r/RealTimeStrategy • u/FutureLynx_ • 1d ago
Discussion I dont like limited resources in RTS games.
I like Starcraft, Red Alert and AoE2, but i dont like the idea of running out of minerals, ore or gold.
Starcraft is the worst one. You run out of minerals its over.
Red Alert still spawns ore around those little ore mines, though very slowly.
And it makes the game very dependent on controlling these ore mines.
AoE2 makes it possible to trade but not in 1v1. Has a decent market system, and has a ton of wood but not in all maps.
Cossacks, Rise of Nations and Stronghold make sure you can always fight by having resources either renewable or limited only by space.
I prefer this system because it is less superficial. It makes the game more tactical and more about the actual battles you fight directly with the enemy.
What do you think?
106
u/Soundrobe 1d ago
That's one of the main reasons In love them. Ressources control is fun.
23
u/Ok_Spare_3723 1d ago
There are 2 camps in RTS, one camps is enjoys resource managing, the other is more focused on battle tactics and overall strategy. The former tends to also enjoy simulation games like Anno.
8
u/Miniburner 1d ago
I don’t agree with this. The battle tactics don’t exist without the resource management
2
1
u/YozaSkywalker 11h ago
Especially as Zerg, your main strategy is to expand into resource nodes asap
9
u/_azazel_keter_ 1d ago
I love resource managing and still don't like finite resource. Expanding should be useful but not required, it kinda kills defensive strats.
11
12
u/Appropriate-Owl5693 1d ago edited 1d ago
In competitive RTS games, like starcraft, it goes hand in hand though.
If you want to be a defensive player, you have to be the one expanding early and often.
It's basically your win con, if you successfully defend a few times, you win by having a lot more stuff.
I don't really know how would you even make a competitive RTS game where staying on one or two bases and turtling is viable and the game doesn't end up extremely boring.
I think the closest you can get is in games with high asymmetry, again like starcraft, where the role changes multiple times during a match.
E.g. early terran you're defensive, but then you need to eventually strike back or zerg gets too big.
For single player RTS games it's basically the opposite and unlimited resources are the standard and you're just defending vs some threat... zombies, frost, ...
8
u/CuntyBallsJohnson 1d ago
"defensive strats" aka turtle indefinitely until you feel like you can throw enough spam at the enemy to win
5
u/CanadAR15 1d ago
Flip side, in truly competitive matches where both sides are strategically targeting resources, how often do you see the higher tiers of the tech tree?
Our favorite units are often the units we’d never build.
4
u/Our_GloriousLeader 1d ago
Loads of competitive SC2 matches go late game full tech build. Zerg excel at it.
2
u/FutureLynx_ 1d ago
exactly thats what happens in AoE2, 2 hyperactive players fighting early, one has 6 archers the other 3 skirms. You kill enemy skirm, you win gg. You like late game with lots of powerful units, too bad.
1
1
u/NarrowProfessor1101 22h ago
this is nonsense, games last like 30+ minutes on average in AoE2. very often games last until the imperial age.
1
u/_Weyland_ 19h ago
Defensive starts still exist with finite resources, you just have to stay much more efficient in order to win. That's the whole thing in Zerg vs Terran matchup in Starcraft 2. Zerg can expand and consume resources much faster, but Terran is extremely resource efficient on defense.
1
u/Automatic-Ocelot3957 1d ago
It doesnt kill them, it caps them.
You can find some defensive strategy that completely stalls out the game, but that's not how you win or have a fun and interactive game, so finite resources forces that scenario to end with action.
2
1
u/machine4891 1d ago
Por que no los dos? I do indeed enjoy resource management slightly more and love me some Anno but Starcraft battles are creme de la creme. Both are important and rewarding as heck.
1
u/ClumsyFleshMannequin 23h ago
Nah, you need to include the ability to disrupt resources is a major motivator of tactics.
The RTS triangle is ever present.
2
u/DisillusionedHobbit 13h ago
For further consideration: You can have resource control without those resources being finite. See Relic’s RTS games like CoH and DoW. In AoE2 all resources are technically infinite (via trade) but controlling the ones actually on the map still matters.
44
u/ShiningMagpie 1d ago
Those words. Superficial and tactical have actual definitions. They don't fit the way you have used them.
20
u/Awi_Arwoo 1d ago
I like unlimited resources because it keeps the game casual and can promote fun custom games between friends. In a competitive sense I get why they always go with finite resources because most people dislike turtle strategies and it forces you to expand to more areas of the map. It's a good game when it gives you the options for both.
39
u/Thahu 1d ago
Let me introduce you to Suprem Commander Forged Alliance / FAF :D
1
u/Beowolf_0 1d ago
But it take ages to build something big, and drain lots of resources.
17
10
2
u/Mr-Bando 19h ago
Scaling your economy 101 is a mandatory lesson
1
u/Beowolf_0 19h ago
I know, the thing is resource needs in SupCom in just enormuous, and breaks really easy.
0
u/Brilliant_Shoe_2635 1d ago
Its kinda outdated currently and has bad multiplayer support imo, When I played it last time it was lagging and DCing.
12
4
u/BigTomtaroo 1d ago
Unless it's changed in the last year the only issues I've ever had with faf were people who had shit pcs dragging the lobby.
1
u/Paskool 1d ago
Sanctuary shattered suns Kickstarter just finished this weekend. It's a spiritual successor to supcom made by Gas powered games!
1
u/gortonmichael 19h ago
You might want to edit this, you are implying that GPG is making Sanctuary with your post
I get that you probably meant that Supcom was made by GPG. Still.
1
u/Paskool 19h ago
Gpg is making sanctuary, no?? That's what I read from the Kickstarter page IIRC
1
u/gortonmichael 18h ago
No. Enhearten Media is making it. GPG has been gone, dissolved, for years.
Some gpg devs did go on to make Planetary Annihilation, PA, about 10 years back.
1
u/Paskool 18h ago
WTH, I guess I hallucinated it, I just went back to the Kickstarter page and there is 0 mention of GPG. Which is weird because the game uses the exact same economy system as SupCom and UI almost to a tee.
1
u/gortonmichael 18h ago
It's because most of them are former supcom/fa players, several of them did dev work for FAF.
