OMG! LTP SCII MP With Blizzard’s StarCraft Master

Let me see your Zerg rush face
If you are Pvt. Leonard ‘Gomer Pyle’ Lawrence, then StarCraft Master is Gunnery Sgt. Hartman, shouting GG sarcastically into your face to prepare for the horrors of Vietnam StarCraft II multiplayer. Masters is a mod that’s just gone live on with 30 challenges carefully curated to mimic strategies you’ll use when you click that terrifying button that takes you online. You may not like it, but the more you hate it the more you will learn micro-mangement skills and build queues. Do you Larvae understand?

You need only sign into StarCraft II and select the mode from the featured section of the custom game interface, and you’ll be put through your paces. Just like PsyStarcraft did here.

Now I think about it, if you were Private Pile, then you’ll have already killed yourself before going online. Hmm, forget everything I said and just play some StarCraft II: it’s really nothing like FMJ.


  1. stevendick says:

    Starcraft II multiplayer was just too much work for me – didn’t enjoy it at all. I went back to Company of Heroes.

    • MonkeyMonster says:

      Didn’t even bother and stayed with CoH and some nice little skirmishes with ai pals v ai. Forgotten how much fun 7 tetrarchs nipping about the place can be, literaly running circles around king tigers :D

    • HexagonalBolts says:

      It does take a while to break in, but once you’ve discovered the nuances of Starcraft 2 it really comes into itself as one of the most fluid, balanced and exciting multiplayers available. The matchmaking system is also great. If you’re starting out play some team games with friends and get them to give you lots of advice and criticism. Find teammates on the SC2 thread, or I will play with you, hexagonalb / 596

      link to

      (the thread is a bit dusty because most of us are steam friends and ask each other for games on there)

    • Iskariot says:

      “”Starcraft II multiplayer was just too much work for me”

      I am almost afraid to say it, but I also got bored with the singleplayer side of the game. I even bought the collectors edition in the beautiful box, with all the goodies, but after arriving at about 50% I just had to admit to myself, that I would rather play Supreme Commander Forged Alliance.

      Of course the production value of Star Craft 2 is superior to any RTS in existence and the story telling and the stuff on board the spaceship etc. is great, but the actual RTS gameplay of the game simply failed to keep me interested. To me it felt old and limiting. I just missed the scope and large theatres of War and the true to scale warmachines that Supreme Commander Forged Alliance offered me.
      I only wish Supreme Commander had the story telling and production value of StarCraft 2.

      For all the many millions who are Star Craft II fans, this is just my personal experience and opinion. Do not take it personal.

    • Steven Hutton says:

      In fairness, company of heroes is just a much, much better game.

    • Bensam123 says:

      I agree wholeheartedly with this. I found the story, the setting, the plot, and the character development to be awesome. Adding in all the little quirks they added to the campaign made it tons of fun. The worst part of it was the completely antiquated gameplay and a game that literally felt like it was from 95. I appreciate nostalgia and everything, but tons of stuff has changed in the last 15 now 17 years.

      All you have to do is play some Rise of Legends, Sins of a Solar Empire, or my favorite, Dawn of War to figure out how much the RTS scene has changed. It’s sad that Blizzard has such a deadlock on players when there are so many exciting options out there. What Blizzards doing just doesn’t cut it when you experience other options.

      If they put that level of commitment into the Dawn of War campaign I would’ve lost part of my soul. Dawn of War gameplay is fricking amazing, the campaign, not so much. Micromanagement is retarded, especially when a game is based around it.

    • subedii says:

      My game was DoW 2, but yeah, largely the same. The constant base micromanagement just wasn’t fun for me, and a lot of it was stuff that could very easily be automated but deliberately wasn’t because the playerbase has grown to view those aspects as the skill of the game.

      I’m not going to castigate too much on that front, I still enjoy watching high level SC2 matches. But I don’t agree with all the design decisions Blizzard made there.


      Re: the story:

      The production values were really good, but honestly, I found the story itself and the characters just kind of… eh. It’s strange for me to say, but the RTS campaigns that involved me the most recently have been Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2: Chaos Rising (Retribution was relatively bland owing to the fact they needed to try and fit it around all 6 races).

    • ScubaMonster says:

      I think part of the problem was Blizzard was too afraid to stray from the formula and causing a huge wave of negative backlash. Especially with SC1 so strong in Korea they didn’t want to lose potential markets by alienating them.

