My first RTS game was Age of Mythology but my first RTS game I played online was Company of Heroes. I got stomped so hard in my first online match that the guy messaged me afterwards and asked if I was new to the game. He then pulled me into a match vs AI and proceeded to show me the ropes about resource management, expansion, planning, everything really. He stomped me into the ground again after but I finally had a grasp on HOW to play. Probably would have bounced off online play if it wasn't for that guy. This video feels like what he did for me but for AoE IV, thank you, gonna try the series again
Exact same thing happened to me but in dawn of war. Guy just said I should be beating medium AI with ease, but I just simply came to the conclusion that this genre, at least for multiplayer wasn't for me. So, I never played PvP since. I think the guy in the video is right on some things. But RTS games are hard and are competitive. Don't kid yourself. But, you have to stick through the butt kicking phase until you can win without being lucky. The skill gap in these games is massive, its an entirely different animal than FPS games.
@@DukeWoozeIt seems to me that many people, especially newcomers, feel so discouraged about losing, they forget to enjoy the game. Of course, RTS isn't for everyone, but I believe many would enjoy the genre more if they played against people in their level and learned to not care if they lose against players who have more experience. Here is the thing: the ranked system helps exactly in this! It matches you against people in your level. Of course, to find your level initially, you might have to lose a few games, but that should not completely discourage you from enjoying the fun aspects of the game. Especially after you find your level.
@@bva0 True, maybe one of these days I'll jump in a ranked match. But, from my perspective it is frustrating to lose admittedly, especially coming from a genre I am good at (FPS). But what makes it worse for me at least is that it seems like I have no idea why I'm losing, or at least it isn't clear initially. It's like you're lost and it makes you feel dumb, hell maybe I am lol.
Brilliant video! Fun fact: we intentionally kept the line of sight of the Scout in AoE4 considerably larger than AoE2, as well as starting the player with 3 sheep under the Town Center, precisely to help reduce the amount of multi-taking in the early game. On boarding is still an area of concern for PC, if you ever get the chance to try the Xbox version of the game let us know what you think about the large difference between the two experiences.
I noticed there was a lot of changes made to AoE4 to make it more friendly than AoE2. It’s a very well-designed game! Tell the dev team it’s turned into one of my all-time favourites and I’ve been loving the Sultan’s Ascend expansion and can’t wait to see what they do next!
If that was the goal then why not add a few moments of freeze time? At the moment the game is incredibly frantic for the first few seconds while you are required to 1. Build a villager 2. Tell your villagers what to do 3. Get your scout moving 4. Setup Hotkeys 5. Move sheep closer to TC A 3s pause would make this a bit better.
THIS is the video EVERY RTS player should watch before trying to learn the genre. It is insane how I`ve played RTS games casually for years and never thought of them as having multitasking as their core. I am astonished by how a book review channel published a better "begginer's guide to playing RTS" than a several RTS dedicated channels. Thanks a lot for this. As a member of it, I feel like the RTS community really needed this. Thank you! Thank you!
as someone who plays rts for 25 years I must say this is the first time I see these concepts laid out in front of me in such a coherent and visually appealing way. well made video!
most of his concept and idea will be stright WRONG if he que in broodwar ladder...imgine playing vs the regular korean guys...its unforgiven and you indeed need high apm
@@majd2I know too. You might think it a strategy not to limit this video's scope to broodwars ladder, I mean, it says RTS right there on the topic I think. Your APM too high to notice *grimace ouyeach* ? And my instincts tell he's trying to introduce gaming as concept to people who do bookclubs. I might be wrong about this one though.
i see your point, but most RTS comeptitive scene is super harsh, anyone been there will know...the slightest mistake or miss timing will cost you the game. NOT saying that RTS cant be enjoined by everyone casully ofcourse.. maybe broodwar standsout since the game been developing for 25 years and the level there is alredey high even in low rank ladder @@tondekoddar7837
@@majd2The premise isn't to not have a high apm but not MOG new players to rts by making them worry about APM when that comes through experience anyway and repetition anyway plus apm means fuck all when the actions are stupid you're just making more stupid wasted actions
@@majd2 you can just play 2v2s and 3v3s with friends and randos for fun I play 1v1 mostly to hone my build orders enough not to just die off but put off a fight Thats enough
It's always super fun when someone makes a video WAY outside their channel's usual wheelhouse, because you just know they really, really care about whatever it is they're jumping to and that level of enthusiasm is infectious. And now I'm downloading Age of Mythology again lol Thanks for making a really digestible breakdown of the basics, this is a wonderful thing for any competitive community to have.
As someone who’s literally been playing RTS since early childhood and even played competitively at a semi-professional level, even I felt like I was learning more from this fundamental basics guide to RTS than from a lot of “beginner guides” that are actually about specific improvements for intermediate players. Also all the quotes and citations from other videos to supports your points felt really clean and well done and shows just how high effort this video really was so koodos to you for that. 11/10
I taught my 68 year old mother how to play StarCraft 2 this weekend and she was already getting the hang of it after a few games. She isn’t destined to be a pro gamer, but she was doing macro, multitasking and beating the computer, so no one can tell me its too hard. Its all about onboarding and difficulty scaling, like he says.
@@astrosoup Do you think we really _have to_ spend an hour in-game setting up the same exact naval task force templates for every single match of HoI 4? Instead of just _saving_ our starting strategy templates? …and we wonder why people don’t bother learning Navy… I don’t. Same with queuing building, or god forbid, actually incorporating the WC3 ai building into the game mechanics… - Which is exactly what WC3 MOBAs did, btw.
