Favourite house in each Dune game

[Schorpie]

dune2: (only watched, never played) atreiders

dune2000: harkonnen or ordos

emperor: ordos

general favourite: ordos

[Kirby Gotenks absorbed]

Although I hardly remember anything about the game, my favourite house: Ordos.

Although I only played emperor.

What is the Magic blue eagle?

[gunner154]

The hologrammic blue bird you see when you use a hawk strike.

[lowzeewee]

House Ordos without a doubt.

[Dunenewt]

Dune II/Dune 2000:  House Atreides

Emperor:  House Ordos/House Atreides

[Edric O]

I never pick my factions in games based on their playing style or strategy - I always pick them based on backstory, and then try to adapt to whatever playing style they have.

I've been a hardcore Ordos loyalist since the first time I played Dune II. In fact I remember aggressively promoting the Ordos on this forum and elsewhere many years ago in my younger and more foolish days. ;) I liked the Ordos because they seemed to be the least aristocratic of the houses, and because of their general philosophy of dispassionate efficiency as opposed to the mindless brutality of the Harkonnen and the annoying and unrealistic do-goodieness of the Atreides.

So I've always been a fanatical Ordos player in all three games.

they are just too friendly... I like evil bastards like the ordos  ;D

The Ordos are not evil bastards. They are cynical, cunning and effective realists.

[Sneakgab]

''I never pick my factions in games based on their playing style or strategy - I always pick them based on backstory, and then try to adapt to whatever playing style they have.''

Same here, though if both factions are identical in backstory the deciding factor is their play style. I prefer cunning to brutish styles. As a matter of fact, if a side is REALLY very cunning to play then that can over ride my back story concerns. However, nowadays developers ideas of cunning are things like the night elves in Warcraft and Ordos in Emp. None of those sides are REALLY cunning. Cheap cost effective fast units does not = cunning. As a matter of fact it often = the opposite. Also, using an invisible unit that cannot be detected unless something bumps right into is also generally not cunning as a trained monkey can use units with such perfect undetectableness. Eg: Nod stealth tanks from C&C. I remember surrounding my conyard with mammoths expecting my opponent to attack it with stealth tanks. Stealth tanks attack and destroy conyard. Of course opponent was probably the bigger loser here as all those wasted missiles meant his stealth tanks (which are high firepower low health, mediumish rare of fire so wasting first shot like that is very bad for them) were destroyed without causing much further damage. Still, the point is that I did not see this technically ''successful'' stealth attack as very cunning.

True cunning occurs with a minimum of ''powers''. Eg: Commandos in original Commandos who infilitrated based and completed objectives with little more than a knife, a shovel, and a pick. THAT was cunning, as opposed to shooting all the guards with a silenced pistol.

In a strat game I like things with LIMITED stealth abilities or at least things that have capabilites that can only be used as supplements if they have full stealth. So the camo APC isn't bad for example, as it can only move small distances without being detected so you at least have to use some timing. For the second case, I don't mind fremen snipers. Sure they have nearly full stealth, but you can't destroy the opponents base with just snipers, you can only harass... it's almost as though their stealth becomes a strategical consideration for both sides rather than an element of surprise/enemy never finds out kind of thing.

To this extent I find sneaking something like a devestator into an opponents base to be a good example of cunning and surprise. If the enemy had expected this he could have prepared. That last statement for me is generally a benchmark that seperates the sneaky from the non-sneaky.

'' liked the Ordos because they seemed to be the least aristocratic of the houses, and because of their general philosophy of dispassionate efficiency''

This had actually never occured to me about the Ordos. When I got into Dune 2 back in the day and asked my older brother about the teams he described the Atreides as good guys, Hark as bad guys, and Ordos as nuetral and only interested in profit. This led me to think of Ordos as something akin to a company or a bunch of treasure hunters only interests in cash. A distorted view. Though, I don't know what the Ordos DO care about. But their relatively further stance away from aristocracy and their preference for dispassionate efficieny has increased my disposition towards them.

Although despite this talk of faction preferences, it's been a damn long time since I even played a game that had seriously different factions. The last strat game I played was Medieval Total War 2. Best strat game I've ever played IMO. Real thinking and strategy as opposed to micromanagement and BO wars. Before that starcraft maybe? I know the last WW game I played was Emp (did come out after RA2 right). Never seriously played RA2, tiberium sun, C&C3, Generals, e.t.c.