      I didn’t really like the changes in Warcraft 3 though. The hero stuff was fine in the campaign, but I just hated that style of game play in multiplayer. I just didn’t like the whole running around to level up your hero aspect. But there are other ways to update the game without having to toss in MP heroes. So change can be good, you just have to do it right. They could have updated SC2 while keeping the same feel of the first one.

    • Vandelay says:

      I think I’ve just entered Bizarro Land; people saying SC2’s multiplayer is bad, but praising the story of the singleplayer? It had some of the most cliched characters and boring plot I’ve seen in a long time, which is saying a lot when you consider how bad games usually are.

      Definitely high production values though.

    • subedii says:

      I think most of us aren’t necessarily saying the multiplayer in SC2 is outright bad as such, just that things like the heavy emphasis on micromanaging you base management (which is termed Macro in SC circles, but it is still fundamentally micromanagement) just don’t work for us. Me personally, I definitely prefer the directions Relic went with CoH and DoW 2.

    • pkt-zer0 says:

      All you have to do is play some Rise of Legends, or my favorite, Dawn of War to figure out how much the RTS scene has changed.

      I have. I really like Rise of Legends, in fact. Newer/different does not logically imply better, though. I still find SC2 more enjoyable. (I also didn’t like SC1 that much due to the limited control groups, lack of MBS, automine, smartcast, etc.)

    • sidhellfire says:

      SC2? Annoying micromanagement? Stupid unit AI? Flat gameplay? Sure it is balanced, but it’s old and even not half as fun as Relic games. And it must be said, that Relic games are innovative unlike Blizzards. Admitting that I never cared about story in StarCraft, because it wasn’t promising, so I left that aspect out of scope.
      But honestly, I would never recommend someone StarCraft for online gaming. Koreans play it because they’ve got embargo on good games and that’s it. That country-wide policy is rendering korean gamers somewhat retarded and thus making Blizzard very strong there, but it has nothing to do with quality gaming experience. Especially multiplayer.

    • Edradour says:

      Whats up with all the Starcraft hate? ( “Sure it is balanced, but it’s old and even not half as fun as Relic games.” youre making it sound as if that was a fact which it isnt.. )
      Starcraft has a big competitive scene Relic games never grow really big ( which is mostly due to balance from what ive heard and played of dow2 they never manage to get the balance right, everytime they release an expansion everything is broken completly )
      I want base management and i want mechanics that increase the skill cap, for me it isnt fun if it is too easy to learn ( if i want to spend a lot of time on it that is i really enjoyed dow1/2’s single player campaigns )

    • subedii says:

      @ Edradour:

      With regards to DoW2’s problems stemming from balance, kind of, but that’s not the whole story.

      DoW2 suffers from being what I would like to think is actually a transitional phase between DoW1 and hopefully DoW3. They’ve done a LOT of experiments with the gameplay model, and changed it drastically from DoW1.

      This naturally means that there needed to be a LOT of refinement to the formula. Several months after release, it was clear that a fair chunk of DoW2’s multiplayer philosophy needed to be rethought, and this resulted in a very hefty shift to version 1.5 (in an updated called “There is Only War”). If I were to make a Starcraft comparison, it was probably on the level of the shift between current Wings of Liberty and the proposed drastic shifts in Heart of the Swarm, only more with rethought unit roles instead of new units.

      Over time the meta-game has stabilised but, at least from my perspective (which I stress, is a laymans), there’s still aspects inherent in the gameplay model itself that could be improved on. And personally from reading patch interviews and the like, I believe Relic are aware of them as well, and working towards them for DoW3.

      The biggest, BIGGEST key area I feel is the way the gameplay was structured. When it was first released, DoW2 was structured and balanced primarily as a 3v3 game (at least that’s my perspective). The reasons are fairly simple to understand (C&C4 went with even larger game modes) in that they were trying to make the gameplay more accessible and being team oriented would help and also mean the online is less “scary”.

      Over time this has shifted though. The high tier competitive players all focus on 1v1, and sometimes 2v2. 3v3 is simply put, too chaotic to be predictable, so you can’t get as much of a strategy meta-game going in such games. Balance patching over time therefore switched from being focussed on the 3v3 meta-game to the 1v1 meta-game (both present very different sets of problems). The problem of course is that things like the scale of the game (again, my perception) appear to have been tailored with 3v3 in mind, and so instead of 1v1 being clashes of forces, it’s far more individual squads splitting and capping across the map, with much less scope for larger scale battles. Squad sizes and number of squads factor into this. Basically I’m saying the game was scaled for 3v3 where all combined, the forces on the battlefield are fairly epic, but in 1v1 it’s extremely small scale situations.