Your argument about multitasking just blew my mind. I played BroodWar (and some other RTSs) A LOT during my teenager years and never got good at it, even reserarching build orders, theory and etc. Since I could never understand why, I eventually got frustrated and started dedicating my gameplay time to other genres, thinking I never had the mechanical skills. Being a terrible multitasker and watching your video, I think I finally understand what kept holding me back. I'm willing to give RTS another go with AoE4
@@brandon8667 AoE4 is sooooooooooooooo much fun :) Have already 2k hours into the game. Its super super awesome! Keep with it, its fun in everey stages =)
@@brandon8667 @LeJulles I bought it on the Steam Sale and have been playing the campaigns, really like it! I know they're very different from normal matches, but I'll soon dive into them
Who would have guessed that the very best introduction video to AoE4 would have been made by a book reviewer and not a AoE4 dedicated content creator. This video is simply amazing. Hands down the best introduction to RTS games I have ever seen. Thank you for this jewel, it will be my guide now for introducing my friends to my favorite game.
I think the "adaptive strategy" point is kind of an ultimatum for whether you'll like multiplayer RTS or not. A lot of players will want to play a certain way and when they realize they can't do that they'll stop playing. It's a similar problem to what Overwatch had. The game marketed itself as a game where you play a Hero that matches your playstyle, but when you actually start playing you realize it's actually better to focus on counterpicking your opponents, which soured a lot of people on the game.
Maybe the comparison to Overwatch is not as relevant because in there, switching a character might be way more demanding than switching strategies in a RTS game.
@@MemoriesLPI disagree. Having played both extensively, switching and learning a new character in Overwatch is WAY easier than changing how you think strategy in RTSs. I’ve changed*1 characters in Overwatch and learned to use them strategically in less than a week. But changing towards the Meta and/or adaptive strategy in AoE has taken me years and has certainly led me to just avoid online and play local/coop/lan only. *1 (“added” is a better word since you are adding them to your response strategy)
T90, GiantGrantGames, Razbuten? This man is a legend and a man of culture. Still watching it rn but you referenced a lot more creators from the RTS scene. This is such a love letter to RTS
always reminds me that it was playing dune 2 on a freinds dads 386 that made it clear to me that pc gaming was where i needed to be and leave consoles behind.. haven't looked back since
Hey man this video rules, as a person who used to love RTS games as a kid but kinda fell off of them and fell victim to the whole APM fear stuff and all this made me download AoE 4 off Gamepass and I'm loving it. Thank you for this.
AOE4 really is one of the best games for low APM play too. You can macro up and just throw waves of units at them without even looking. That can win you a lot of lower level games too and is really quite funny when you think about it.
Fantastic video. Also love that totally nonchalant Diamond rank flex 1:16:50 I've been meaning to get into RTS for like 8+ years ever since I was introduced to Total Annihilation by an amazing substitute teacher. I've played off and on, but always felt like I was severely lacking in understanding or "getting it". I still feel this way about DOTA. This is a very encouraging and inviting introduction
Thanks very much! Glad you found this video encouraging! I wasn’t originally going to show off my rank, but then my friend said that I can justify it because it proves you can be well-above average at the game without pushing your apm into the 150+ range haha
I've been at a gentleman's 40 APM for 10+ years, so I don't know why people think you HAVE to play at the skill ceiling to have fun and play against similar opponents.
The strategy section of your review was enlightening. Even as a platinum player I never really thought that deeply about the rock/paper/scissors nature of aggression, defense, and booming. Well edited and well done!
Great video. I absolutely fall into the camp of people scared away from the genre after experiencing that feeling of being thrown into the deep end without knowing how to swim. I feel like I finally got some swimming lessons here! Well done!
I personally would suggest getting started with AOE2 or 3. 2 has way more support and a much bigger scene, it’s also a lot easier to go from civ to civ than StarCraft or AOE4. That being said AOE3 has a love of mechanics that make it easier for new players
In my Top 50 Tips for AoE4 video - where the first tip is to NOT focus on APM at all, and that it's at the end of the list of things to improve on - I still get comments on that video bashing how clueless I must be for suggesting that.. 11 I don't know who started this APM myth or if it's just an easy coping mechanism for people to fall back on, but it's proven to be a tough one to dispel for the genre for some reason. In any case, fantastic video mate. Had no idea you made videos yourself - subscribed and will watch your video essays moving forward.
IIRC the whole APM hype came from English-language commentators of Korean StarCraft: Brood War games, since one of the first things people noticed was how rapidly they were pressing keys. Of course as the English speaking community got better at the game people realized increasingly that the APM was a consequence of skill, not the source, it being an easily spotted difference between two communities that seemed to have an uncrossable gulf of skill made the explanation stick for anyone who watched but didn't play much. Also doesn't help that in Brood War, rally points only issue move commands, so you had to spend a lot of attention and actions just to make sure your workers were mining. Contextual rally points wouldn't be a thing in Blizzard games until WarCraft III. To say nothing of the 12 unit selection cap, or the single building selection cap, which meant the otherwise basic action of moving an army or building the next set of units would require 2-5x as many actions to accomplish as it would in basically any other RTS. Really a self-reinforcing loop specific to Brood War, since to get good enough to realize what APM meant you needed to get used to clicking around a bunch to get the basic repetitive actions done, and getting the basic repetitive actions burned into muscle memory meant your APM went way up, which just furthered the confusion.