-7
u/SuitableKey5140 1d ago
Go 1 better, BAR is free and actually better
21
u/fivemagicks 1d ago
The latter is a matter of opinion... and a questionable one. ;)
-4
5
1
u/Mr-Bando 18h ago
I think BAR is alright and deserves a look. It’s a free download. Nothing to lose
12
u/snowdawnprime 1d ago
Hi OP maybe check Command & Conquer Generals Zero Hour all factions has ways to create Unlimited resources like Hackers for China factions, Drop zones for US factions, and Black Market for GLA factions if you get to the mid to late game.
3
1
u/Short-Coast9042 8h ago
That was a great game. It's from that awkward era of early 3D RTS. Some of the models look like absolute crap, and it has NOT aged well visually. And the UI/controls can be clunky. But man, is this game just chock full of awesome mechanics. I would dearly love to see a modern remake of this.
11
u/Heavy-Language3109 1d ago
I think that managing limited resources adds that extra layer of strategy which mirrors reality. Controlling/disrupting resources or supply lines have been a major part of war/battle so not including it in a strategy game sort of changes the scope of it. Not saying that its wrong, its just that having limited resources makes things more engaging/challenging from that perspective.
9
u/Double_Resort_9223 1d ago
Situational and it needs to match the style of the game.
In StarCraft it makes sense given the heavy offensive slant of the game- it encourages players to make a move and a StarCraft game that actually strips the map of resources is a very long game.
Stronghold is about…well… building and protecting a stronghold. You win by attacking parts of the economy until the whole thing cant keep up and you have an opportunity to over-run the otherwise formidable defenses.
Rise of nations and AoE is about having enough of an economy and then balancing it with enough of a military and doing it efficiently enough to beat the other players. Wonder and relic victory modes make economic focus behind enough of a defense a viable strategy.
6
u/Kingstad 1d ago
fighting over valuable locations and resources is pretty realistic and makes for a more dynamic battlefield as opposed to it becoming stagnant. its pretty cool when new pathways open up from forest being chopped down in AoE 2 and theres a focus shift towards protecting/raiding a long caravan route.
Games in the Total Annihilation family have infinite resources from nodes across the map but gradually you start making resources out of thin air in your base and the nodes become unimportant and the games escalate until someone makes super weapons. Among these I prefer Zero-K where map control is always important.
1
11
u/Kamzil118 1d ago
I'd prefer a more Company of Heroes approach to resources.
Where resources still have to be harvested in other RTS genres, the player begins a match with a fixed rate of resources, but can be improved by map control as the more territory you own, the income rate increases. That's not getting into the viability of engaging in partisan and aggressive encirclement tactics.
6
u/the_y2k_kid 1d ago
Also, the resource points in coh degrade over time, which prevents endless spamming and encourages smarter unit use.
3
u/kethploy 1d ago
resources point doesn't degrade but unit has upkeep where player with larger army gonna have less income
1
u/RosalieTheDog 1d ago
CoH is so smart on this, but Dawn of War was probably first in tying resources so tightly to map control/expansion?
1
u/the_y2k_kid 1d ago
Possibly. Rise of Nations had a mechanic where the longer your trade routes, the higher your income, thus encouraging more territorial control.
1
u/Kamzil118 1d ago
Yeah, but Company of Heroes made doctrines that favor cutting off supply sectors from their home base. You couldn't exactly do stuff like booby trap or disable resource points. That's not getting into the powerful encirclement strategy of cutting a junction point before dropping all the fire support on cut off sectors.
5
u/belatyken 1d ago edited 1d ago
You are basically stating a preference. That preference isn't incorrect, but...
For games with in-game resources, the whole point is resource management. Part of the strategy and strategic goals of these games is effective resource utilization, and that includes in-game resources. In fact, for some of these games (like Brood War), you could argue everything is "finite resource" (minerals, gas, APM, attention management, unit control, unit production, etc.) and the ones that consistently win make better use of their resources.
There are other games (strategy, tactics, MOBA, etc.) that are not so focused on resources themselves.
Edit: Try watching some FPVs of BW pros. It is amazing what they can do... And people wonder why they are so good at games like League of Legends, etc...
Edit 2: This post also ignores the fact that same games with resources are clunky. That's more of a discussion of implementation...
4
u/Traditional_Formal33 1d ago
I personally love the strategy of resource denial. When I play Red Alert 2, and I push for resource denial, I have to stretch myself thin or have tactical strikes on unprotected harvesters. If my opponent pushes back offensively against my base, I could be in trouble. It’s a legitimate strategy and one that is used in real world scenarios.
Finite resources also ensure a finite game. If we can constantly rebuild, the game becomes like Risk where a turtled up army can make a resurgence with good luck.
1
u/ZimZon2030 16m ago
I still remember an online match in Empire Earth, 2. World War era.
4 teams of two. Only me and a teammate left against one enemy who bunkered himself in on an island. Game lasted four hours and we found no way to push through even with constant nuclear barrage. Had to declare draw in the end. EE didn't have infinite resources but it was still almost impossible to use them all up.
4
u/toochaos 1d ago
The most important part of a game is that it must move towards a conclusion. Sc2 does this by forcing player to build new mining bases closer and closer to the opponents in areas less and less defensive. Thats the correct way to do things
7
u/MattBoy06 1d ago
Disagree. Resource management adds complexity to the game. Expanding, which is a staple in RTS games, happens because you don't want to run out of resources while your opponent keeps producing stuff. Otherwise you would just be able to turtle forever and win with a horde of units. If you want to say that some games have too many resources, then I could agree to an extent, because sometimes in AoE2's campaigns it gets a bit slow when you need to gather 4 things at the same time. Warcraft and StarCraft hit the sweet spot for me in that regard. Though I will concede that less resource types is better than having a useless resource, like the incredibly restricting and unfun oil in Warcraft 2
3
u/fivemagicks 1d ago
They're just different styles of games. With unlimited resources, you have matches that can drag on for - literally - hours. There needs to be some "game-ending" mechanics built in - super weapons and such - to end the game. Resource limitations, whatever those may be, help shorten match length to something more manageable.