      That’s the gameplay situation.

      The OTHER major factor is simply the community system. The devs went with GFWL since at the time, that was the only really viable option for 3rd party matchmaking. For various reasons (which I’ve ranted on excessively and at length on previously, but trust me, there are a lot of them), GFWL was pretty bad for the community and the game. In the end, when Retribution released, they made the decision to cut GFWL out completely and instead make use of Steamworks. Whilst this has been an improvement, the upshot of it is that there was a split in the multiplayer playerbase.

      So if we’re talking matchmaking issues, we’ve got

      – Split playerbase between the two games (although a year on from Retribution, most who were into the MP would have transitioned over)
      – Split between 3 separate ranked game modes (1v1, 2v2, 3v3)
      – And with a much smaller playerbase in general owing to a lot of the other factors mentioned above.

      Put it this way: You typically end up waiting a lot longer to get into a match-made games a result than you do in SC2.

      So yeah anyway, lots of experiments, lots of things learned. DoW2 is still cool and fun to play, which is why I still like to play it. But at the same time what I’m [i]really[/i] looking forward to is DoW3, where I hope they can put everything they’ve learned into practice and formulate a really solid multiplayer gameplay model. As far as I’m aware, base building is confirmed to be back in in some capacity, and I thoroughly expect the mutliplayer is going to be focussed on 1v1.

      Anyway, that’s a rough summary of the state of the game. For all my negativity, DoW 2 is still great fun to play, they really nailed the atmosphere with the completely bombastic setting, the character animations, and the incredible sheer amount of contextual voicework (something I really think SC2 missed out on) makes it a game with a ridiculous amount of character when you see it in action.

      EDIT: WOW, that was a lot bigger than I intended it to be, sorry.

    • sidhellfire says:

      I know similar competitive games to starcraft2. Rock Paper Scissors for start. Relic was reasonably successful on that aspect of their games. Of course not under spotlight of sponsorship and great tournaments, but who treats e-sport seriously? Despite money it’s just a failure. Just look at WCG official games: SC2, Counter-Strike, W3, LoL, Crossfire, Special Force, World of Warcraft, FIFA11. Seriously, where are great competitive hardcore games? It’s just a jump on easy cash. In FPS genre there are no descendants of great games like Quake or Unreal Tournament. Strategy games with no strategy involved. And year or two ago there was a TrackMania as a ultimate racing game! God bless that simracing went it’s own way and didn’t participate in this joke. Games that are “mainstream” in e-sport are neither fun, complex, or competitive. How possibly people are using that for a measure of quality of titles we tend to play?!

      I am glad that Relic spend money on making good games instead of advertising a medicore ones. After that many years of development of StarCraft2 it is a joke to release a game that is just old, robust and simple. Yes it is balanced, but guess what – everything after years of tweaking would be balanced. Would it deliver? No.

      And SC2 doesn’t. Hype on that leads to men like 8 of my co-workers, who are rather casual gamers. Guess how many of them are still playing this game. Yes, none.

    • StormTec says:

      I would like to point out that a lot of sports (electronic or otherwise) are extremely simple, and have core concepts that have remained unchanged since their creation

      e.g. Archery: The concept is frighteningly simple as well as being ancient in creation – you propel a sharp stick through the air and try to hit a target with it. The target is often just a big round circle with sections for scoring higher the closer you get to the centre. The rules are pretty simple. The target doesn’t even MOVE or LOOK like anything (which would arguably make it more “interesting” and “fun”).

      Another example would be Chess, which has remained unchanged as a board game for centuries. Is it a bad game because it still uses squares to move on as opposed to measuring movement distances out with a tape measure/is played on a board/uses pieces that require no assembly or painting?

    • Edradour says:

      @Subedii: Nice bit of Information thank you for that. Still the point is that Relic’s game never took off in terms on competitive play. Also i think they could coexist without a problem because on the player side they cater to a very different audiance imo.Thats probably not the right comparison but i see it as they are a bit closer to the moba side of strategy than to the classic rts side.
      I also think it would’ve a place in the spectator sport market in the same way as starcraft, its easy to understand ( or even easier ) for people who dont play the game compared to stuff like lol/dota/hon and its easy to catch the action in comparison to shooters. Problem would be i think that on the spectator side sc and dow cater to pretty much the same audience and it would proably hard to go up against sc which has build a pretty strong fanbase by now.