I think it's in part a coping mechanism, but most of all, people not understanding where the higher APM comes from. Having high (useful) APM is a result of getting good at the game, not a prerequisite, you start out playing slow, because you're still learning what you should be doing and creating the muscle memory you'll get to use later, this happens in pretty much every game. Later you get a bit better, so you can do your build order at full speed. A bit later you're comfortable enough with it that you realise there's periods you're not doing anything useful, so you look at your scout while waiting, or move your army. The more you play the more of those small lulls you'll find, and learn to just fill with something you think is more productive than staring at the screen. Every single of these steps have improved your APM by a reasonable amount. High apm isn't a prerequisite for being good at the game, it's the result of it.
Myth? Yeah you're clueless. I don't give a damn how many videos you've made that means nothing. Have you seen Starcraft with AlphaStar vs Pros? Alphastar demolishes them with what are considered by everyone to be the 100% wrong units to use by having SUPERIOR APM. It was on average 1.3 times as fast during intense fights than it's competition. I have no idea what that number would be in other games, but there is some number where no matter what strat you use a set of mid-tier units with superior APM will win. Since most players are average, it's well within the realm of human ability for someone to prioritize APM and be considered an above average player and ladder. But you acknowledge facts because it dispels your narrative. So keep to your delusions of superiority that people just "cope" haha.
Honestly? I came here because of your House of Leaves + Ergotic Lit video, and I'm not *super* into reading anymore, but I just loved your vibes enough to sub. I'll watch pretty much anything lmao.
for what it's worth, i have bounced off RTS at least five times in the past two decades, and was quite entertained listening to you talk about it. you're a good storyteller even when not talking explicitly about stories themselves, so the specific content is less obligatory to an enjoyable video than simply being yourself in how you approach the presentation.
I am only 40 min into the video but this has got to be the BEST AOE 4 guide videos or any rts noob video i have watched. You are spot on with everything you talk about with the pros trying to make guides. Its not really their falt, they been playing pro for so long they have forgot what it is like to be a fresh new player to rts. You have indeed found the answer to onbroding people to rts. Honestly i think we need more new players streaming and making guide videos to even out all the pro streams. I would watch a steam of someones first game, i think it would be a nice change to see people make all the same mistakes i do.
The main issue I have with RTS is it doesn't give you any time to sit back and THINK. Everything is happening way to fast for someone like me who struggles with multi-tasking, target fixation and reacting to changing conditions. I end up either completely freezing and staring blankly as my opponent steamrolls me, or I just do one thing exclusively and let everything else burn to the ground off-screen. It's incredibly satisfying when everything goes well but the amount of research, preparation and 'in-the-zone' concentration needed to play well is draining and I'm almost never in the mood to play it. That said, most people probably aren't as limited as me and would prefer the chaos and challenge over the stuff that I play instead (grand strategy)
My entire teens were RTS games, and AOE was the biggest. I used to build custom maps and story campaigns and all sorts of maniac stuff. The handful of matches I did with you were the most useful in understanding why the one family friend I used to play with would *always* win.
Onboarding has been an issue for a couple of genres I'm trying to get into, with RTS and Fighting games being the biggest issues. I didn't really have the term onboarding though, I called it a Missing Link. For fighting games it was that there are tutorials on how to move and punch and kick and block. Then there are tutorials on how to properly do bread and butter techniques for the character you've picked. There's a massive black hole of important information just NOT THERE about timing, distance, combo basics, low strikes and anti-air, etc before I learn how to do super moves on Ken.
There's a reason smash brothers was so popular, obviously iconic characters, but more importantly you don't need to know anything to play. You can just jump in and have fun, the mechanics are simple enough, every combo knocks you away so if you don't know how to escape it you get control of your character quickly enough.
That is exactly why I've only ever been able to really get into Smash Bros, all the traditional fighter tutorials can give the basics but I've never been able to "get" how the games actually work. At least with Smash Bros I don't feel like I have to memorize long button input combos.
i think you ought to try some modern fighting games. All the things you said weren't there, are there! Combo basics are taught, what is and how to anti air, distance is taught through what does attacks do, low and high strikes are already covered in how to defend yourself (or you wouldn't be able to block, like ever), and I'm not sure what do you meant by timings, i would assumed you meant how long does attacks last but the specifics of that is when the onboarding process is over and you want to know more about the game. I really really think you should give fighting game another try maybe the new Street Fighter, there is Granblue Fantasy Versus Rising that is coming out if you are more into anime aesthetic. These games have "modern" features like simple inputs and auto combo so you can jump in right away. (I would also like to say that detailed tutorial have always existed, i think just not the majority, Blazblue Centralfiction, Skullgirls, Them Fighting Herds and so on always teach all the things you said was missing and some of these games are decently old, like Blazblue Centralfiction was released 8 years ago!)
Honestly I've accepted that fighting games are something I'll never actually take part in, the time investment for me to make guilty gear my main game is just not justifiable when i love so many games and genres as much as i do.
Plus Inputs, and combo flowcharts make the games very nuclear and weirdly noninteractive once you actually learn them. These, coupled with the base mechanical requirements make the games very... lonely. You're not really playing with a person, and in a friend group, anyone who gets too far ahead, or too far behind basically can't play anymore. It's a good fit for sitting at home, alone playing for a few hours, but it's a very asocial experience, in my experience. The games are great as long as you're playing with someone, and niether of you really know what you're doing. They get much, much worse once both of you start actually learning how to play, invariably at different rates, and then niether of you are having fun.
Dude, this is maybe one of the best beginner guides to RTS ever put out. All this stuff I kind of knew from years of playing, and I never would have thought to tell a new player about it. Bravo.
