MBTI and strategic tastes

[Virtual ghost]

Since I am pretty sure I am not the only one that likes strategy games of any kind on this forum I am often wondering about this.
I know that every real strategist must think in "the end justifies the means" but I am still sure that there must be some personal preference in this matters .

So I am wondering which fractions do you prefer in RTS games Plus what exactly do you "do with" that fraction? IF someone wants to open a question about strategy games that are not RTS they are free to do so.



My first RTS was Dune2. Fraction : House Ordos

In first C&C I prefered GDI becuse of range and air units.

In tiberian sun : I have still prefered GDI simply becuse of air units. To be specific because of carryall.

In Tiberuim wars : I shifted to NOD because GDI has become too "massive".
While scrin simply lack the subtly.


In warcraft 1 and 2 I was human but in warcraft 3 I swiched to Night elf simply because of range, stealth, transformation and base mobility.


In Starcraft I was mostly Terran but I enjoyed playing as Protoss as well.


In later versions of Dune I am remained "loyal" to house Ordos.


When it comes to Red alert 1 I sided with the Allies. Same thing was with Red alert 2. However I liked Yuri as a fraction as well when it showed up.

In red alert 3 I am divided between Allies and The empire of the rising sun.


When it comes to SW : Empire at war I prefered overpowered Zann Consortium. So alternative was Rebelion.

In C&C generals : superweapon , airforce , stealth general.


Universe at war : Novus (because of obvious reasons)


So in general I think that my tactic can be discribed as " Drive the other guy insane" or "Everything works for me as long as I don't have to go into direct/fair fights "


What other people/types do when it comes to this ?

 

[Venom]

Defense. dun dun dun dundundun DEFENSE... dun dun dun dundundun DEFENSE! dundundun

From read alert to age of empires:
-build the most indestructible defensive webs (tesla coils or bombard towers)
-once I had wore the opponent down enough (they keep sending units and losing them), I would build either an entire army of trebachets or Bomber Jets (and not waste money on much else)
-I would then use whatever form of artillery to completely overwhelm the most important building. Eventually the opponents will is broken because they have lost the town center or the construction yard.
-I only like to do one attack, having to return multiple times just drains your morale

Im not a slave to this strategy. If the opponent has multiple bases, isn't attacking me as much as I need for them to wear themselves down, or if my defense isnt holding:
-send out "armies" of resource gatherers at the expense of building my own army, so that I can horde the resources (the best is to gather from the ones near their bases extremely quickly early in the game).
-build multiple castles or factories per base, churn out about 3 maximum clicked groupings....then as im attacking, start the next wave of unit construction. (this # provides best balance of sustainability...having less than multiple huge waves can be inefficient).

I guess in summary:
1. Defense + WMDs
or
2. resources + continuous waves

Theres just nothing like having 50 trebechets deploy in a circle around their most important building, and with one fell swoop (literally one rock launch) watch it go to rubble! Shock and Awe!

 

[BlackCat]

I play a game of annoying people. For example I will deceive them by sending 1/5 of my army or so to attack one side of their base, and while their whole army is over there I will take a chunk out of their base. I'm all about not losing units and conserving resources. I like to balance defense and offense. I like being crafty in my gameplay and shifting strategies just to throw my enemy off.

I also like to attack them as early as possible and kill some of their workers to hinder them. Again, just to be annoying. I like to wear people down. I usually use the race/faction that has quick and cheap units, for instance I used the Zerg in Starcraft.

 

[Snuggletron]

I haven't played RTS in a long time, but back in middle school when I used to play Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds I always built up my walls immediately, made sure my base was running as up-to-date and efficiently as possible, while creating an army of soldiers and some back-of-the-line heavier weapons, completely lined up and organized. If there was the fog-of-war thing preventing me from seeing other bases, I'd send out reconnaissance early, or try and make allies and plant some of my forces in their base so I could see what was going on over there safely...If possible I'd invest in some sort of spynet so I could see everything at all times. I was more of an observer, build first attack later type. Base perfectionist, didn't really win much though

My inner NTJ comes out in those games. Man, I really want to play one again.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I love strategy games, but for some reason RTS rank near the bottom. I think the RTS I can remember playing are Warcraft 1&2, some Starcraft and Shogun:Total War. I don't really have specific strategies I keep from game to game, other than my overall strategy to find assymetries in the game balance and exploit them. I also try to figure out what the other guy is doing and come up with the best counter strategy. For example if he likes infantry then I build archers. If he likes archers then I build cavalry, etc.... When in doubt I build versatile units. If it's a resource game, then I steal his resources. If he plays an aggressive game I lay traps. If he plays a defensive game then I dominate the rest of the map before taking him out.

Overall though I'm just talking about what I do against a computer which is relatively easy to beat. For multiplayer strategy I do similar things, but I'd much rather play a board game over a computer game.

 

[Snuggletron]

hey, what are some good RTS games out now? any suggestions?

 

[Shimmy]

Hmm, I like "World In Conflict" It is more of a tactical RTS.

