Best RTS (4x?) multiplay online ?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Which RTS (4x?) multiplay online ?

Looking for something easy to play, but intrigueing.

Going to play with a friend over web and it would be fun if others could
join in, or we join them or at a server.

# I think random maps is to prefere in prior to scenarios.
# If it's a couple of years since release it's only an advantage so that
the hardware allows full detail....
# The game should also be rock solid and no tech hustle...

What will rock the most?


Morgan O.

 

[dweeb]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Age of Empires.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Warcraft 3. Focuses on offense, short, sharp battles rather than
building up a big army over the course of 4 boring hours to destroy
carefully build defenses. Great level of depth, but if you're all new
to the game you can jump right in.

 

[Anthony]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Total Annhilation if u can find it






"Morgan Ohlson" <morgan.ohlson@comhem.se> wrote in message
news:1oe25e6tcigdp.ck7ulyx7n4gu$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> Which RTS (4x?) multiplay online ?
>
> Looking for something easy to play, but intrigueing.
>
> Going to play with a friend over web and it would be fun if others could
> join in, or we join them or at a server.
>
> # I think random maps is to prefere in prior to scenarios.
> # If it's a couple of years since release it's only an advantage so that
> the hardware allows full detail....
> # The game should also be rock solid and no tech hustle...
>
> What will rock the most?
>
>
> Morgan O.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 13:15:07 -0600, "Anthony"
<aevansjr3@nospamhahha.cox.net> wrote:

>Total Annhilation if u can find it

TA does not support Random Maps, nor is it capable of the more advanced
starting methds where you start together. TA:K would be a better
recommendation, since it has better support of for team-games where players
need to be close together.

I've also seen TA crash in some cases - the trigger isn't known, but seems
to occurr with unit death (e.g. firing a superweapon at an enemy base). In
addition, the AI player will eventually fall since it rarely attempts to
build the heaviest of weaponry (e.g. superweapons).


>
>"Morgan Ohlson" <morgan.ohlson@comhem.se> wrote in message
>news:1oe25e6tcigdp.ck7ulyx7n4gu$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>
>> Which RTS (4x?) multiplay online ?
>>
>> Looking for something easy to play, but intrigueing.
>>
>> Going to play with a friend over web and it would be fun if others could
>> join in, or we join them or at a server.
>>
>> # I think random maps is to prefere in prior to scenarios.
>> # If it's a couple of years since release it's only an advantage so that
>> the hardware allows full detail....
>> # The game should also be rock solid and no tech hustle...
>>
>> What will rock the most?
>>
>>
>> Morgan O.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Raymond Martineau" <bk039@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:clpf01la365v4pcbv9sl2sfcloetbktfsa@4ax.com...

> I've also seen TA crash in some cases - the trigger isn't known, but seems
> to occurr with unit death (e.g. firing a superweapon at an enemy base). In
> addition, the AI player will eventually fall since it rarely attempts to
> build the heaviest of weaponry (e.g. superweapons).

This can be fixed by using one of the third party ai profiles. The original
ai was programmed not to use nukes or antinukes, so a nuke em till they glow
stategy always worked against the ai. With some of the third party ai's you
get nukes heading your way as fast as the ai can build them.

As for the original posters mention of random maps, all I can say is try
each map from each spawn area. Some maps play quite a bit differently if you
change where the players spawn. Even the simple change of top to bottom or
bottom to top can change the timing of the game.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On 7 Feb 2005 06:59:37 -0800, littlemute wrote:

> Warcraft 3. Focuses on offense, short, sharp battles rather than
> building up a big army over the course of 4 boring hours to destroy
> carefully build defenses. Great level of depth, but if you're all new
> to the game you can jump right in.

How is that implied?


Morgan O.