meh , it is turn based and the battle part is very basic thing

I wouldn't say it's dead, per-se, but the current strategy market seems to be mostly in favor of grand strategy titles and it's easy to understand why: grand strategy and 4X are both pretty much the ideal realization of the potential of computer strategy gaming. Nonetheless, I became a fan of strategy gaming thanks to Total Annihilation and for the longest time, RTSes were the only kind of strategy game I enjoyed, so I really hope that we see a new wave of RTS games.

the community wasn't toxic until riot thought let's make champs which need no team play just quick reflexes , it is all the devs fault
whats the point? do they improve them? because the cnc1 and ra1 are bad games in current expectations
ive tried out and many times you have to fight the buggy path finding system it has than the enemy
units block eachother wander off or chose a bad route
it needs a few days set in time, like the fighting games/simulators , you can only enjoy them when you reach a skill level

the strategy part is turn based, looks like you havent played it or failed to understand the and ... part

The strategy part you speak of is in combat. There is plenty of it. If you don't see any strategy to TW combat then you're just bad at the games.

yep, just get personal when you made an error, do not acknowledge it !!

Im just correcting you because its apparent you have no idea what you're talking about.

sure... not i wrote the strategy part is real time :P
maybe you should stop now , you are just embarrassing yourself even more

I'm probably the wrong person to ask, since they only FPS that has piqued my interest in the last 10 years is Graven.

Fair enough, but I don't think the gameplay of RTSes is what needs to be changed to get that "elevation" above what we had in the past. It's how the story is told and orchestrated and the game's setting.

If you are saying that even all that will most likely not be enough for the general crowd of people, in order to spark a reinterest in RTSes, then that's probably right, but people that are into RTSes already don't necessarily need the second coming of Starcraft to enjoy themselves.

A familiar one could work, but then again it's easy to bore people within a set formula. Just look at where the C&C franchise ended up.

Which prompts the question - why? If you think that just "rehashing" formula is enough to receive attention, why all recent shooters didn't get it from you?


But are there many people that are into RTS today? It has been more than a decade since major releases like C&C or Supreme Commander. I doubt that many RTS players of that time (especially competitive players) that remain loyal to the genre in general.

Note, that unlike adventure games or even shooters, RTS takes a lot more resources to make, so the audience must be bigger for a game to succeed in that genre.

Where? C&C3 and Red Alert 3 were pretty successful, at least among C&C fans. And C&C4 was a failure despite belonging to C&C franchise.

No but my enemies soon are.

It might be worth mentioning that Halo Wars was released in 2009, was on consoles and got pretty decent reviews. Halo Wars 2 was released in 2016, so not too long ago. Very much a classic, story-driven RTS.

Ugh, gross. I like RTS and 4X considerably. I hate grand strategy games. They're just so dull. Let's take your abstractions, and abstract them again, and then a bit more. Then muck with the pacing. And make everything so wide open that any depth is fake. And then the big players in the space sell a new mini-expansion every couple weeks [hyperbole, but it feels like it].

There is no such thing as a "classic RTS" that uses a controller.

There is no way to make a good & proper RTS that uses a controller. The controller necessitates that the mechanics will invariably need to be dumbed-down to accomodate it.