      And as regards to the innovation part others have brought up: I think innovation is less important with multiplayer games, first of the interest in rts games is rising relatively slow compared to the rest of the gaming market and you wont have much success splitting the existing fanbase with more and more different games, secondly look at other spectator sports ( i think thats the biggest potential for rts games right now ) they never completely overhauled their system, there isnt a “football 2.0” coming and still millions of people watch it.

      @sidhellfire: begone troll

    • checksum says:

      I don’t understand why a game has to be innovative and a brand new concept to be fun. Millions of people (like myself) really enjoyed SC1 on a competitive level, and when the graphics were outdated blizzard revamped the game, but kept much of the old playstyle.

      And to dislike a game and conclude that it’s bad? I don’t watch football, but I can’t conclude it’s a bad game, with it’s millions of followers. I also can’t say that football is a simple one dimentional game that’s too tedious, etc, simply because I don’t understand the nuances and strategies.

    • mpasydg says:

      Of ROCK Sleeve Case / Stand for iPad2

      List Price $ 25.99! Price $ 19.99 Sale 35% fashion the design Foldable stand with the lightweight
      Contain either bare machine or the iPad with the original protective case
      Soft material, 100% cashmere leathe! Perfect discount! Not to be missed! link to

    • sgnl05 says:

      I think it’s silly when players chastise games like SC for being “clickfests”, as though the presence of micro automatically means that there’s no real strategy involved, but what really annoys me is when fans of SC style games do the exact opposite and act as though micro is an intrinsic part of RTS and any game that goes out of its way to discourage it is doing something objectively bad. There’s always going to be some sort of tradeoff between the two. The more emphasis the gameplay places on quick reactions and snap judgements, the less room there’s going to be for slow players with good strategic skills to excel despite bad micro, and the more quick players will be able to win despite playing a pretty uninspiring macro game. And visa versa of course. But with so many many micro focussed RTS titles about and so few macro ones, it’d really be good to see the latter get a little more love and a little less hate from “pro” RTS types.

    • Edradour says:

      “the less room there’s going to be for slow players with good strategic skills to excel despite bad micro”

      ESCGoOdy heavily objects to that :D

      But your point is dead on, this is just a typical internet “discussion” were neither site can accept the opinion of the other

    • subedii says:

      Also i think they could coexist without a problem because on the player side they cater to a very different audiance imo.Thats probably not the right comparison but i see it as they are a bit closer to the moba side of strategy than to the classic rts side.

      I also think it would’ve a place in the spectator sport market in the same way as starcraft, its easy to understand ( or even easier ) for people who dont play the game compared to stuff like lol/dota/hon and its easy to catch the action in comparison to shooters. Problem would be i think that on the spectator side sc and dow cater to pretty much the same audience and it would proably hard to go up against sc which has build a pretty strong fanbase by now.

      I agree that the two can probably coexist since they seem to appeal to different audiences.

      But with regards spectator game, there doesn’t have to be a “either / or” even if they’re viewed by the same audience. Spectating either game doesn’t require much commitment at all, at least not compared to actually playing and getting good at them. I hardly play any SC2 at all, but I enjoy a lot of the good shoutcasts. And I also like watching casts for DoW2. I don’t think Dawn of War is going to be as BIG as Starcraft, but I think if they play their cards right with the sequel, it could reach a really good size in itself, and be a nice alternative gameplay style for those that aren’t as interested in the model that SC2 uses.

    • Edradour says:

      Im not sure about that, major tournaments eat up a lot of time, your typical sc2 tournament last atleast a full day from 2 pm and can go as late as 2am while the really big tourney like the recent Homestory Cup had 4 days with 10 hours and more content each day. And with the limited amount of free time everyone has i dont know if there would be many people willing to follow 2 major esport games.I for one stopped watching dota/hon broadcasts once i got into starcraft simply because i dont have time to watch both but that can of course differ from person to person maybe there are many people who are fine with watching a game or two from time to time without following the scene as much. I can only speak from my point of view.
      They could prolly fit in something like the IEM Global Challenge ( which is running right now btw :D )
      where they show different games on different streams from the same event but in that case it would directly compete with sc2 as long as the individual matches are overlapping.