14minutes in at your video and I already feel revitalized to try this genre again after years of not wanting to try it because of being bad at real time (and after trying a lot of turn based strategy). Thanks for this
This video covers most of the major problems Ive had with this genre do effectively. At multiple points in the video I was mentally bringing up questions like "well if I need to keep switching back and forth so quick what is even considered the best way to move my camera?" right before it was covered. Amazing work
This is reminding me of beginner level fighting game content, where the fundamentals are way different than what most people have experience with, and the only perspective most people see of it is of the very top level of play, making the genre seem more difficult than it really is. People new to fighting games might try to wrongly focus on long flashy combos, frame-perfect inputs, or whatever the top level Koreans are doing. Even though those long, situational combos with precise positioning and frame-perfect timing are built on years of practicing fundamentals which boil down to "shuffle forward and hit the other guy's green box with your red boxes". Like how in RTSs, too much focus is on APM, having the most efficient build order, or whatever the top level Koreans are doing. Even though those high APM squad tactics are built on years of practicing fundamentals which boil down to "click on your guys, click on the other guy's guys, then click your building to make more guys". Gonna reinstall Starcraft and run through the campaign again while trying to use keybinds more this time, maybe hassle a homie into some Starcraft II, DoW, or Zero-K or smth.
I had the exact same problem myself when I got into fighting games. It took me years (of being beat by people who never practiced) to realize that drilling combos was not the way to start. Thankfully in that genre's case it was easy to find a community that knew how to help new players get into the genre, even if that only really exists (or at least existed) offline. Learning the competitive side of RTS by hopping onto the Brood War community ladder in 2008 was not so helpful, since there is no room to mess around, or even have people around to teach you, the basics.
You're right. Literally any multiplayer game is the same way. They are made to be fun, but they are also competitive, and expect you to always keep learning, and not to mind losing over and over, til you find out what works and start winning. Most people would rather just play against ai, turn the difficulty down, have some fun stomping the ai, then go about their day.
So what if you just can't keep up with a person in Street Fighter because they're so fast? You might know every trick in the book through years of learning them but you're still getting hit. This is exactly how younger fighters in boxing and MMA beat seasoned veterans. They can acknowledge the discrepancy exists, why can't RTS gamers? You'll never see a boxer telling a young fighter that practicing on the speed bag is "Coping" lmfao. Justin Wong one of the greatest there ever was at Street Fighter is retired. He should be winning 100s of thousands of dollars beating everyone at tournaments, but he isn't. Why? His APM (reaction time) just isn't as fast as it used to be, and these people half his age with 1/3 of the knowledge are beating him. He still makes up new tech on his channel for just about every new fighting game that comes out, his brain ain't the problem his speed is.
@@Mutiny960 Nobody is saying APM is irrelevant at top level play, did you even watch the video at all? It's about the fact that APM is the *last* thing you need to be improving. Focusing on higher APM when you don't even have the basics down won't do you any good. Same way in FGs, you being able to react to a 3-frame startup is irrelevant when you react by jumping into it and getting hit. 🗿 Same way in boxing, your punches being faster doesn't matter when you don't even know where to punch. Justin Wong is a top player, his opponents are also top players, of course that it where reaction time actually starts being important.
Been playing RTS games since around like 1997 and I have to say without the Starcraft/Warcraft 3 campaigns I don't know how I would have learned how to play RTS games. They start you off with limited units and mechanics and build you up over the course of the campaign. It reminds me of Valve's approach to teaching players mechanics in their games, breaking a seemingly complicated task down into multiple smaller and easier to understand parts and then teaching one piece at a time.
I mean, yes, but basically no RTS teaches multitasking. My typical RTS experience is to build up the base, block the enemy raids, build an army and go over the enemy. I've never done these in a multitasking fashion. There is never a pressure to do so. What he proposes (and I agree) is basically to have a tutorial where you need to do two things at once and failing to do so would fail the tutorial. THE RTS tutorial would be three timers around the map and you'd have to click on each of them when the time is right (one every 10 seconds, another every 7 seconds and another every 11 seconds for example). THAT would actually be an RTS tutorial. I've never seen anything even remotely close to that.
@@GonziHereyeah, the original problem is that the Koreans sort of invented the idea of hyper competitive play with StarCraft using techniques like multitasking and build optimization where it was never designed to be that way. That’s what made it so fun back in the day, seeing how they were pushing this game to new limits. RTS then started rolling with all the assumptions they developed without ever slowing down to design an onboarding process for those who weren’t watching pro play. RTS never died, it was just always really niche to begin with. And this was back when PC gaming itself was niche. It will never make candy crush money, so it ended up in everyone’s back drawer. Cool to see microsoft supporting it at least. It can make money, even if it isn’t infinite money.
I really appreciate your relaxed pace in this video. RTS games have always felt super intimidating, even as someone who regularly plays mobas and assorted pvp strategy games. I've always thought the ideas in RTS games seemed really fun though, I'm kinda excited to give them another look armed with some of this info!
Actually it's for positionings your units, because sometimes the Pathfinding and the slow speed of a unit can be annoying. Repositioning, Going around obstacles, being impatience and control. It Doesn't make them faster, but more agile.
@@PourriGamer I always thought the spam-clicking was a relic from the infamously horrible pathfinding of the Brood War days, when half your units would go the wrong way unless you gave them repeated orders and you could glitch SCVs through mineral fields
This makes total sense, I played a lot of RTS (Warcraft 1, AOE, etc) but multitasking was never my strong suit so I switched to Dota as soon as it appeared because it was easier to just focus on one hero instead of a whole faction. Also the teamplay aspect of Dota was really cool since a cohesive team of mediocre players was far better than dispersed team of good players.