 

[Quinlan]

I like the Total War series (not totally RTS), I hate empire building, I prefer empire destroying instead. So I usually play as a smaller nation with bigger neighbour/s and try and break them down, once my nation ever gets too big and powerful I start getting bored.

 

[Phantonym]

I haven't even played RTS for years. Good memories. I used to try to gather lots of resources to build up a strong economy and create some basic defense lines. I didn't have enough patience to go on for hours, I got bored fast. My main goal was to build a large army and then when I had had enough, go in and trash the enemy bases

 

[StrappingYoungLad]

Defense. dun dun dun dundundun DEFENSE... dun dun dun dundundun DEFENSE! dundundun

Me too!

I focus on defense exclusively until the opposition runs out of resources.

And I also make extensive use of units that convert enemy units. Like the monk in Age of Empires. I fukin' love monks!

Its also quite fun to play this way.

 

[icmlite]

Starcraft: Zerg against more experienced players, Protoss against noobs
Warcraft 2: Orc
Warcraft 3: All four, don't really like Undead as much though... I guess they're okay on certain maps.

Playing style: Heavy micro, using terrain/fog for advantage, mindgames. In Warcraft 3, hero synergy and survival I guess.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Since I am pretty sure I am not the only one that likes strategy games of any kind on this forum I am often wondering about this.

An awesome topic.

My first RTS was Dune2. Fraction : House Ordos
For me, too. I identified strongly with the Harkonnen, but the side with trikes had it's uses too. I could use Harkonnen to best effect. The game had a great effect on me. For a long time, I used a game pseodonym 'Sardaukar'. In my opinion, the other sides had "glass cannons" which were very difficult to keep out of harm, even with great micro. Harkonnen just spelled success to me. Oh, those Harkonnen top tanks. Awesome.

In first C&C I prefered GDI becuse of range and air units.
Played both equally. GDI helicopters were awesome, as well as strong mammoth tanks. They were really useful in some situations, they were irreplaceable because of dual weaponry (so I recall). Nod light tanks and better general mobility was great, though. They were very exiting sides to play on.

In tiberian sun : I have still prefered GDI simply becuse of air units. To be specific because of carryall.
Nod, hands down. At the time they had 80,000 players online in european ladder/month, I was ranked #2 player in europe. I played Nod. I had about 200 games in the month, about 200 wins and one loss. The #1 had only wins, about 100-200. I had calculated the timings / resources needed to complete key units & to counter each strat. Nod, hands down. It was the winner.

I don't remember the side of the #1 player.

In Tiberuim wars : I shifted to NOD because GDI has become too "massive".
While scrin simply lack the subtly.
Haven't played.

In warcraft 1 and 2 I was human but in warcraft 3 I swiched to Night elf simply because of range, stealth, transformation and base mobility.
Mostly disliked WC 1, don't remember what I used. Used both in WC2, I don't remember what side I played most either, but I think it was humans.

WC 3 Classic, I played humans. I managed to enter position #8 or #12 on the European ladder for FFA games (I'm not sure exactly), at which time I wrote a strategy guide and lost a few positions due to inactivity.

Humans were extremely capable for anything. Their militia creep gave immeasurable boost for a power creeping tactic. Human mass teleport could be used to extremely devastating effects. It had it all. It wasn't the fastest, but it had every trick in the sleeve. At the time I had most troubles against air, but it was winnable most of the time. 3-hero coordination was undoubtably the best of any races, esp. with 2-3 heros with ultimates.



In Starcraft I was mostly Terran but I enjoyed playing as Protoss as well.
Haven't played.

In later versions of Dune I am remained "loyal" to house Ordos.

When it comes to Red alert 1 I sided with the Allies. Same thing was with Red alert 2. However I liked Yuri as a fraction as well when it showed up.
I liked NOD, I don't remember exactly why. I guess it had the more "sinister" units and more micro managing, which I managed well at the time. I think it had more things to manage overall, more gimmicks to do, more weak spots to discover. I thought it demanded a greater deal of concentration and expertise of the one whom played it, tho I'm not sure anymore if it really was that way at the time.

In red alert 3 I am divided between Allies and The empire of the rising sun.
Haven't played.


When it comes to SW : Empire at war I prefered overpowered Zann Consortium. So alternative was Rebelion.

In C&C generals : superweapon , airforce , stealth general.


Universe at war : Novus (because of obvious reasons)


So in general I think that my tactic can be discribed as " Drive the other guy insane" or "Everything works for me as long as I don't have to go into direct/fair fights "


What other people/types do when it comes to this ?[/QUOTE]

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

There's one common theme in my games during all my life.

I understand it best by comparing to the others.

Others get the idea that a tactic X, unit Y or some combination thereof isn't true to the spirit of sports, so fights shouldn't go that way. It seems like a good idea, but the application is disgusting. Just disgusting.

Some of my friends had the habit of declaring any way they were beaten with as "unsportsmanlike".

So I just went for the best tactics overall, those that surprise, or those that people neglect to prepare for.

