the triumphant return of RTS

The last RTS game that really engaged me to the point of massive time loss was Rise of Nations. In the past few weeks, two exceptional games have been released: Rome: Total War and Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War. At this point in the season it's easy to get lost in a crowded schedule of releases. I must admit of the two the only one I was really anticipating to any degree was Rome: Total War, based solely on my experiences with Medieval: Total War and the first 15 minutes of Gladiator. I also recently got my hands on Age of Mythology Gold, and lazily grouped it in to avoid multiple posts. Luckily, all three titles have provided solid gameplay and a clear direction to where the RTS genre is going.

Starcraft was an excellent game. It was extremely well designed and balanced, and until now is the standard by which subsequent RTS games were judged. Still, I found that resource collection and management has always been the weak point of most RTS games. With the exception of the Myth and Total War series (and more recently Blitzkrieg and Soldiers: Heroes of WWII), there has always been some form of finding the raw resource and collecting it to build bases and produce units. But there was always so much more to RTS than sending paeons to mine for materials and racing through technology trees. You can only develop so many variations on the theme: like the World War II shooter genre, at some point the concept has to buckle under the weight of mediocrity.

Both Rome: Total War and Dawn of War show us that you can invigorate a tired genre. Granted, the Total War series has been more about epic strategy, but when you can't be bothered with micromanagement and are more interested in large-scale manuevering, Rome: Total War delivers an outstanding experience.

The units and battlefield are detailed and smoothly animated, using a brand new engine - right down to the mighty cheers your army lets loose when entering battle. The clash of swords can be heard over a pleasant panoramic view over the battlefield, or you can zoom in to unit on unit action, hearing the warriors scream as each are cut down mercilessly. Keeping track of your own routed regiments is annoying, as they will have to be explicitly commanded to re-enter the battle, so it is important to watch their energy level (fresh, winded, exhausted) and their opposition - if your men are getting slaughtered they are more prone to retreat. Routed enemy soldiers are equally time-consuming, because they will generally flee to all corners of the map to try and escape. You can attempt to run them down, but at this point they are usually outnumbered and you will get the option to end the battle. The game's speed controls also make this easier - you can slow or hasten the battle as much as needed.

Ironically, I've only played the demo for Rome: Total War, and it was Dawn of War that ended up on my playlist. As a fan of Medieval, I'm aware that there are many more options for political maneuverings, territory acquisition and army managment behind the scenes, but the demo does nothing to address them. This might lose prospective players that think it's nothing more than a large-scale version of Myth. Rome has been getting great reviews that claim it's the best in the series and a landmark in epic real time strategy, which may help to counter these impressions. The fact that it was used in an episode of the History Channel's "Decisive Battles" series lends some historical credibility as well, but to be honest I think these games have always aimed for that and succeeded.

As for Dawn of War, I certainly have had a lot of fun with this game, but whether it has any lasting value will be included in my final review. Probably the most inventive feature of Dawn of War are control points - strategic locations throughout a map that become your currency for fortifying a base and creating new units. Securing these points requires the use of an entire squad - who can defend themselves while they're at it - but it still ties up possible reinforcements, creating some tense front-line battles for these points on the map. In an equally innovative move, all Space Marine units and structures are launched from space, hitting your base like meteorites - buildings are simply landing pads to accept these pods.

I think I'm hooked on the simplicity of Dawn of War's battle mechanics themselves, because the single-player campaign feels too easy and straightforward to be of any significant value. Zooming in on the battlefield is not as exhilarating as RTW, but still provides some extremely visceral images. Watching your squad open up on an unsuspecting orc patrol is quite satisfying indeed. In fact, I think Relic may have captured what it would be like if Game Workshop's tabletop models came to life. All voiceovers and command confirmations sound like they belong in this universe. The graphics do the job, but upon close inspection washed out, strechy textures and blocky models can be seen. Still, it does nothing to lessen the experience.

For most players, tactics in RTS have typically revolved around the "Tank Rush": a race to obtain the most powerful unit, build gobs of them, and swarm your opponent's base. I blame Command & Conquer, Warcraft II, and by extension Starcraft, for making this extremely easy. The single player campaigns for each game had missions that almost demanded this approach, as there was really no other way to overpower the enemy. From this perspective, both Dawn of War and Age of Mythology don't offer anything beyond this precept.

The Total War series, known for their epic battlefields, actually requires you to apply simple strategic concepts to each conflict. Unsurprisingly, it will do you no good to send a squad of archers to take on a cavalry, or to send a cavalry into a phalanx of spearmen. Using your troops to this advantage, you can create visible choke points on the map, or draw the opponent closer to the heart of your army. Though this doesn't mean that you can't send squads of calvary to take out the general of the opposing force, breaking the will of their troops.

Both Rome: Total War and Dawn of War use morale very effectively, which is an addition badly needed. Speaking realistically, is there really a chance your sole Marine will stand his ground after seeing his entire squad demolished right in front of him? Although only troop effectiveness is depleted in Dawn of War, RTW causes your regiments to actually break up and flee, opening up front lines and destabilizing your entire strategy. It's marvelous to watch, especially when it happens to your opponent because at that point there's a pretty good chance you're winning.

Easily the most conventional of these three games is Age of Mythology, but that doesn't mean it isn't a well-polished strategy title. Indeed, resource collection is the central method of creating units, but the most entertaining aspect of advancing your civilization is the worship of Gods. Your race will start off worshipping one Greater Deity: for example, Poseidon is the chosen god of the Atlanteans. As you further develop your civilization, Lesser Deities will become available that you can choose to give your civilization bonuses. These include mythical creatures like cyclops and centaurs, special weapon upgrades for your units, or area effect spells that can be used to wreak havok on your opponent's base. In this respect Mythology gives the genre something unique, because opening up these abilities will depend on the number of "God points" you collect (which are earned by worhipping townsfolk). The closest game I could compare this feature to is Rise of Nations, except in that game scholars are kept inside Universities. You have the option in Mythology to take villagers away from a temple and reallocate them.

The game plays very similar overall to Rise of Nations, so I felt right at home. Advancing your civilization into different ages is essential, and the primary method of unlocking new units and Lesser Deities. Fans of Age of Empires II were entertained by this title, but it mostly only served as a way to incite their desire for a true sequel, and I can see why. Where AOE II was more focused on historical engagements in a traditional RTS setting, so far AOM is taking a more story-based approach, centralized on each civilization's main playable heroes.

After a binge of first person shooters, gameboy advance and being swallowed back up into Star Wars Galaxies, these games were a welcome change. As gaming time becomes even harder to obtain, it's difficult for me to sit down and truly enjoy what this genre has to offer. Though outstanding titles like these definitely make the time well spent.

up goes the ceiling of routine