21:20 My favorite moments in RTS games have been times where I win because I pulled off a distraction, faked a retreat to bait enemies, or threw my (on paper) less powerful army at a more powerful one only to come out on top because I had an ace up my sleeve. RTS games make you feel like Sun Tzu.
Play Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle Earth 1 and 2. They’re fantastic. They’re free to download online since it’s been abandoned but they still have a few active modding teams providing regular updates. BFME and Age of Mythology made me fall in love with RTS at a young age. Both great introductions to the genre.
I think War of the Ring is also abandonware and can be downloaded for free, it was LOTR rts that came out few months before BFME1, and it was LOTR game made in Battle Realms engine. They are basically the same game when it comes to gameplay, except this one is set in Middle Earth instead of alt-universe feudal Japan period. While we are at it, did you ever play Battle Realms? Amazing, extremely overlooked and underrated RTS game.
@@JustSomeWeirdo Besides getting used copies of the old CDs, you can't buy them digitally as they're in copyright hell since EAs license to sell Lord of the Rings games has expired.
I love this video, have shared it to friends, and I listened well to this. I decided to finally jump back into 1v1 ranked games, I've always been scared of it. I used the scouting, and checked my opponent, saw a rush coming, and prepared appropriately. This meant for once I didn't need to quit early, and the game played out into a nice back and fourth that I eventually won. But I was only able to feel comfortable as I understood from this, that the other player is likely just casual too and building whatever. It was fantastic and I'm keen to play more! , Cheers for this video mate, helped with RTS Anxiety for me!
Brilliant! I like how you focus on APM being kind of a red herring - not that it's irrelevant, but that it's kind of the tail wagging the dog. The physical dexterity matters but having enough good decisions to fill each minute of time matters more and the speed will follow with practice. I also like the high concept of the genre you present (a multi-tasking resource-acquisition game) and the structure provided for a new player with an opening sequence (English longbow build) and a method of ending the game (kill villagers/units, add rams). I'm often in the position of teaching games to my friends and I find something like that ("This game is about X. To win, you need Y to happen. To get to Y use method A or B.") works well for me, too. Kudos!
One of my first games were Warcraft 3 and Starcraft, and being a kid, I was very bad at them. As I grew, I found myself being very anxious around the genre, believing that I'm not cut for it. Your video has me doubt that assumption and wanting to try my hand at RTS again.
I *LOVE* strategy. I think there are 3 things that limit my enjoyment with RTS the most: 1. the... multitasking 💀 yeah, so here's the thing - when I was deep into starcraft 2 for a while, it was pretty cool and I was doing alright but I've noticed _it affected my life_ in a negative way - I've found it harder and harder to focus on just one thing, which is kind of important when my job is programming, you know? is that what ADHD feels like - always multitasking when you don't want to? and yeah, once I stopped playing SC2, my focus-on-one-thing recovered pretty fast, thankfully, but now I'm wary to try games that demand high levels of multitasking :/ an another angle is that the UI makes you constantly look in the minimap corner - this also affected my life and I couldn't just look at one spot without jumping my eyes back and forth sometimes, especially when I felt like I was expressing my skill in some way (is it weird for these RTS things to transfer to other areas of life so easily? idk!) 2. no follow-up after a match ends somebody beating me on the ladder with a well-executed timing attack is no problem, I'm just going to learn from that and, hey, I've noticed my opponent is not so great at scouting, so I should probably exploit their weakness next ga... wait, that's it - I'm never seeing this opponent ever again? AoE is much better in this regard in that it actually suggests rematching but 90% of other RTSes mainly have 1v1 matchmaking that then boots you back to the lobby/menu after the game ends, often also depriving you of the ability to chat - WHY? I want to play against _players_ who I can feel are _people_ - how am I supposed to do that in 5 minutes? which leads me to 3. social aspect what's the point of multiplayer if you don't feel like you're playing against a player? this manifests in 2 ways: players who drill 1 "strategy" and either execute it perfectly and win or get countered or matched fairly and lose because they have no other tricks - this is mostly a problem because of my previous point, IMO, and this is the reason why I dislike it - it's like I'm playing a build order and not a real person; the other way is that RTS involves a lot of actions that hardly affect your opponent and are just a baseline - like controlling you workers. If I wanted to learn to manage workers optimally, I would play singleplayer, what I want is _strategy,_ so it's very odd that this management mini-game is present. AoE is especially awful with this because you'll scout your opponent at like 2-3 minutes in at the earliest and then actual interaction will start only ~5 minutes in, _at least,_ so that's 5 minutes of mostly singleplayer in every single match - why? I'd love to just skip to the good parts that involve _strategy_ tangent: fighting games have similar concepts and they not only fix these "problems" but actually excel at them, which is great I believe I've tried _ALL_ the RTSes that were shown in the video except Beyond All Reason and 1 other game of that style (Supreme Commander, maybe?); my absolute favourites are Offworld Trading Company and Tooth and Tail (both were shown!) and they totally excel at being strategy games first, management/multitasking later ...problem is, they don't have many players so it's hard to get a 1v1 going and Offworld Trading Company is best at 4 player free-for-all, which... means I've only played OTC once this year :/ still, I've found online friends in communities for those games and it's possible - Tooth and Tail has a tournament with all levels of skill going on right now! now, about the point of recruiting my _best_ friends to RTS - yeaaaaaah, welllllll... a lot of other problems exist here and RTS is really quite a time sink, so I'm not even sure if I _want_ to throw that onto my friends... but if I did, everyone has already played some RTS and has their favourite - I love Tooth and Tail, my friend likes AoE2, my other friend likes Supreme Commander, my third friend will only play Warcraft 3 custom maps instead of the regular skirmishes and the list goes on... no idea how to get over this hurdle and actually play RTS together - so we mostly end up playing shooters and party games together on rotation and RTS doesn't make the cut :P
APM is not a problem, it's a symptom. The vast majority of RTSs hyper focus on micro management on multiple levels; from economy to army movement, these titles are purposefully designed for the player to be able to manage most functionalities of the game as well as possessing the tools to improve on those skills even further. While that design philosophy provides users with a lot of creativity and skill expression, it almost promotes and influences extreme micro management, and to improve on that the player must increase the accuracy and speed of their actions and consequentially, that increments the amount of APM players perform the higher the ladder you go, but the main issue with this is that micro gameplay's influence is present on all skill levels, that is why newcomers more often than not get demolished when they first try these games like you mentioned, but it's not because their opponents are pro level individuals, It's because this obsession with micro management in their design creates an extremely deep discrepancy between players on every level, not just in the professional scene. We can improve the way we see and learn RTSs, absolutely, that is highly beneficial, but the genre does have a problem, and until that issue is addressed, real time strategy games will remain in the state that it is.
