X-Wing was the original, and then TIE Fighter was based on the same basic engine but with Gourad shading. X-Wing vs TIE Fighter reused the models but added textures. X-Wing Alliance represented the outer limits of what you could do with their CPU driven engine, and after that 3D accelerated games started appearing, like Freespace II and Independence War.
I liked nearly every single thing you listed as a negative. And I didn't have any trouble beating the game.
My only complaint about the game was the upkeep system that kept the unit counts low, making it too easy to play and mitigate micro-management.
I used to love multiplayer in WC2 and 3 against people who clearly couldn't keep up. They'd bloodlust their entire army and send them in expecting to win against my meat grinder of micromanaged paladin heals, only to be unable to successfully kill anything. Even better when they'd click "attack" on a single unit, and you could just have that unit run around while their army followed it ineffectively while getting wailed on.
Sometimes for fun my friends and I would do archer-only skirmishes against people. Turns out that archers do great if you protect them with lots of cheap, zigzag walls. Even better if you send a sacrificial one against the opponent early so that they think, "ha, newbie doesn't know that archers suck."
I liked it, but it's been 10 years since I played it. I can't remember if there were difficulty options, but I rarely ever picked above/below a normal difficulty if that was the thing. I don't remember how many no-build missions there were, but generally on these type games I like to build up as much as I can and smack the shit out of the enemy. The building is a lot of the fun to me.
Pretty much agree, I loved warcraft 2 and starcraft but when I played wc3 at launch it was hugely disappointing. I blame the low unit cap personally, they tried to compensate by making units tougher and have more skills. But you end up with 12 units with as many abilities as an RPG without a pause function. It isn't fun.
Wait that's the expansion right? I think I only played the base as a kid and had a fun time with it, though I did cheese it at the end by spamming the Night Elves ultimates together since they were op as hell.
Expansions can either be meh, fantastic or horrific depending on how they're done. Ask Red Alert 3 guys, that Expansion made the Allies EVEN MORE BROKEN that they were near impossible to fight.
A lot do artificial difficulty by using the 'story' to justify bullshit, especially in a game that is more multiplayer inclined, I'll use the examples of good and bad ways to do this with Red Alert 3 and C&C Tiberium Sun as those I can compare directly.
As good ways to do it, in Tiberium Sun I might get limited with a small team but this was usually an optional mission that would reduce the difficulty of the main so it was a choice or have mission stuck with infantry with GDI when they have medics to heal at least.
In RA3, I got my base nuked in a cutscene (so I'd sell everything but construction before and move my units before hand) or pretty much all my money taken (So I'd spam everything building before then), it was really dumb artificial difficulty that encouraged cheesing compared to Sun where you could easily get past using your head.
Which means the game devs clearly expect you to micro that part of the game perfectly to get through it and I can't be bothered.
then
On normal mode especially or anything higher you're going to be forced to spam waves in order to win, it's not like literally any other game where you can win pretty well with a bit of careful micro-ing
So, is microing good or bad? I'm thinking this is just rage bait.
Warcraft 3s campaign is very very easy. Based upon what you wrote it seems like you didn't bother to learn the mechanics and probably don't know the interactions between armors types and damage types.
Units die very fast if you know what you are doing. Many hero abilities hit for nearly 300 dmg right from the start. It takes many regular auto attack hits to kill units so you have time cast your spells and use your unit abilities.
The ai cheats but not in production their units have a built in speed multiplier that humans do not get (and this should be skirmish only). They also have map hack vision but thats to be expected.
Starcraft, red alert 2 and warcraft 3 all have the same average match length of around 15 minutes. It's not slower than the other games especially when level 6 abilities level entire armies and bases in one cast.
Calling other people trolls when you write a bait post that reads like you don't even want to play the game isn't exactly going to make you look good. It's a hero centric game, I try to point that out but you'd rather pretend you know the game when your complains like having trouble with night elves or possession suggests you didn't try to use heroes all that much.
I have to agree with the first option you suggested in your post. You probably don't like this style of RTS and you really ought not to play games that rely on hero units with armies almost exclusively being buffers for the hero units. If you hate that, and given that about 5 out of your 6 complaints involve the army vs hero dynamic you really do, its better to just avoid these style of games entirely.
A medium tank in tib dawn has 400 hp and does 30 damage and it takes 50 in-game frames to reload its shot (i.e at the slowest speed setting). This would be one attack every 3 seconds at the average speed setting so 10 dmg per second.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZt-bO3_csU
You can see it takes 3 seconds for the medium tank fire and it takes an advanced unit like the mammoth tank 20 seconds to kill a tank (unless you play at super speed which most people don't)
This means it would take 2/3 of a minute for 2 tanks to kill each other assuming perfect accuracy (which is rarely the case if the tanks are moving).