I'm actually hungering for a WW style strat game with it's toolbars on the left and buildings that you place without workers that has some substance. I guess emp would do it, though I came to feel that the game devolved into rushing (Complaints about turtling from some, but really, just attack the harvesters and their base defense has no meaning) with to much emphasis on BO's to see who could crank the best rush horde in time. My kind of strat game is dynamic and slow with time to make out of battle decisions and with out of game decisions being less important (since game is dynamic). When the battle comes, decisions about how you're forces in the battle are used should have larger impacts than which forces you brought along. Some games feel like rock paper scissors as the battles are decided by what each side brought. Eg: you brought a bazooka soldier. Enemy brings tank. Soldier gets bonus against tank and you win. I think a battle should actually go somewhat more like this. You bring tank. Enemy brings bazooka guy. You see bazooka guy in house so you move away behind a wall. Enemy thinks: Cool, bazooka to tank = I win so he sends bazooka out of house on to road to attack you're tank. On the open road with no cover, tank blows bazooka fool to hell utilizing an explosive shot to kill bazooka before he even comes round wall. In other words how you use you're units with respect to the terrain, as well as to their and the enemy's positions stances e.t.c should matter.

Anyone who has played Total War will know what I mean. Meet some pike guys with some cavalry? They can turn fast enough so you flank and destroy em. But maybe they run to a chokepoint where flanking becomes impossibe? Unless you can draw them out with maybe a few archers you forgot about or something it's time to retreat. Ie: reacting to you're enemy and the conditions and planning based on those things is what makes strat fun for me. Might just re-install Tot war 2 now lol.

[Dunenewt]

In Emperor, I like playing as Atreides, but I prefer the Ordos music.

[gunner154]

The bazooka soldier and tank example you brought up reminds me of Company Of Heroes. However, the difference between a static rock-paper-scissors model and one that is determined by HOW you use them often requires complication of game mechanics. For instance, you need to add that activated ability to pull off the explosive shot. Doesn't that remind you of Warcraft III all of a sudden?

I've not played Medieval Total War 2, but I do play Rome: Total War so I guess I know what you're talking about. That's one of those games with a huge amount of strategy, before, during and after the battle. Simply amazing.

[Sneakgab]

''I've not played Medieval Total War 2, but I do play Rome: Total War so I guess I know what you're talking about. That's one of those games with a huge amount of strategy, before, during and after the battle. Simply amazing.''

It's nice to find some one who ''knows'' gunner. The Total War series is basically the best example of the strategy that I talk of. Everything in that series works so well together. I've also played Rome: Total War and thought that was very good to. I prefer some elements from either Total war. While I miss the dogs and flaming pigs of Rome (lol), the guns and trebuchet launched diseased cows of Medieval are fun too. Lol, I'm making a perfectly realistic and sensible series sound like RA2 here with it's dolphins and the like. For those who haven't played, don't get the wrong impression, these ''exotic'' weapons are usually rare and almost always realistic and sensible.

''The bazooka soldier and tank example you brought up reminds me of Company Of Heroes''

I didn't play that game much but that might be second to the Total war series in demonstrating the strategy I speak of.

''For instance, you need to add that activated ability to pull off the explosive shot. Doesn't that remind you of Warcraft III all of a sudden?''

Yeah but that explosive shot would be useless if the bazooka was in a reinforced building, or hiding in the bushes or if he was behind the tank. Then the tank's best decision would perhaps to be make a dash for it. Of course, it would have been best if the tank didn't let it's self get outmaneuvered in the first place. In Warcraft III the activated abilities are mostly just ongoing buffs and nerfs or ''anti'' abilities. Eg: Dryad's anti-magic abilities or spiders anti-flyer web or just blaster type abilities like a fireball or something. Hardly played that game so I don't remember many of the abilities. Aren't many thing like laying a mine to cover a retreat from a losing battle or to allow you're forces to move away without pursuit to outmaneuver you're opponent afterwards.

''However, the difference between a static rock-paper-scissors model and one that is determined by HOW you use them often requires complication of game mechanics.''

It's not surprising that a truly interesting and strategic strategy game requires ''complications'' of some sort.

[gunner154]

It's nice to find some one who ''knows'' gunner. The Total War series is basically the best example of the strategy that I talk of. Everything in that series works so well together. I've also played Rome: Total War and thought that was very good to. I prefer some elements from either Total war. While I miss the dogs and flaming pigs of Rome (lol), the guns and trebuchet launched diseased cows of Medieval are fun too. Lol, I'm making a perfectly realistic and sensible series sound like RA2 here with it's dolphins and the like. For those who haven't played, don't get the wrong impression, these ''exotic'' weapons are usually rare and almost always realistic and sensible.

Yeah. The pigs were only good against elephants. Most of my other troops just whacked them into panic, and I let the pigs settle themselves 8)

I didn't play that game much but that might be second to the Total war series in demonstrating the strategy I speak of.

Yeah but that explosive shot would be useless if the bazooka was in a reinforced building, or hiding in the bushes or if he was behind the tank. Then the tank's best decision would perhaps to be make a dash for it. Of course, it would have been best if the tank didn't let it's self get outmaneuvered in the first place. In Warcraft III the activated abilities are mostly just ongoing buffs and nerfs or ''anti'' abilities. Eg: Dryad's anti-magic abilities or spiders anti-flyer web or just blaster type abilities like a fireball or something. Hardly played that game so I don't remember many of the abilities. Aren't many thing like laying a mine to cover a retreat from a losing battle or to allow you're forces to move away without pursuit to outmaneuver you're opponent afterwards.