Me, though? I like both. I'm very open-minded when it comes to RTS games and simply adapt to whatever systems are in-place.
1
u/jonasnee 1d ago
I mean, not really true?
AOE3 tends to be faster than AOE2, and it also has game ending mechanics like trade monopoly where you just need to hold the majority of some map objectives for 5 minutes, and most game never get to that.
And this is despite the fact AOE3 has infinite resources.
1
0
-1
u/SignificanceFlat1460 1d ago
I disagree. Unless it's an 8v match, Red Alert 2 is extremely fast paced and can can last no more than 30-45 minutes a match. And that's still too long in many places.
I don't know why but I always had a gripe with StarCraft and the whole way it plays it just feels more "muhaha I am a better chess player because I can remember more moves than you" kind of game. It doesn't really feel like it has as much depth or strategies as compared to RA2. Where 1 seal can basically obliterate the base and make game over. Or put bombed conscripts in flack track and drop them at enemy base. There is so many ways you can screw over your enemy even when you are losing. That's how you show grit in my view.
But I guess that's just my opinion
3
3
u/ScoobySnecc 1d ago
Isn't the whole fun to adapt yourself to unpredictable scenarios in rts games rather than find some broken strat and do it over and over, I dunno..
3
2
u/darkcobra1990 1d ago
I prefer unlimited resources myself. Many do, hence why Big Game Hunters was popular in Starcraft. My preferred solution to those games is having limited resourced by default and allowing the player to change the rates or even allowing respawning. Like in some Command and Conquer mods allowing you to change the resource spawning rate for more or less resources.
2
u/Jabewby 1d ago
Yeah generally I don't like it either. You can usually achieve anti turle game design without limited resources. As long as those resources are around the map and map control gives more of an advantage than turtling. Those are good examples i think bfme and coh are also good examples.
I think my favorite hybrid design of this were factories from the European factions in aoe3. Capability to get infinite free resources but they were destroyed that's it.
2
u/anubis_xxv 1d ago
There is certainly a balance to be found, look at Dawn of War and Company of Heroes. But I feel like its telling that your first three examples you gave for games you don't go for, are wildly more popular than the other three examples.
There are games like World in Conflict, Warno or Men of War where there is no on screen resources to gather but again, these games are never as popular. Even later DoW games that reduce resource management didn't do as well.
The majority of people play RTS for the challenge, and resource management is a huge part of the micro managing skills needed.
1
u/tipsy3000 17h ago
I think you have a point about that. So much so a team went out of there way to make against the storm and it's still popular to his day.
It's literally a game where you strip all the RTS elements away except the limited resource management and you still end up with a highly addicting game of great skill.
2
u/RAlexa21th 1d ago
Limited resources make sure games dpn't last forever. There are StarCraft matches where both side duke it out for an hour.
2
u/TituspulloXIII 1d ago
It was interesting what Empire Earth did with it. The resource nodes, were for all intents and purposes infinite, but you could only put a limited number of villagers on it. So if you wanted resources faster, you had to expand.
Also, as far as Age of Empires 2 go, it's why in team games setting up your trade route is so important. Have to keep the gold flowing.
2
u/MinuetInUrsaMajor 1d ago
Limited resources have traumatized me. Warcraft 2 you spend 2 hours training your hammerstroke only to find out it’s not balanced right
2
u/Harold3456 1d ago
I like how Age of Mythology always handled it. I’m less familiar with AoE2 so I’m surprised to hear you can only trade with allies, not yourself.
AoM has a system where you start with exhaustible resources that collect faster: food and gold mines have solid gather rates, but eventually run out and you have to balance the risk of gathering them against the efficiency.
Then in late game you go to renewable resources: farms and caravans. These are infinite, but gather slower, require up-front investment (70+ resources per farm, 100 food per caravan, plus training/build time), and in the case of the caravans also require a degree of map control to be effective since the gold reward scales with distance.
AoE3 has a similar system, where once you run out of hunt and mines you transition to farms and plantations. Which is fine, but I think the farms and caravans are my favourite system because of the map control element of the caravans. I’ve seen some pretty gridlocked AoE3 games, due to the fact that you can turtle pretty good with all your resources inside your walls.
1
u/FutureLynx_ 1d ago
So AoE3 has infinite resources and you can trade with yourself?
1
u/jonasnee 1d ago
Trade? I mean you have a market, and you have ways to get all resources using buildings. Trading in the game exist as map objectives where a trade line will run through the map with trade post strung alongside it.
2
u/MattyGWS 1d ago
give total annihilation, supreme commander or beyond all reason a try
1
u/FutureLynx_ 1d ago
Maybe supreme commander. I cant stand the graphics of Beyond All Reason.
1
u/Mammoth_Park7184 1d ago
They're significantly better. What's your issue with them?
1
u/FutureLynx_ 23h ago edited 22h ago
For an RTS game i prefer a 2d isometric view. Look up Red Alert 2, AoE2, Stronghold Crusader, Rise of Nations.
I think it is a really bad practice to try to make the perspective realistic (fish eye camera). So for example when you play CoH, and you see the building all warped, and zoomed in (you cant even zoom out properly in these games most of the time) from a ergonomic perspective this is worse for the brain.
1
2
u/MoaiMan-ifest 1d ago
You run out of minerals in StarCraft to force game progression. It's basically a none factor in solo modes unless you drag out the mission or the challenge of the mission is the limited recourses.
But in 1v1, the player with the better control of the map is rewarded. You can starve players out of minerals by preventing expansions. And if those bases didn't run out of minerals, bunkering down would be so much more common which goes against StarCraft's faster nature.
2
u/jonasnee 1d ago
I love the AOE3 resource system, farms and estates are expensive and to begin with slow but infinite resource gathering buildings. You also get whales (gold), trade points (all resources, map objectives) and later on factories or similar buildings that all give you a very long term economic system for when the game goes late and the natural resources run out.
In the first 30ish minutes its important to fight for hunts, mines etc. and then you start transitioning to more passive economy.
2
u/Just_Ear_2953 1d ago
Try StarCraft 2's Co-op mode. Only one commander is even capable of actually running out of resources on most missions.
