Originally posted by mattyj
SC is based upon tactics, it is essentially useless to direct a force around an opponent before battle commences, and nigh on impossible, and therefore is not strictly an RTS. Tactics means the way in which a force is managed during enemy contact, there is no build up of strategy.
That's bunk. In a SC match most of the time most of your forces are not tied in battle and can be maneuvered.
Zerg in particular tend to lose even on flat ground (despite being the most "melee" race) if the player does not take care to flank the enemy from 2-3 directions before committing to the fight. Every race has decent airlift capability to deliver units wherever on the map.
The action in SC concentrates on choke points and cliffs simply because out in the open, either player is generally a little stronger and the other one has to pull back to a position more easily held lest he is crushed out in the open. On strategic level, good players balance production, multiple fronts, time their pushes right, lay sieges to isolate attack targets, to block reinforcements and expansion and engage in constant guerrilla action. Stalemate situations and open battles are decided with concentration of forces, special abilities and units and air drops.
TA has far larger maps, useful defensive weapons and gives players an ability to strategically place forces, i.e. maneuver them before contact with an enemy.
SC is a resource war, as in, who ever can mine resources the most effectively will typically win the game. TA is different as there are many more units and therefore options available, making it more tactical, as you have to prepare a force that can take out a defended base as well as the enemies' offensive units.
You saying the resource leader in TA typically doesn't win the game?
There can be more choice in less units when the units have multiple abilities and roles. And in SC they do. The Vulture, for instance, comes to life as a fragile, fast, worker-killing raid unit which is relatively unable to damage armored units or defend anything. But a moment later in the game you canupgrade it with the mine laying ability, and if you do, the Vulture becomes an important support unit in defense. A skilled player can even use a pack of upgraded Vultures to bring down lone armored units with an offensive mine rush. Similarly, the air-to-air fighter Corsair gets an ability that causes a massive area effect on ground forces and defense towers. What's interesting is that these are just frontline fighting units. Dedicated support units - which each race has at least two of - have multiple special abilities.
Not that more choice always makes for a better game. Go is plenty fun.
I don't care about professional tournaments, anyone who plays SC for money is pathetic and battle.net is a horrible place.
I don't follow tournaments either, and somewhat agree with the last points, but regardless of whether you follow pro tournaments, they are concrete proof about the quality of the game, and the fact new strategies are still coming up is concrete proof of the depth of the strategy.
SC is move and shoot simply because in SC YOU CAN EITHER MOVE OR SHOOT, NOT BOTH AT THE SAME TIME, OH DEAR!. No physics are taken into account, i.e. trajectory of shots, they cannot miss, etc. The list is very, very long.
TA is not move, shoot, move, shoot, die, because the units can do both at the same time, not to mention miss, which means actually moving your forces can have a dramatic effect in terms of their survivability unlike it is in SC.
This SC vs TA debate is old and tired, just because more people play SC than TA is a flawed and naive argument, most people read tabloid newspapers yet they are inferior to broadsheets. So don't get me started.
Strawman. I never used the "million flies" argument.
Keeping your units moving is absurdly easy. Precisely because the units In SC do not move while firing, you micromanage them so they both move, fire and use special abilities. Offhand I can think of at least eight different reasons to manipulate a unit while it is already at firing distance from the enemy.
There are automated tools that give you actions per minute (APM) from a Starcraft game replay. A good player has around 120 APM or over - that is, two commands issued to units or structures per second throughout the whole game. In micromanaged combat a good player will spike to 200 APM or more.
So actually when units cannot move and fire simultaneously, that makes the combat far more complicated! How you move the units has more of an effect on their survival than in TA.
BTW, having generic laser tanks is not bad at all, I bet you like BF2, yet that has generic helicopters, tanks, jeeps, planes, so what's the difference? After all in TA both sides are human and were both part of the same society at one point according to the story line.
Well, of course there are people who are content wearing clothes whose only distinguishing characteristic is that they have no distinguishing characteristic, drive the car that had the best warranty, have 2 average kids and an unremarkable dog. The rest of the population of the planet thinks a little color in life is good. In C&C: Generals, for instance, some creative units like scavenger tanks just "click". Messing with them is by itself enough reason to fiddle with the otherwise uninspired, poor game at least for a bit.
Gameplay-wise, generic units offer no replayability that comes from combination (3 different races in SC -> 3x3=9 very different 1v1 matchups, more in team games, plus the new strategies that come from combining units with a teammate's that plays different race).
Never played BF2.