I used to play AOE2 in high school a ton. Now im in my late 20s, and I was struggling to get back into the game due to lack of patience. This video was actually my first time learning about build orders, and that was a huge epiphany for me. I've been playing Aoe2 pretty much exclusively now. Having that general guide for the early game helped me feel much less overwhelmed in the Dark Age, and I just wanted to thank you for that. This video is amazing.
My favourite part of this video was presenting the analogy of economy and health, since not only is that a useful way to think about it in terms of attention priority, but also because it's a useful way to gauge how well you played even when you lost, which is IMO critical for maintaining interest long-term. You can't win every game, especially in ranked, but if you have a more controllable goal you can achieve and measure, it takes the sting out of losing
Not only is this a phenomenally comprehensible video for correcting misconceptions, and progressively teaching applicable knowledge for AOE/RTS, I think this is just hands down one of the best informative videos in GENERAL that I've ever watched Doubly so as I just go into this game yesterday lol
I'm going to be honest, it feels less like this video demonstrates how RTS aren't as difficult to get into as people think and more like it demonstrates that RTS isn't difficult to get into FOR THE REASONS people think. Realizing that multitasking ability is main barrier to entry is pretty much correct, yes, but that really only helps people better express why RTS are still incredibly difficult for them to approach. Having to constantly split you attention between disjointed tasks and remember what and when you need to shift your attention to, while knowing that every second you forget a task is putting you further and further behind in a feedback loop, is in fact really difficult and overwhelming. I don't know that the juggling analogy really holds up that well because when you're juggling, you're only actually focusing on one thing right in front of you, you're not just going to forget one of the balls exists or have to look away at something else.
So I have two things to say to this: 1. Yes, it’s totally fair to say that multiplayer RTS still unfortunately presents a barrier to you if you find it difficult to split your attention. However, being able to simply split your attention two ways is a much much lower skill requirement than what is usually claimed. And I still think that’s important to point out because there are plenty of people who *can* split their attention two ways who might still stay away from RTS because they falsely believe they don’t have the skills to play it. That’s also beside the point that people can, and often do, improve their skills over time. You don’t need to be able to divide your attention 7 ways to have fun playing an RTS. You can set that as a goal for yourself if you really want to, but it’s perfectly legitimate to simply have fun managing 2 things instead. 2. You actually have a lot of leeway for mistakes and suboptimal play at the beginner to intermediate level. Players imagining that they’ve made catastrophic errors because they forgot to do something for a while is just more “RTS so hard” mythmaking that has crept down from the pro scene.
I would also like to add that you don't have to fret about losing. Playing ranked games will eventually put you at a level where other players have the same skill as you. It's not necessary to win all the time to have fun, and losing a dozen games while you get the feel for the mechanics and are eventually paired against players of your level shouldn't detract from your enjoyment of the fun aspects of the game. It's easier said than done, of course, but changing this mindset can enable you to enjoy strategy games (as well as other genres) a lot more.
This video spells out what's been putting me off the multiplayer of RTS-adjacent games like Hearts of Iron and Total War: The singleplayer experience is about pausing and slowing down to make perfect strategic decisions, manage your eco/research optimally, and give each of your units the perfect orders, while multiplayer is all about multitasking, improvising, and adapting. They might as well be two different games, with the latter requiring a skillset that I don't have.
I also found myself preferring Total War for the campaign ‘Strategy’ and during the tactical battles I just turn the speed down to half. Multi tasking just isn’t fun.
You did a good job onboarding me to this vid, at one point i wondered how long this vid was thinking i had watched 20 mins. It was actually at 48 mins. Alot of good information for someone like me who wishes to get into RTS but have found the genre to be quite overwhelming. I've played some games in sc2 vs AI, but i'll try out some different games now as well for flavor and fun
after 23 years of playing RTS's full-time i finally on-boarded myself on how to Actually play them bc i was playing co-op SC2 with my wife after work and got really into the Zagara subfaction that has no hero & only 2 units, the zergling & the scourge (technically 4 but i never build corruptors or abominations). so because 100% of my army was basically suicide attackers & did fixed damage before dying, the only way i could increase the output of my damage was to build and manage my base faster so i could pump out units faster. so i had to learn to shift-queue buildings, how to order all of my workers to hit a vespene geyser before unselecting 3 & then ordering them to mine minerals, i had to learn how to time out my expansions
You have done it! You’ve created a true, beautiful guide for actual beginners. I can finally use this to indoctrinate the rest of my friends into RTS. We are so back gamers
@@colbyboucher6391 Every Korean between the ages of 30 and 50 has played Broodwar. Broodwar is far more demanding and hardcore than Age of Empires or Starcraft 2 let alone Command and Conquer. "oh but Koreans are built different" no they just didn't have the placebo effect of "this is going to be too hard for me" before they even started playing.