    • sidhellfire says:

      You cannot bring out real sports like archery, cause even simplest things are determined there by millions of variables that influence the outcome. Even disregarding player abilities and enviromental physics it leaves you with dozen fully analog controls offering countless amount of possibilities. Simple games do not offer that. It’s either 0 or 1. That is simply not enough for anything serious.

  2. jimmm25 says:

    A word of warning before trying this- make sure you have a few hours to spare before you start, because the challenges at the end get so frustrating but you cant leave because you are so close to finishing, by the time I stopped it was nearly 4am.

    • Ba5 says:

      You can quit midway, it remembers your progress. You could have gone to bed!

    • Fellbane says:

      Hi Jim.
      I read your comment thinking, yeah I did the exact same thing! Even the time I logged off was the same… Then looked at your username xD

  3. BobsLawnService says:

    Every now and again I dip my big toe into the waters of the SC II ladder and very quickly jerk the bloodied stump out.

    It’s just not possible to actually play for fun when everyone seems to download build orders from the pros and use them against you.

    • Jutranjo says:

      You’ll be put in bronze league if you do not actually stand a chance vs people who use build orders (stand a chance means losing half your games). Once you’re there do whatever, you’ll be bound to have a fun time playing (also winning half your games).

    • bitchpants says:

      Bronze league FTW! I climbed the ladder into silver once, and vowed never to do it again. Bronze league games are where it’s at, you can basically do anything you want and not look like a complete dumbass.

    • BobsLawnService says:


    • lasikbear says:

      Bronze League’s where its at! Currently I only use three units at most and thats ok! Got placed in silver when I started and leaving that shit behind was great.

    • citrusninja says:

      If you’re looking into getting into multiplayer, I would strongly recommend checking out some of Day9’s videos (either on youtube or When I started playing ladder SC2, I was overwhelmed by how skilled everyone was, luckily someone pointed me in the direction of Day9, specifically check out some of his newbie tuesdays (he typically uploads videos where he talks about strategy or game analysis, or pro-tips 3 or 4 times a week). I cannot sing the praises of this man enough.. he’s really done a lot for e-sports.

  4. Ecto says:

    Strangely, I found challenge 12 to take the most tries. That is the one with the infestor vs 2 ranks and 12 marines.

    In terms of pure micro challenge, the one with the three marines against two zealots was probably the most challenging, but I heard there was a bug you could use to beat that one.

    Also, the one where you have to snipe banelings isn’t really relevant to ladder since the snipe nerf. Two snipes per baneling isn’t really viable.

    I really wish they had included difficulty levels. A master level player should be able to beat all these in an hour or two.

    • Talon says:

      I’m a high diamond and I’ve done all of them except the last and the snipe one, both of which I simply haven’t sat down and really tried. Everything else I finished in a sitting of about 30 minutes.

  5. Milky1985 says:

    I’m acutally enjoying SC2 multi and ladder at the moment (i suck at rts but sc2 is simple enough even i can understand, beat a silver leaguer at the weekend and was very proud of my win!)

    I will play this but my worry is that as i play it i will learn to counter one thing or use this skill in this specific circumstance. Stuff like this CAN (before you all shout at me, i said can, not will) mean that as a player you learn to do x and y rather than be creative and react (you see somethig happen that you have not trained for and thing “well dammit i’m screwed”)

    Hopefully will help my macro skills tho, am great at crnaking out the units once the base is built but hopeless at early gaem assults while building up the base

  6. Nallen says:

    Stuck on level 16 I think, infestors vs zealots.

    • Talon says:

      If I remember correctly, no fungals necessary. Throw down eggs near the marines (but at the bottoms, so both tanks get a shot), and work your way through. Last eggs need to be thrown together (not the first, though) so that you get maximum dps on one tank, then the other. Infestor can unburrow to draw fire.

  7. pkt-zer0 says:

    I really don’t get why people find SC2 online somehow intimidating. The game has the greatest matchmaking I’ve seen, your winrate will be 50%, and that’s that (unless you’re at the very top end, but these aren’t the guys we’re talking about anyway). Even something like Team Fortress 2 would be scarier when you click a random server, and are put together with a bunch of folks that may be waaaaay more skilled than you. That’s also not 1v1, so it can happen that the teams are even and you’re still getting crushed constantly (by the better half of the opposing team).