I used incredible mass air in many games to take out the central building. It's demoralizing, and people too often have the idea that games shouldn't be like that. What idiots.

I took out enemy support lines, harvesters, peons, etc. Some had the idea that support lines had to be kept. They were playing by kindergarden rules or something like that.

It's like asking you're not to harm the enemy's pawns in a chess game. Nor should you defeat his king.

One person complained that I clicked terribly many units in some game, and the game is all about mouse movement. I was unfair for moving my units so fast, as he wanted a more chess-like game.

Complaints, complaints. All they go to just deaf ears on me. Except they make me lol. I really appreciate a player who isn't anything like that at all.

In one game, I captured my friends structures with engineers, repeatedly. He thought it was unfair, but he didn't mind building tons of units and letting them and the buildings unguarded.

Condensed: I play by the REAL rules of the game, not some imagined feel-good wishy-washy fairytale kind of rules learned in a crib. I take games as social-psychological-mathematical-experimental-empirical-deterministic-stochastic systems. Really somewhat complex. I go for the win. Man, do I enjoy games. I've had time of my life with some of them.

 

[Athenian200]

My approach is kind of silly, honestly...

I tend to spend most of my time researching new technologies and gathering resources preparing to launch a strong campaign as quickly as possible, but build minimal defenses. Then I end up rushing at the last minute to build defenses when the enemy finds me before I anticipated they would.

I still usually have enough of a tech and resource advantage that I can manage to beat them if I can keep my structures from being destroyed before I produce enough units to repel them. Then I end up churning out as many units as I can and follow the retreating army back to the enemy's base and destroy it (which is always a scorched earth campaign in which I build as many garbage defenses along the way to stop or confuse them as I can). After this point, I casually send my force scouting to hunt the remnant of the enemy forces (which are usually very minor) as I refocus my energies on repairs, resource gathering, and research.

This probably only works well with A.I, though...

 

[Kanamori]

My strategy is usually to unleash a chaos that only the originator could deal with, ie relentless and unpredictable offense. If it were a team battle, and the other person realized that the only way to win was to focus only on their most important places to defend, I would usually stop the offense, split my force and go double up on one of my teammates opponents, retreat and hold off the person who was supposed to be my main adversary.

 

[dorcus0]

A few years ago, I was a turtle-boom player. Now, I'm a constant-harass player. Maybe it did depend on the games I played, though. I only got into RTS gaming 4 years ago or so.

In Age of Mythology, I'd play Atlantians (expansion pack). Probably a weak faction early in the game, but they took less micromanagement, especially in economy.

In Age of Empires 3, I'd play either British or Portugese. These factions can boom like crazy, and still have decent defence to hold off rushes.

About 2 years ago, I switched to Warcraft 3. This is a more aggressive game, so I played a little bit more aggressively. I liked to play as night elves - they have the best ranged units, and the dryads are amazing at hit-and-run attacks.

CnC 3 I sorta played. But the games rarely go into the second or the third tier (unless there's a scrin player), and it seems to be all about spamming tanks and outmicroing your opponent with them. So I gave that up. I played as GDI, btw.

Now, I play CnC Red Alert 3. This is probably the most aggressive game there is... the shortest game I've played lasted 2 minutes (i lost to a rush). I'm learning to play all of the factions, though I particularly like the flexibility of the Empire's units.

 

[Hands Mechanical]

INFP + video games = lifelong, beautiful obsession

I generally relate to humans in RTSes and my favorite kind of strategy game is one where I can build a huge complex settlement/civilization. I play tactics-focused games like Company of Heroes too but my true love is just micromanaging economy, research and construction.

Starcraft - Terrans were always closest to my heart. I got the game when it came out in 1998; I was nine and a half years old and it's been dear to me ever since. Despite liking the Terran side the most aesthetically, I'm best with Zerg.

Dawn of War - Chaos Space Marines, Tau, or Necrons

Dawn of War II - Space Marines or Chaos Space Marines

Company of Heroes - Americans, occasionally Brits or Axis if I'm feeling like spicing it up.

Homeworld 2 - Hiigarans

Alpha Centauri / Alien Crossfire - Cybernetic Consciousness

Age of Empires 1,2,3 - everything

Sins of a Solar Empire - always TEC

Warcraft III - humans

I also play Civ II, III, and IV, Anno 1404, and... well, a lot of other strategy games. Much love!

 

[Cimarron]

I'm so horrible at keeping up in Real-time Strategy. I stick to Turn-based Games when I can.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I'm so horrible at keeping up in Real-time Strategy.

Is there any particular reason for this ?

 

[Cimarron]

It's because I check everything a thousand times before I choose a plan of action, each step of the way.

Not enough time to take in all the aspects of the current situation, using those to update or adjust original goals/plans, consider the consequences for each next possible step, run multiple scenarios based on those choices in my head and decide which one seems best or most effective. Slow to decide, slow to act. In Age of Empires, for example, the enemy moves against me before I have time to build up a decent civilization (though I guess I'm still a beginner with it anyway).