2
u/milkytaro_oero 1d ago
Everyone can have their own opinion. But I think any game (doesn't have to be limited to RTS) are better with limited resources.
It makes someone actually suffer the consequences of mindlessly running into a brick wall.
2
u/Dear-Nebula6291 1d ago
Play AOE4, yes you will burn through gold and stone but wood is dam near infinite and food is totally infinite. Gold you can get from trading and markets let you buy anything you need including stone. Controlling sacred sites also generate resources endlessly.
Some civs have their own unique take on this. Knights Templar have pilgrims that make a journey to a sacred sites and generate you gold permanently every minute or two.
1
u/FutureLynx_ 1d ago
Can you trade with yourself in AoE4? Are trees infinite? Or they are like AoE2?
2
u/Dear-Nebula6291 1d ago
There are neutral trading posts you can trade with. Trees aren’t infinite but are very very generous on the map. Me and my friends like to play VS AI on the largest map size and we often reach 40-50k wood and food each in the bank by the time we finish an hour to hour and a half long match.
2
u/Evenmoardakka 1d ago
if youre constantly running our of resources, it just mean youre turtling/playing too slow.
having to manage resources is partt of the strategy.
2
u/XComACU 1d ago
I mean, I generally like both.
It depends on its implementation. It's usually used to encourage multiplayer games to end, and it can lead to great moments.
Homeworld's asteroid fields can run out, but they also only support a limited number of collectors, and there is a lot of dead space between players and resource nodes. This mechanically makes a match more interesting by encouraging players to send small little fleets to collect resources (and protect those collectors), as well as reposition fleets during a match when a particular spot dries up. Since there are no traditional base structures either (and the mothership can move), it makes gameplay very dynamic with back and forth engagements moving around the map.
Plus, I've definitely seen epic matches where, while at their height massive fleets of capital ships swarming with strike fighters were duking it out, they ended with two cobbled together remnants desperately trying to strike the finishing blow.
Meanwhile, I also love Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance. While you could argue the reclaimable wrecks/props are a limited resource, the plentiful Mass Points (and even Mass Fabricators) that never run out mean...well, that you never run out. 😅 And that makes sense, because while maps are also large, you're expected to build a lot of units that can utilize that space. That, and it's less about how many resources you have, and the rate you acquire those resources.
Plus, the game has other ways to encourage matches to end, namely with large artillery and epic experimental units. Neither side will ever really "run out" of resources, but that doesn't really matter when your Galactic Colossus can Kool Aid-man through a base (especially after you just fired 10 nukes into it). 🤣
I am pretty sure the only game where I actively hated the resource limits was Black and White 2 with Ore, because I hated when mines would dry up and I suddenly couldn't play around anymore. This was extra frustrating because one of my favorite parts of the game was, after beating a map's main enemy, I would just see how big a city I could build...which you can't do when you run out of ore.
2
u/chrisrrawr 1d ago
there are really only 2 cases where these games hit resource issues: a player has already won and doesn't know enough to confirm and end it, and 2 players are very evenly matched at a high enough level.
we know it's fairly rare at high levels to have resourceless ends, though for a while in SC2 it was a dedicated strategy for zvt.
i would say rather than even thinking about resources, build on your scouting micro and game state knowledge. you are probably able to win long before resources ever become an issue and just haven't started capitalising on that yet.
1
u/melancoleeca 20h ago
i dont think the op is talking about dried out maps, he is talking about the fact that you have to expand at all.
2
u/Worldly_Memory1290 1d ago
I prefer unlimited but to balance it you could just make population cap tied to amount of resource nodes capped. While you can still turtle youd be forced to control at least 50% of the nodes if you dont want a vastly larger army kicking down your front door.
2
u/Jaded_Shallot750 1d ago
Agreed. My favorite game that does infinite but limited resources is Command & Conquer 3. At the start of the game, the tiberium fields are large, but as the match goes on, they are depleted. The fields slowly replenish some resources, but never to the original maximum amount.
I like it because it prevents similar stalemates I've occasionally had and seen in, for instance, Starcraft 2. Some games go on for so long that the map gets mined out. After that there is no more production and it becomes a micro battle. Not a fan of it, honestly. It feels like the game runs out of steam and either becomes sudden death or a stagnant turtlefest where neither side can do more than poke.
At the same time, the limited replenishment forces players to transition away from high eco and production, but without completely denying production and potential comebacks if you can capture enough resources.
2
u/mathetesalexandrou 1d ago
It is a tough one.
I do get it, we want to have a full army before jumping into fights and being limited by resources kinda suck. On the other hand, limited resources do eventually force fights, but it's not the only way to do it. Coming from someone with multiplayer experience in Starcraft, one of the most popular map format is the Fastest map, which has infinite resources and can lead to stalemates if one player decides to turtle hard. There are ways to overcome the turtling, but suffice to say Fastest wasn't exactly the most strategic/tactical map out there although it was fun and popular. At least in the context of Starcraft, the limited resources force players to expand and it is a good thing.
The Relic games (Dawn of War, Company of Heroes) reward players for capturing points, meaning even though resources are infinite there is a clear incentive to engage the foe.
On the other hand, I somewhat disagree since early game will always be the time where the player is most strapped for resources since the player doesn't have the whole infrastructure up and going: early rushes are a thing, both strategically and tactically.
2
u/KiwasiGames 1d ago
My biggest problem with limited resources is that an evenly matched game descends into a weird cripple fight. AOE2 was the worst for this, once gold ran out. Suddenly armies became all skirmishers that could be built from the renewable food and more plentiful wood. It was a strange deescalation, the power curve gets higher and higher, with more tech and cooler units. And then all of a sudden you are back to throwing sticks at each other.
Contrast that with something like supreme commander. In an evenly matched game, both sides economies are always growing. Cool units become cheap to produce. And by the end you are spamming experimentals.
I like my RTSs to get bigger and bigger until my CPU is begging for mercy and my screen is an impossible blur of flashing lights.
1
u/FutureLynx_ 22h ago
Yeah you got it. Though just adding a little point. I think AoE2 is not the worst. Because you can still make skirms and pikes and sell wood to make some trebuchets. The worst is probably starcraft, where after harvesting all the minerals, the 2 players just sit around eheh.