Well said.Its always the very basics that get ignored since people who are experienced give no thought to them beacuse they are on auto This feels like a breath of fresh air to someone who wants to do something new but was never taught how to breathe
I want to add an anecdote: I've watched a lot of card games and rts games in my upbringing without really playing them myself. (It came for free with my RUclips addiction). When I finally decided to take a swing at these things I had this distant familiarity with, I was initially put off by them. It was very surprising, because I thought I knew these games. A combination of a lot of information at once curve plus crippling social anxiety made me enjoy both of these genres at my most comfortable, versus AI and campaigns. In hindsight I think it's a minor shame. Singleplayer can be good, but why not have both? When I got the opportunity to play Magic: the Gathering in person, I was afraid it would be like my experience with the digital version, MtG: Arena. Not at all! In person, I could engage with the game on *my time* and *my terms*. In the digital version, due to both the timer and an opponent you can't communicate with, you feel rushed and pushed into an environment you're not aware of. In person, I ask "what does that do?" and then get an answer, maybe even why this or that part of the card is good, etc. In the digital game, I get the entire card put on my screen like "here, read this paragraph" and then the card goes down onto the board the next second. I don't want to waste my opponent's time, either, so I'll admit that often I'd resume playing only having skimmed what I was playing against! It felt like you were expected to know all of these hundreds of cards from the get-go, which made me think "this isn't for me". This same feeling of being rushed, of being expected to understand everything from the get-go with a timer looming over you has also applied to RTS games. If you join straight into a real game, you'll be overwhelmed with new concepts that you can't take on one at a time, specifically because of the genre being about the many simultaneous, smaller things. Take the juggling example. It's like if you asked a question about one of the balls you were juggling while it's in the air. Before you're even done with that question or before you can get an answer, the ball will have hit the ground. You need that environment where you can learn it all on your time and your terms. In both instances, it feels like you're supposed to know something that you don't and if you don't, you're pushed along anyways, ready or not. It's like being dragged through sections you're not done with and makes you want to jump ship, fearful of getting even more lost and overwhelmed. You feel unwelcome, despite communities wanting their games to thrive. But these games are not unassailable. They're not simply impossible for my plebian brain to wrap around. It's all about having the right learning environment and taking everything step by step. Weird it took me so long to figure that out here after already knowing about the zone of proximal development. Thank you for this video. ❤
The Game Replay forums were a rich learning resource in early CoH. Endless tutorials on meta tactics. Replays would have comments go on for pages and get 'wubbed' which is a like. The atmosphere was exciting and convivial. But you have to accept that the game is complex. I think it is normal for most people to play the campaign before going online. The expansion campaigns didn't get played. I just used the new units and factions in multiplayer. Because the multiplayer aspect is infinitely more deep. I would ace any campaign without breaking a sweat. The ladder could be cruel mistress. But I played random 1v1 before moving to 2v2, any faction. But it's difficult playing 2v2 without voice chat and you're teammate can feel unsupported and quit early. 1v1 is very intense and personal though. GG was invented to temper steamy heads and garner sportsmanship. There's never been a more competitive rts scene. When coh2 released all the casters dropped coh1. But the coh1 players moved onto World of Tanks instead. Some came back to coh1. Only 1 guy casts coh1 now. He's called Angrade. But the tournaments came thick and fast back in 2008. Anyway. You can't complain that complicated game is complicated. That's what some people enjoy. A very high challenge like WoT or competitive CoH. I noticed sometimes people release CoH videos where they play co-op against the computer. It's very chill. They aren't that great. They don't play it all the time or anything. It's just a fun game to play on medium against the cpu and see the fantastic visuals. The fun of the game is the controls are actually very tight and responsive and the rich meta game that anyone can enjoy if they simply like looking down and little people and giant explosions. The art direction is extremely accomplished. A soft sepia tone covers everything. Lighting is put to good use in night maps, using street lights and fog and such to really add atmosphere. Sometimes it transitions into night. It's a very evocative game that feels very cinematic. I don't think any other rts had even begun to approach it's majesty.
I'd like to say that its a real shame that paragraphs have become the norm in trading card games, early days yugioh was too simple and I think we had a bit of a nice middle ground for a time but right now there's way too much going on without stopping to read a novel every time you want to play, so people end up just buying the championship decks and it all gets so stale, I imagine its like this in other games but I think Mtg somewhat escapes this because of all the formats that can co-exist so people can chill out and not require the top 100$ and up cards.
I'm only 30 minutes into this video and I love it! Your point about beginner guides not being very "beginner" friendly made me feel like I wasn't the only one and made me feel like I cn actually play and enjoy these games! Thank you so much good sir!
This video got me into aoe4 (and rts) and it's quickly become one of my favorite games. been playing 4-6 games a day as japanese for a while and having a ton of fun. It has everything i was missing from the 100 city builders i was playing. Thanks for this video it was exactly what i needed to see down to the thumbnail. Love your other content as well, cheers.