    • Out Reach says:

      If you’re bad at TF2 you can still lie to yourself and say your team was shit. When you lose consistently on starcraft you can only blame yourself. That’s why people get ladder fear.

    • Milky1985 says:

      Because people don’t like to lose, its as simple as that. a 50% win rate is not enough for the cod crowd.

      Also some of the playerbase is rage inducing and a bit annoying, both bad manners and also silent.

      Personal fav, guy marine rushed me , killed my wall off. I saw the rush coming (scouting!) and had tanks coming with seige mode researching (but cause i suck at planning was a bit behind)

      As soon as the wall of was killed HE called gg (as a note its customery for the losing player to call gg to mean good game and game over, i.e losing player choses when the game is over). I still had a tank and seige mode 5 seconds from research, as such i deployed it killed half his force kiting him while i built another and killed hte other half.

      I made him work for that win he wanted, rebuilt a base via sneaky scv in a different location and everything :P

    • BobsLawnService says:

      I must be doing something wrong because I have won about 2/15 and was ranked at roughly the middle of the bronze ladder.

    • Steven Hutton says:

      It’s not that people don’t like to lose, it’s that they don’t like to get CRUUUUUUUUUSHED. It’s quite clear just from videos that even silver league players are just playing a totally different game to most people.

      There’s a difference between “I lost.” And “I lost and I don’t even understand what happened.”

    • Vandelay says:


      I would say the complete opposite about the people who play SC2. They are by far the best community playing a mainstream game. The fact that the worst story you can come up with is that someone did a pre-emptive gg at you pretty much shows that is true. Compare that to the abuse seen in a FPS game and there is just no comparison.

      They might not be the most talkative bunch, but, personally, I’m there to play the game not have a chat. I’ll play with friends on Skype if I want that.

    • BobsLawnService says:

      iii must say the SC2 community is pretty cool. I play under the non de plume of EskimoNell and I’ve only had one person ask me if I like cock. The answer was of course “Yeah, I’m quite partial to my own.” and that was that.

    • Milky1985 says:


      Oh i agree, it is by far the best community. But there are idiots there as well (case in point, the starcraft forums, where your opinion means nothing unless your diamond league or above).

      Theres little to no trash talk in game but it is slightly elitist (bought on by the fact that unless you know slightly how the game works, you will get creamed) and that can put off new players. Also the barrier to entry does exist , yuo will need to lose lots before you start winning.

      Think i’ve started evening out at 50/50 now, not sure if i’m better or just matchmade better (like to think the former) but i was at about 30% wins for a while, the losing stream of 7 was annoying :/

  8. marcusfell says:

    I only play the ladder when the season resets. However, the customs int that game are SSOOOOOO good, you seriously can enjoy them just as much as any triple a title.

  9. Teronfel says:

    Arrrrrgh so much raaaaaage,some of these are ridiculous.

  10. Poisonpill says:

    Starcraft is great, I admit it takes a while to get into the multiplayer and you need to remind your fingers what the hell they are doing if you have been away for a while but it is such a balanced game its great. As someone else said the best way to get into it is to play some team game first as you will have someone to fall back on and they can help tell you what you might be doing wrong, once you’ve put a little bit of work in for the league games it gets really fun you just need to work on it a bit first. Also the custom games are great (many remakes from warcraft III / SC1 customs) these are really well made an i’ve seen many people who only seem to play these and ignore the league as they are great games in their own right. This new one by blizzard can be a bit frustraiting but should help quite a bit with peoples micro, i’ve only done the first 10 or so but it seems good fun.

  11. Bensam123 says:

    Kinda funny that the most fun in the ‘best RTS in the known universe’ is just a series of minigames showing off how much micromanagement is in the said game.

    Not a fan of micromanagement in any good RTS. RTSs should be about strategy, not just how well you harass the other players resources.

    • Milky1985 says:

      Have you seen the high level play, it really is about strategy, that harrassment is deisgned to screw up the oppoisitons plans. Theres even elements of poker like play, faking attacks of unit types etc.

      Its not total war style strategy but its not world in conflict style tactics so think it sits ok

    • Talon says:

      RTSes should be about strategy, just not the strategy in choosing how to manage limited resources, including your attention span, and certainly not the tactics in performing maneuvers to maximize the effectiveness of your force against an opposing force, right, right?

      Clearly, all good RTSes shouldn’t even let you select units; the only good RTS is one where you say ‘attack the Germans’, and then you attack the Germans and win.