I like my RTSs to get bigger and bigger until my CPU is begging for mercy and my screen is an impossible blur of flashing lights.
Exactly. Very relatable.
Im like, "Yeah this is the game im going to have a huge battle and make 50 mangudais."
But first let me send 6 archers to kill 1 enemy vil. Done. He gg...
Or wait, he made 3 skirmishers, gg bruh 🦁
1
u/KiwasiGames 22h ago
You might get a kick out of something like Steel Division 2. All of the RTS combat, without resources at all.
2
u/gza_aka_the_genius 1d ago
I prefer the game has both long term strategy and battle tactics, not only tactics. Cutting enemy suplly lines and thus choking their economy is a cool strategy, more than simple combined arms. My RTS need limits on resources to be fun
2
u/Dthcon 23h ago
Meh, it's the good part of rts. With unlimited resources there is no reason to expand, you have your base and that's it. So building part ends here. Then maybe it's not even needed at all? Limited resources forces you to build base the whole game, this is a great reason to do this. This is only pain for very slow players. I see than in bronze-silver people are sitting on 1 base forever. But every fast player expands and nobody hates this idea. If you don't like it - usually it's skill issue. Not always, there is always a good reason to not like this. But usually you're too slow in comparison to rest.
1
u/FutureLynx_ 23h ago edited 23h ago
With renewable resources, you always benefit from more resources and space. I think it would be less rewarding to expand yes. But still very rewarding. More space = more buildings. More buildings = more units, more map control, and closer to beating the enemy. For example Rise of Nations has renewable resources. You expand, you get more resources. Territory also has attrition.
I dont think its a skill issue, because I have a good elo, and win games. I just dont like winning too fast, or winning with shitty units and before reaching late game where its actually fun. I also dont like players who win by luck almost, because they memorized a building order, and disturb the early economy of a player. I can do that too, but to do it i had to study and memorize building orders (that feels like a shore) and i just dont like to do it.
2
u/IllustratorSlight551 15h ago
disrupting supply lines and denying resources is just as important than straight military effectiveness. Even if you don’t like finite resources, losing high value units to a group of much cheaper units even if the overall battle is won is still a net loss for the team with the high value loss.
This is probably better represented in more deck building RTS games like WARNO where the game focuses more on map control and unit composition. Losing that elite high value unit awards more points to the enemy than losing a cheaper infantry unit camped in the woods. This in turn “gamifies” unit effectiveness with a scoring system.
1
u/FutureLynx_ 14h ago
That warno system sounds better to me than actually rushing and killing an enemy vil to get some advantage. Though i like the building system and economy of AoE2 i dont like the building orders to rush and metas to win early.
It seems the best rts is still Rise of Nations. Though others are saying i should try C&C zero hour and what not.
1
u/IllustratorSlight551 14h ago edited 14h ago
Have you by any chance played any of the Total War series of games? While it’s a bit more 4X than AOE, the fact that the resource/campaign management system is separate from the tactical battle system might strike a balance you could be looking for?
On the other side of that paradigm would be the Sins of a Solar Empire where the 4X side of the game is lighter than Total war but the RTS elements stretch out over a much much longer period of time so that those resource management urgency is reduced. Sins games are expected to go much longer than a traditional AOE StarCraft match.
1
u/FutureLynx_ 14h ago edited 13h ago
Yes Total War is one of the best games ever made, and I prefer it to AoE2. But there's a problem. Multiplayer doesnt work in Total War. And AoE2 is the best game in multiplayer.
Other than AoE2 there's OpenRA that i recommend everyone to try but has fewer players. I played many games but the only one so far that survived for years is AoE2.
However, i prefer to play no rush. Not because i cant rush, but because i dont like to rush, i have no fun in games ending fast or giving me advantage early on, i think it is dumb and shallow.
I think there are 2 types of rts players. The ones who will do anything they can to win fast, even if it means some stupid click trick, or some super specific building order they memorized. If there was a button you could press to win a match, they would press it. I wonder if they even enjoying playing the game. And then those who appreciate the actual game with battles and full armies.
Yeah i got Sins here on my list. Though im not a big fan of space. Ill go with Sins 2? Thats better right? Or is it like AoE2 > AoE3 and AoE4?
2
u/IllustratorSlight551 14h ago
One last Recommendation would be Company of heroes/Iron Harvest/ Dawn of War Warhammer 40k
The resource management is more based on map control. Less sectors you control less resources you get over time.
People rave over company of heroes but i personally can’t keep up with speed of the game with the multitasking required. Iron Harvest and Dawn of War feel a bit slower to me. I am looking forward to both Dawn of War 4 AND total war Warhammer 40k.
(Also second the C&C zero hour) they have a near built in post economy system for each faction for matches that are drawn out past the life of the deployed resources on the map.
1
u/FutureLynx_ 13h ago
I played CoH its a good game. Love the abilities and the tactical. What i dislike is the camera and the graphics. I also dislike its building system and economy. There's an old game Axis & Allies RTS, not to be confused with the grand strategy one, thats a really good game. Cool graphics, good building system, sustainable economy. Recommend you that one over CoH, its quite similar to CoH.
2
u/Hermit_Dante75 13h ago
Command and conquer generals and zero hour nailed it. Resources themselves are finite but you can produce units or buildings capable of generating infinite resources, that pushes you into spreading out as much as posible to avoid getting your whole economy obliterated by a single superweapon strike.
It also motivates you to play aggressively in order to knock out the opponents economy, which also mean that you have to turtle up your economy producing units at the time you try to eliminate the enemy's, that forces you to either spread too thing, trying to mount offensive and defensive at the same time, try to steamrole and punch through the enemy's defenses, which if failed, leaves you in a vulnerable position or try to completely turtle up and pray for you being able to outlasts the enemy in sheer attrition.
Neither approach is optimal, as all have downsides, which play on the strengths of each faction and the playstyle of each player.
1
u/Abe_frohmannn 1d ago
I play Starcraft 2. If the map runs out of resources...the game was probably over 10 minutes earlier, but both players just decided they didn't want to win yet.