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Footman_(Warcraft_III)#Classic
The lowly footman in WC3 has 420 blaze it hp. Does 12.5 dmg every 1.35 seconds. And has two armor which grants 10% damage reduction. Meaning he does 11.25 dmg (this is most likely wrong because I haven't factored damage vs armor multipliers).
This isn't even getting to the fact you're supposed to interrupt fights with heroes some of which like Archmage can cast AOE spells that do 50 dmg per second and last for 10 seconds (500 dmg) which is enough to instantly melt 6 footmen per cast every 10 seconds.
The matches end at the exact same time frames because the time to kill is roughly the same. The only one trolling here is you lol.
Okay knock it off with the hostility. It's obviously not helping you. If you hate WC3 for long times to kill then you hate lot of RTS games then. Case and point going berserk for just mentioning Tiberian dawn. Pro-tip: PUT "I'm comparing it to RED ALERT 2" in your OP then. It's not my job to mind read or put up with your aggressive stupidity.
So basically half the time to kill for regular units but an archmage can still kill 6 dudes of much higher health in 10 seconds or less. Let's not even talk about Blade master who can kill everything in 7 seconds or less with his lvl 6 skill.
And this isn't getting into the fact that if you are at this point you're basically just saying you don't like WC3 because its not RA2 or starcraft. I hate blizzard RTS games for damaging the genre but I don't hate games for shallow reasons. If you don't actually appreciate RTS and demand the ADHD experience then your post is kinda pointless.
Trying to imagine how much you would rage about classic TIE Fighter.
Or SMAC. You'll have a network node and be building your first colony pod and Miriam will roll up on you with twenty infantry.
Yes, games were harder back in the day. It was good.
No, the original for PC.
X-Wing was the original, and then TIE Fighter was based on the same basic engine but with Gourad shading. X-Wing vs TIE Fighter reused the models but added textures. X-Wing Alliance represented the outer limits of what you could do with their CPU driven engine, and after that 3D accelerated games started appearing, like Freespace II and Independence War.
git gud*
ezclap
I liked nearly every single thing you listed as a negative. And I didn't have any trouble beating the game.
My only complaint about the game was the upkeep system that kept the unit counts low, making it too easy to play and mitigate micro-management.
I used to love multiplayer in WC2 and 3 against people who clearly couldn't keep up. They'd bloodlust their entire army and send them in expecting to win against my meat grinder of micromanaged paladin heals, only to be unable to successfully kill anything. Even better when they'd click "attack" on a single unit, and you could just have that unit run around while their army followed it ineffectively while getting wailed on.
Sometimes for fun my friends and I would do archer-only skirmishes against people. Turns out that archers do great if you protect them with lots of cheap, zigzag walls. Even better if you send a sacrificial one against the opponent early so that they think, "ha, newbie doesn't know that archers suck."
I was one of those that bloodlusted my army and then lost :(
you're wrong. no I will not elaborate.
I would assume that's possible for a lot of your opinions. (tbf same goes for other gamers myself included)
LFM XR Raid. Need heals.
I liked it, but it's been 10 years since I played it. I can't remember if there were difficulty options, but I rarely ever picked above/below a normal difficulty if that was the thing. I don't remember how many no-build missions there were, but generally on these type games I like to build up as much as I can and smack the shit out of the enemy. The building is a lot of the fun to me.
WC3 for me was mostly used to play the DOTA costum maps. Fantastic game-within-a-game.
The campaing was okay. Not nearly as fun as the Starcraft one.
Most RTS games have weaker campaigns. The only RTS I remember with an actually stand out fantastic one was the original Homeworld.
Pretty much agree, I loved warcraft 2 and starcraft but when I played wc3 at launch it was hugely disappointing. I blame the low unit cap personally, they tried to compensate by making units tougher and have more skills. But you end up with 12 units with as many abilities as an RPG without a pause function. It isn't fun.
Wait that's the expansion right? I think I only played the base as a kid and had a fun time with it, though I did cheese it at the end by spamming the Night Elves ultimates together since they were op as hell.
Expansions can either be meh, fantastic or horrific depending on how they're done. Ask Red Alert 3 guys, that Expansion made the Allies EVEN MORE BROKEN that they were near impossible to fight.