It's not surprising that a truly interesting and strategic strategy game requires ''complications'' of some sort.

Basically, sometimes the game system can involve tactics and strategy on very simple mechanisms. For example, in Company Of Heroes it is usually the infantry who are given such abilities such as throwing grenades, sticky bombs, satchel charges and the like. They're supposed to outmanoeuvre the tank. Things like flanking start to make sense because the tank's armour is strongest in front. Use something to distract it, say another tank, while you take your infantry up close to the tank or around it to deliver the killing blow. While Company Of Heroes does have its fair share of 'activated abilities', they are minimal at the very least. A lot of the fighting involves bringing the right units to the right places, and pulling back from a battle.

For instance, a tank does not need a special activated shot to disable an anti-tank cannon. It can simply move around obstacles to finally close in on that anti-tank cannon which is usually very hard to manoeuvre (it can't fire at what's behind it). That can still beat the cannon without using any such special abilities. That one requires a lot more skill than being familiar with hotkeys to pull off certain tricks.

Of course, having some activated abilities would be nice as they add colour. But I remember Age Of Mythology for having abilities that are activated automatically. A cyclops would automatically use its special attack to toss and kill infantry units. Perhaps I'm only highlighting an interface problem, but what I enjoy about Age Of Mythology (and Rome: Total War) was how deceptively simple the game was, while being rather complicated. It definitely beats having a number of abilities on a single unit, similarly to what we're seeing on Warcraft III.

[Sneakgab]

''That can still beat the cannon without using any such special abilities''

Although, some special abilities require manuevering to be effective. Eg: satchel charge isn't to useful for inf against tank if they try to charge it from front. So there is a seperation btw this and WCIII activated abilities that are simply buffs or anti-A units where it doesn't matter much what the enemy does or how the situation evolves. Basically, there is a diff btw something like mana burn that always beats mages and a satchel that will only take out the tank with clever manuevering.

It seems we are of similar thought here. I think that most RTS players only play mainstream stuff that is more about dexterity for microing with maybe some BOs thrown in. It makes sense that mainstream games would possess little real strategy as the mainstream indivual is generally not interested in strategy or deep thought in general. People have become a bit inclined towards instant gratification and mindlessness.

I didn't really play much Company Of Heroes (don't remember why), but one prob I remembered having was that things went a bit to fast sometimes. Maybe just the production. It seems like with new units constantly popping up everywhere I didn't have much time to devise a coherent reply. No problem like that with TW where one needn't worry about his production que or about some tanks causing much destruction in a few seconds. Maybe if the game had no in battle production and the action was slowed down a bit. I liked how the total number of units in play was generally kept low though, helped keep the situation from getting to be to much to control. Normally I dislike such caps that are placed for little reason (like in WCIII) but here it helps.

[gunner154]

Yep. WCIII is indeed about loading buffs on everything. The early game skirmishes are nothing in complexity as compared to what I observe in Rome: Total War and Company Of Heroes. Looking at the Korean way of playing Starcraft just makes the RTS scene look bad.

[lowzeewee]

Korean gamers tend to enjoy games that gratify rushing and fastest-finger-first domination. Not to mention fervent regurgitation of prescribed build orders.

[Sneakgab]

''games that gratify rushing and fastest-finger-first domination. Not to mention fervent regurgitation of prescribed build orders.''

That describes most eloquently what I hate in RTS'. So now you know what I hate and love in RTS games. I do tend to like turn-based strat games, but there aren't many good ones (that I know of). Heroes is ok, but it seems to simplistic and there are some serious balancing issues in most installments in the series... having control of over up to three enemy regiments via hypnosis (incl perhaps their leader) with the enemy having no ability to resist (hypnosis hits anywhere if I recall) is NOT fair lol. As a matter of fact, even taking over 1 regiment would be unfair through such means. However, without this magic becomes useless later on. Heroes 4 is eventually decided by who goes first (in late game). If the order mage goes first he casts hypnosis on you're strongest stack and its GG, if you go first then you kill his hero on the first turn, perhaps by using teleport. GG as he was reliant completely on hypnosis... not to fun. Heroes 5 has a much better balanced hypnosis (1 regiment and you have to recast every turn. Also, 2nd highest tier stack is much more significant now you have chance even if highest tier stack is controlled by enemy. Especially if you're tactics in which case that stack will lose all you're tactics bonuses)

Other than Heroes, which gets a bit silly, I know of few other good TBS games

[gunner154]

The only Heroes game I really enjoyed (and still do) is Heroes III. That was just plainly excellent. Quite balanced, though some town types still lose out here and there...