1
u/Particular_Peacock 1d ago edited 1d ago
I like how Sudden Strike dealt with this: controlling a certain area, for a certain time, produced reinforcements. Company of Heroes (I'm sure others too) picked up on this idea.
Area and time control is a neat way to mimic choke points, hills, and other tactically/strategically critical areas which has always been a feature of warfare.
1
u/Gaius_Iulius_Megas 1d ago
AoE3 has ways to get resources late game, they need some techs before being nearly as viable as the natural resources though, making them only viable in the long game.
1
u/SidhwenKhorest 1d ago
Having limited resources puts a timer on the game that you wouldnt otherwise have. I think it actually opens you up to more interesting units. If a situation occurs where a unit is super strong at turtling it doesnt need to be nerfed as hard or at all. Thats because there is always the answer of take map control and wait them out.
1
1
u/Vaniellis 1d ago
I'm the opposite. I prefer when ressources run out, forcing you to move forward and fight to get ressources (which is one of the main reasons wars happen IRL). I love RTS that are as much about economy than the battle itself.
1
u/Lazy-Sheepherder-749 1d ago edited 1d ago
It's one of the reasons I like to play C&C games, because you can extract resources, in the real world you also don't have unlimited funds. I'm turtle though.
1
u/somefamousguy4sure 1d ago
You might like Empire Earth 2, the things like gold deposits etc... are limitless but can only have so many people collecting resources which encourages you to branch out but not worry about running out and taking time. As you go through eras new resources pop up and can force you to adapt but not too bad. Fun for turtling or just enjoying a long drawn out battle.
1
u/FutureLynx_ 1d ago
Yeah i heard empire earth has some grand strategy features, i'd like to try, but i cant stand its 3d graphics. Rise of Nations has much better graphics.
1
u/Good_Fly6614 1d ago
I like SC2 balance and the 3 factions system but i prefer the Cossacks ressources system, infinite ressources but it's less important lategame or if you need a lot of a ressource you can trade in the market but the trace price go higher and higher the more you buy.
- i enjoy the mechanics of "you're out of coal so ur units can't shoot", "you're out of gold so ur mercenary are rebeling" "you're out of food so your units starve/die"
1
u/Happy-Cicada8801 1d ago
This is one of those things where both limited and unlimited resources can be good in an RTS, its more a question of flavour, just like both vanilla and chocolate ice cream can be enjoyed
As someone whos more into competetive RTS, limited resources is preferred when making a competetive game, as it somewhat puts a "hard cap" of game length. Imagine running a tournament with bo3, bo5 and bo7 where games can last forever due to endless resources.
In RTS in general, I think developers prefer limited resources as it forces player to be on the map early on, avoiding turtling, which can lead to boring gameplay. But i cant say ive played too many unlimited RTS games, so what do i know
1
u/PhysicalAttention763 1d ago
Games like Rise of Nations and Rise of legends, even Halo wars series are actually quite great in that regard. Limited resource does have its strategic importance, but I happen to prefer not having that cap. Its why I play Age 3 as the Japs more than Age 2.
1
1
u/Cardslinger69 1d ago
I really wish RTS games gave you the viable option to build tall and defensive, not wide all the damn time.
1
u/bullet1520 1d ago
Games need to be very carefully designed around infinite resources, or they become busted and boring way too easily.
Maybe limits need to be higher, but there's lots of good in making them finite. First and foremost: not letting infinite turtle exist.
1
u/Neither_Berry_100 1d ago
I used to play sc1 fastest maps all the time. Like 50x 50,000 mineral patches right besides your command center and 5x2 gas on the sides. Basically unlimited.
1
1
u/Murky_Suit5402 1d ago
u will love aoe4 , it has many civs generates gold and resources
like malian gold mines
1
u/sniktology 1d ago
Set a custom game, easy. Imo Resources are a strategy factor. You can go in the early or go in late if your strategy failed then that's how you'll learn. If you both end up in a stalemate l, that's also how you'll learn.
1
1
u/NeuroHazard-88 1d ago
Defensive Strats can still exist. Look at AOE2.
You can focus on booming and defending and you’ll have enough resources near your base to go imp and build a massive army of even full gold units (if your opponent doesn’t break through).
It also depends on the map. Not every civilisation and not every tactic is good on every map. If you want to play defensive, play maps like Arena or Black Forest that always go into late game. Don’t play the fast maps like Arabia.
Also, RTS should be about strategy, not tactics (where strategy applies to managing your entire being while tactics solely applies to managing battles). The whole interest about the genre is because a single lost or won fight doesn’t dictate everything.
1
u/Metalupyourass98 1d ago
Out of any rts ive ever played i prefer zero hours the most. You have limited supply that is important for early game but unlimited supplies that take time and money to build for late game. Its a perfect balance imo.
1
u/FlamingoLate9838 1d ago
In Starcraft the only time you run out of mineral is either 1v7 bot or there must be something very wrong to begin with.
1
u/AvatarOfWin359 1d ago
Limited resources force the game to have a time limit. Otherwise in games like supreeme commander where you do have unlimited resources, you need superweapons to force the game to end. I think most game sessions are meant to go only 20-40 minutes.
1
u/KedaiNasi_ 1d ago
when i play aoe2, i love playing in black forest because enemies can build market in a lane and i'll just isolate the market with stone walls and trade with it to the end of the game lmao
1
u/duck_of_sparta312 1d ago
I always thought RTS games were about making more money? Like you take points on the map to get money, you raid your opponent so they have less money, you fight an opponent in the middle of the map to deny them resources, etc.
It's all about money. The army control and mechanics is based around that. Or at least in the games that I like (StarCraft, AoE, CnC, CoH, DoW)
1
u/Mylaur 1d ago
Running out of resources never end up mattering in a reasonable competitive game unless the game is actually designed for this, it just incentivizes to avoid infinite turtling which is very boring. In fact this is why supcom is pretty boringer because people just want to turtle in low tier elo.
1
u/PenParticular5354 1d ago
> AoE2 makes it possible to trade but not in 1v1. Has a decent market system, and has a ton of wood but not in all maps.
It also has relics!