A lot do artificial difficulty by using the 'story' to justify bullshit, especially in a game that is more multiplayer inclined, I'll use the examples of good and bad ways to do this with Red Alert 3 and C&C Tiberium Sun as those I can compare directly.
As good ways to do it, in Tiberium Sun I might get limited with a small team but this was usually an optional mission that would reduce the difficulty of the main so it was a choice or have mission stuck with infantry with GDI when they have medics to heal at least.
In RA3, I got my base nuked in a cutscene (so I'd sell everything but construction before and move my units before hand) or pretty much all my money taken (So I'd spam everything building before then), it was really dumb artificial difficulty that encouraged cheesing compared to Sun where you could easily get past using your head.
then
So, is microing good or bad? I'm thinking this is just rage bait.
Forced to micro? Are you sure RTS is the genre for you?
Not really. Just sounds like you are bad at it.
Warcraft 3s campaign is very very easy. Based upon what you wrote it seems like you didn't bother to learn the mechanics and probably don't know the interactions between armors types and damage types.
Units die very fast if you know what you are doing. Many hero abilities hit for nearly 300 dmg right from the start. It takes many regular auto attack hits to kill units so you have time cast your spells and use your unit abilities.
The ai cheats but not in production their units have a built in speed multiplier that humans do not get (and this should be skirmish only). They also have map hack vision but thats to be expected.
Starcraft, red alert 2 and warcraft 3 all have the same average match length of around 15 minutes. It's not slower than the other games especially when level 6 abilities level entire armies and bases in one cast.
Calling other people trolls when you write a bait post that reads like you don't even want to play the game isn't exactly going to make you look good. It's a hero centric game, I try to point that out but you'd rather pretend you know the game when your complains like having trouble with night elves or possession suggests you didn't try to use heroes all that much.
I have to agree with the first option you suggested in your post. You probably don't like this style of RTS and you really ought not to play games that rely on hero units with armies almost exclusively being buffers for the hero units. If you hate that, and given that about 5 out of your 6 complaints involve the army vs hero dynamic you really do, its better to just avoid these style of games entirely.
You literally posted zero data on how long it takes units to kill each other.
https://cnc.fandom.com/wiki/Medium_Tank_(Tiberian_Dawn)
A medium tank in tib dawn has 400 hp and does 30 damage and it takes 50 in-game frames to reload its shot (i.e at the slowest speed setting). This would be one attack every 3 seconds at the average speed setting so 10 dmg per second.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZt-bO3_csU You can see it takes 3 seconds for the medium tank fire and it takes an advanced unit like the mammoth tank 20 seconds to kill a tank (unless you play at super speed which most people don't)
This means it would take 2/3 of a minute for 2 tanks to kill each other assuming perfect accuracy (which is rarely the case if the tanks are moving).
https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Footman_(Warcraft_III)#Classic The lowly footman in WC3 has 420 blaze it hp. Does 12.5 dmg every 1.35 seconds. And has two armor which grants 10% damage reduction. Meaning he does 11.25 dmg (this is most likely wrong because I haven't factored damage vs armor multipliers).
https://warcraft3.info/articles/208/overview-of-armor-and-damage-reduction This means two footman would take 36.5 seconds to kill each other in a duel. Which is faster! than C&C.
This isn't even getting to the fact you're supposed to interrupt fights with heroes some of which like Archmage can cast AOE spells that do 50 dmg per second and last for 10 seconds (500 dmg) which is enough to instantly melt 6 footmen per cast every 10 seconds.
The matches end at the exact same time frames because the time to kill is roughly the same. The only one trolling here is you lol.
Okay knock it off with the hostility. It's obviously not helping you. If you hate WC3 for long times to kill then you hate lot of RTS games then. Case and point going berserk for just mentioning Tiberian dawn. Pro-tip: PUT "I'm comparing it to RED ALERT 2" in your OP then. It's not my job to mind read or put up with your aggressive stupidity.
https://cnc.fandom.com/wiki/Grizzly_Battle_Tank 300 hp. 55 damage still 3 seconds to fire. 16 seconds for a grizzly to kill another grizzly.
So basically half the time to kill for regular units but an archmage can still kill 6 dudes of much higher health in 10 seconds or less. Let's not even talk about Blade master who can kill everything in 7 seconds or less with his lvl 6 skill.
And this isn't getting into the fact that if you are at this point you're basically just saying you don't like WC3 because its not RA2 or starcraft. I hate blizzard RTS games for damaging the genre but I don't hate games for shallow reasons. If you don't actually appreciate RTS and demand the ADHD experience then your post is kinda pointless.
IIRC Warcraft 3 didn't let you bind the keys properly.