 1994. I use quick save in these games more than I do any FPS. Sending massive cheap peasant and militia armies at en route Mongols knowing that the point isn’t to win but to inflict enough damage that they can’t possibly take Jerusalem from me gives the moustache-pinching feeling I don’t get from Warcraft clones.

In related news: bought Demigod and bloody hell, it’s more Dawn of The Ancients than Dawn of The Ancients; with expensive special effects and smaller maps. The Unclean Beast will probably be nerfed, if only because he sounds like dirty innuendo.

Sounds good to me. In many ways that’s the natural evolution of the subgenre, but since the subgenre seems to be dead it’s stopped evolving. :(

When I lose a mission I don’t want to replay it, I want to get pushed back and have to fight to regain the momentum. I want victories and losses to mean something other than “I get to see another cut scene and be treated to more awkward dialogue.”

I dunno, maybe I’m just a dying breed of strategy gamer.

Well said and I absolutely agree. However, I have also found that in single-player, scripted RTS battles are nearly always far superior to the typical “skirmish” vs. AI. I wish more dynamic campaigns incorporated designed battles or perhaps “procedurally-generated” strategic events that made me feel like I was fighting a “real” war. I think Rise of Legends tried this, and it worked to a certain degree.