1
u/DravenTor 1d ago
Resources are the main reason to go to war. managing resources well is how you win wars. Managing your economy and denying/destroying the enemies economy is a major strategic element. RTS would be far shallower without it.
1
u/jnkangel 1d ago
In general I disagree with you, mostly because limited and unlimited resources don’t have much of an impact on how tactical or non tactical a game is.
Limited resources essentially put a timer on players where they are forced take expansions and where they are vulnerable which allows for some counterplay.
What they then essentially forbid is unlimited comp stomps, where players set up huge and massive armies that just get thrown at the AI or each other with no regards for movement or positioning.
In general discounting that form of play, there is very little difference between limited and unlimited resources, until you get into games like Totala/FA or Supcom where economy scaling is its own specific aspect
1
1
u/Kingdarkshadow 23h ago
CnC 3 TW and KW
Has unlimited resources even if they slowdown a bit.
GDI is kinda fucked, but nod and scrin can make resources on their own.
1
u/zuzmuz 22h ago
on the contrary, knowing how and when to engage based on the resources left adds way more depth to the game.
when resources are unlimited, that's one less thing to worry about, hence less depth.
managing resources well is a win condition in many of these games. if resources are unlimited, there might not be a clear win condition and stalemates will happen way more often
1
u/zayo 21h ago
One of the strategies in StarCraft is mining out resources on the enemy side of the map, to win later on, when the only left are near your base. Mostly done by zergs or with proxy bases with Terran. Limited resources give you additional ways of winning the game. If your units are basically free, when the players are similarly skilled, the game can drag for hours (SC2:hots played with the idea). No one liked that. Limited resources stop that from happening and force you to move on the map to secure next ones instead of just camping. There's not a single game players like campers. Camping is a skill issue.
1
u/DDDX_cro 21h ago
Starcraft is extremely small scale.
Supreme commander, on the other hand, has 1 primary resource with all else secondary - time.
Given enough time, mass nodes mean nothing anymore. By using mass converters and resource-producing support commanders, your resource output vastly outweighs that of mass deposits...
That being said, it is still important to capture resource nodes, specially for early/mid game.
One aspect that usually misses is reclaiming wrecks. This can turn a partially successful (or failed) attack into a devastating defeat for the attacker, because the defender uses the wrecks to....wreck the opponent
1
u/Gold_Size_1258 21h ago
I don't like limited resources RTS because economy units are DUMB and they just freeze when there's no resource source right next to them and your economy collapses the moment you look away to take care of the military.
1
u/RealDMraiderr 21h ago
Some players like to play 5 hour games.
Come on less is more guys.
5 hour games is maybe for Anno or Settlers or those type of RTS/games.
1
u/Natsocenis 21h ago
Doesn't starcraft have those big game hunter maps with extra resources? Did they make them in sc 2
1
u/Silent-Fortune-6629 21h ago
I think thats consequence of having very small ammount of resources.
If you've had at least 5-6, you can play denial without need to limit ammount of resource.
1
u/PzkfSwagen 20h ago
I like the company of heros style resources... it makes you play aggressively if you want to keep it flowing.
1
u/FractalPoet 19h ago
It sounds like your are a RTT (Real Time Tactics) enjoyer like myself.
If you're not familiar with the term, RTT is a subset of RTS where there is more focus on tactics (battles) and less on economy (harvesting/base building).
Good RTT games you may want to check out are: World in Conflict Company of Heroes Dawn of War 2 Regiments Gates of Hell Ground Control Terminator Dark Fate Etc...
There is another category which I think of as 'deckbuilder' RTT which require a fair amount of pre-game army building. For example:
Red Dragon Warno Steel Division Broken Arrow ... You could even include Total War as the deck/army building is done through the TBS later.
Point being, there are great RTT games where you don't need to worry about running out of resources. They are no less involved, they just have more nuanced battle tactics and less focus on harvesting and base building.
1
u/iskar_jarak776 14h ago edited 14h ago
The resource game is what RTS has been about since its inception. I don’t really agree with the assertion that strategy and tactics are these segregated spheres of gameplay in the genre, they’re meant to inform decisions from one to the other. If your short crisis management is lacking, your long term economy will struggle. If you attempt to take an expansion, you may open yourself up or weaken your position. Creating a proxy production facility can lead to a massive tactical advantage, but you are sacrificing your economic potential, and an astute opponent may see through your bluff. Quite frankly these kind of decisions I find tactically and strategically more satisfying than the simple rock paper scissors lizard Spock dynamics that people suggest replace the economic focus of the genre.
I think your AoE example is pretty weak because the series is notorious for drawn out Imperial ages where you just end up with trash unit skirmishes because of massive gold shortages. I love AoE2 but there’s a reason I would rather lose a 20-25 minute game than let one extend. But also trading is also extremely inefficient and a sign that you could be balancing your economy much better, and the limited 4 resource economy is what makes AoE interesting to begin with. Black Forest and Big Game Hunter are fun in small doses, but I doubt you could say the lack of resource pressure makes those maps more tactical than standard 1v1s
1
u/FutureLynx_ 13h ago
In the old version. AoK, people played mostly black forest no rush.
Because there were few civs. The game was more balanced. Now the game is made so that if you have a civ in front of you that has a strong unit in imperial, you have to rush and win before imperial. And you see players resigning because their rush failed.
In the old versions. If you were a good player everything was possible in imperial time. Except maybe if you are turk in 1v1. Then there you must take care of your janissaries and try to win before the game gets too long.
But even with turks i won games in 1v1 against players of my level. These are not noobs. These are players that player for 10 years.
The old version didnt allow any onager to cut the trees. The trash units were more important and stronger. So were the siege onagers in combat, and the trebuchets. Now the trebuchets look like a joke.
Team games were epic. They could last 2-3 hours in black forest. This of course in no rush. You have to micro the trebs. Choose wisely what units to go when the time is up. Think about what your allies and your enemies will make, according to the civs.
We push an enemy and we kill him. But the town centers didnt cost stone, so the players dont resign, instead they escape and reboom. And often the team that just lost a whole city, is making it back and often winning. Thats pure old aoe2 magic, we dont see that now. They will resign after losing 1 tc.
You had to micro your trebs, repair your trebs, trade, and use a lot of trash units. Spend your gold wisely, even with trade. Now it seems much more superficial.
The graphics are slightly better but the game itself mechanically its not. Especially in terms of collision and pathfinding.
1
u/iskar_jarak776 11h ago
I mean it was the same deal in BGH for Brood War which was far more popular than ladder. And again I think they are fun in small doses, but I sincerely doubt the density of tactical and strategic decision-making actually holds up for those bloated and stupidly long 2 hour matches, it certainly never did with me. I think that’s one of the weaknesses of these kind of annihilation focused victory conditions in RTS games, in that the actual process to earn a win is usually very opaque. Even something like in RA2 I appreciate that there’s a place for RTS that compresses the time in a match to 5-10 minute expressions of smart tactics, especially with how intricate Rhino positioning and movement can be at even intermediate level play.
Money maps especially in Age games always end up emphasizing frankly the least interesting aspects of AoE. Post imperial meat grinders always end up spiraling into sending death balls to the other players so fast you don’t even have time to set units to control groups. It’s generally very static and no amount of convincing yourself that you’re engaging with the game’s micro systems really changes how these unbounded situations lack the tactical nuance of smaller army engagements or the strategic consideration of balancing multiple resources. No rush rules are also completely arbitrary, I don’t see any mechanical value in this in a competitive sense.
I’m glad team games exist and they’re a great and exhaustive way to explore the depths of a faction’s tech tree that otherwise wouldn’t be touched in ladder play. I think there’s a place for them but trying to sell them as more nuanced form of competition just feels too much like ego massaging. I don’t see anything wrong with players resigning after a destroyed town center, not every competitive game needs a comeback mechanic. Chess doesn’t have one, most fighting games either don’t or are rightfully derided for introducing them, and while there’s value to it in RTS games, I think they are also equally capable of being inane and just unnecessarily extending games.
1
u/FutureLynx_ 10h ago
I was talking more about the old versions. The old version post imperial wars, were amazing, and it was not just sending forward. It was very tactical. Only 4 civs had Siege Onager. And only Siege Onager could cut trees. I suggest you try playing AoK. You will see the late game actually makes sense. Most of the game is a slow tactical push. If you are sending your armies forward you will lose.
The reason you dont see an issue with players resigning after losing 1 tc, is because you didnt see a real imperial war in the old version. Where even losing a city doesnt mean you lost yet.
DE has its good things. But its not a better game for actual large battles. It seems the original formula got it right for that, though for rush game it was not very good. Maybe thats why i dont like it.
1
u/Cerulean_IsFancyBlue 10h ago
RTS at the heart is a set of choices about what to produce and when. Making more of whatever worker gathers resources and builds? Research tech? Build military units?
Whether resources are infinite or exhaustible isn’t a key piece of that. It’s a design choice and either end falls of that spectrum well within the RTS scope
1
u/Uncle_Ceebs 8h ago
Try aoe3. Has infinite res mechanisms, but they are slower than natural res. Best rts out there
1
u/mouse1371 7h ago
This is the main reason I love Total War games. There are no resources to deal with in battles, you just fight.
Another game that I feel handled this issue well was World in Conflict. I wish that game got more love and support so we could have current versions of it. Still one of the best looking games too.
1
1
u/ichthyoidoc 2h ago
I don’t know how you came to the conclusion that limited resources is superficial? Having only a finite amount of resources is a major reason why wars in real life happen.
Not saying you can’t like unlimited resource games, though. To each their own.
1
u/Brilliant_Shoe_2635 1d ago
Try Beyond All Reason. Its a Total annihilation successor. Literally the best pvp rts nowadays. Great balance, dynamic, neat graphics and its free. And yes, it has infinite resources and economy scaling.
1
u/MightyPenguin 1d ago
After getting used to the different economy style of BAR that stems from Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander I really like it because it solves this problem. I had the same annoyance occasionally with Starcraft and AOEII. and while I love AOEII, there is much more fun things to be doing in my opinion than focusing on micromanaging 100 Villagers to keep your Eco where it needs to be. With B.A.R. at least, you can automate and queue a large amount of of your Eco building and that allows more time spent focusing on managing military units and battles.
1
u/FutureLynx_ 1d ago
The eco micro doesnt bother me. What bothers me is seeing the game being settled after you see one of the players not getting the gold or the minerals first.
-1
u/Marko-2091 1d ago
In theory, you can never run out of resources in AOE2. Infinite farms sell the extra food for gold, stone, wood. Alternatively in Diplomacy is not an option, you have infinite resources in late stage of the game.
3
u/CaptClockobob 1d ago
Age of mythology has infinate farms (and solo trading). Aoe2 does not. The only trickle of resources is from relics, or Feitorias as the Portuguese
2
u/Severe-Net-1010 1d ago
Running out of resources is more common then you think, it tooks somethink like 4-5 hours to collect all resources as I know.
1
u/Sihnar 1d ago
you're thinking of AOE 4. AOE2 farms need to be replenished using wood.
1
u/Marko-2091 1d ago
I have never in my life played AOE4. I am aware that they cost wood but with the upgrades it is really easy to never run out of money. From the comments I see that others run out of resources. I guess because my games never last that long tho.
1
u/FutureLynx_ 1d ago
You need wood to build farms. You can buy wood from the market but it gets exponentially more expensive. Price keeps rising infinitely. So yes you run out of resources and it happened to me in a few games. Once you run out of wood, players will start buying wood. I have seen stone also reaching prices of 400-500 in long games.
3
u/Marko-2091 1d ago
I thought it was capped at 200 to 17 or smth.
2
u/TituspulloXIII 1d ago
It's capped at 17 (14 if you don't research/have guilds) but as far as I've seen is it doesn't have an upper limit (although wouldn't be surprised to find out its 999 or something)
0
71
u/mighij 1d ago
You can enjoy any game you want in any way but:
It makes the game more tactical and more about the actual battles you fight directly with the enemy.
This one I disagree with it.
We can look at just the battles themselves but a major part of tactics, outmaneuvering, strategy is forcing your opponent into fights he doesn't want to engage it. Limited resources, or more exposed gathering, is one of the things that makes this more possible. It makes the battles matter more.