I have to admit, RTS is by far my least favorite genre, and I think you're right that it's mostly due to terrible onboarding. I remember I tried playing Starcraft 2 at one point and I wasn't able to graduate out of the Practice League. Hell when I play Stellaris, which is much more of a 4X and has the ability to pause and give out orders when playing in singleplayer, I still have never once won a single fight against the AI on any difficulty as soon as someone inevitably declares war on me. There's just something about it turning into an RTS for those fights that suddenly makes me have no idea what I'm doing or why I'm losing. And I think the issue is almost exactly the same in Fighting games, which I did my own little thing on a bit ago. Fighting Games often have either no tutorials, or if they do, the tutorial amounts to just telling the player to hit a button 5 times to do a move they don't understand and then moves on before they can possibly internalize that information. Then you dive into Online play, get stomped, and never want to play again. And the thing that both of these genres have in common is that the core fundamental gameplay is wildly different from what most games are these days, namely something with some variety of 3D or 2D movement in first or third person. So like you said there is a lot of transferrable skills once you learn your first game like that, that applies to all future games like that. Hell on the most fundamental level, even playing something like a 2D Mario game probably gives you at least some intuition for say playing a 3D FPS, because you have some understanding of what controls will relate to movement and how you navigate around obstacles with basic movement and jumping. But absolutely none of those skills will translate at all to how the fundamental gameplay works in an RTS or Fighting Game. And the other unique downside is that they are very active genres. Like for instance obviously playing a Mario game won't teach you how to play a card game either in any meaningful capacity, but card games are typically turn-based. There's no reaction-time based gameplay in most of them, so there's no stress to learning how to draw and play cards. But when you add back in that real-time element, I think that a lot of players (like myself) panic at the thought of having to learn how everything works and end up just fumbling around uselessly not learning anything. Add on top of that the fact that since there can be a lot going on at once, it can be hard to quantify exactly what went wrong. In a shooter, if you're missing most of your shots, you know that you probably need to improve your aim. If you're dying out in the open, you probably need to take cover. If you fall into a pit in a platformer, then you needed to jump at a different time. Many games have very intuitive feedback that helps a player improve naturally without needing direct instruction. But with an RTS having so many moving parts, you might get steamrolled and think? "Maybe I needed to build more defensively?" when in reality you were already playing defensively and you just got out-economied by your opponent, which eventually resulted in one massive giant attack that overwhelmed your defenses. And that's without even getting into the nuance of like not managing your units well or prioritizing the wrong resources early on and whatnot. I think this is why people fall back on the whole APM thing. It's hard to quantify when your strategy was bad, but you can quantify your APM, so clearly if I just work on playing faster, then I can get more done and be more gooder!! All that to say, I might check out AoE4 later. While I am still deathly afraid of the RTS genre due to my past experiences, I will admit it has been a while since I've actually even tried an RTS game, and this video has made me thing that maybe I just need a change of mindset and a chiller atmosphere to really figure things out.
The secret to most RTS RIGHT at the beginning when you're wondering why did I lose is usually you didn't build enough units especially workers. If you build 300 minerals worth of units you'll usually lose to someone that builds 600 minerals worth of units. At a higher level the difference between say 900 Minerals worth of units and 1200 minerals is much less significant than the first example even though you still missed on a lot of opportunities to build units compared to your opponent and that can be mitigated by things like building unit counters, terrain, army positioning, micro etc etc. Also I'd disagree on most games being intuitive to why you lost. Like I think MOBAs (one of the most popular genres there is) especially ones low on skillshots you frequently lose the game and have no idea why at all even after spending thousands of hours playing said MOBA.
Same boat man. And well said. I'm not even interested in online play im literally struggling to beat the Brood War tutorial on campaign and desperately trying to understand wtf this game needs me to do. I just want to learn the story but fucking hell these games have an impenetrable skill floor
I wonder if age has anything to do with this. For one, younger people may not be used to using mouse&keyboard computers, like millennials. But more importantly, we would skim through the game's manual or watch someone else play, and learn a lot of the basics that way. Also, back then playing over LAN was the main way to play other people, internet connections were not as good.
This is the RTS guide I've wanted for years but could never find. I eventually cracked into the genre myself this year playing C&C campaigns, but this is still a big help and makes me feel much better about going into online sometime. I never once blamed the genre itself for my difficulties getting into it, but it was definitely not helped by the feeling 'beginner' guides gave me about assumptions they were making about the player skill. Glad you cracked the code on why I had that feeling!
As a long time RTS fan this video was exceptionally helpful! I learned all the RTS controls/strategy when I was in my early teens so I didn't have an easy explanation for how these games were fun to other people. This will help me alot in converting people! The ending was a complete surprise since this is the first video I've seen from you.
This is a great video. I love how you saw a gap in the content and are filling it with your own unique perspective, that's something I aspire to. I have always really loved WATCHING RTS but I almost NEVER enjoy playing them. The experience is so stressful and for some reason, I find it impossible to have fun while losing. In other games, there are little successes that give you something to hold onto (like maybe I got a kill or two, or managed to do a cool play or something) so even if you lose in the end, it doesn't feel like it was all a waste. People always say to just focus on the little improvements and find enjoyment in that, but it just feels like it boils down to "Oh well, I just lost my 10th game in a row, but at least I did most of my build order ok before it all got destroyed." I need some advice because I really enjoy the strategy aspects of the genre, and I watch more RTS than any other genre, but every time I feel inspired to play it, I lose my motivation after a handful of games.
be aggressive. learn a few "cheesy" build orders and go ham to 1. win more 2. your losses will teach you how to defend against aggressive builds 3. you will be interacting with your opponent more which will tech you the game mechanics faster
As someone who has loved RTS since I was a child and still play RTS games, I never realized how unfriendly or hard to learn RTS is sometimes, not only is this enlightening but also very fun and hopeful? I've only ever had negative opinions told to me about the future of RTS and even told people bad things about the future while playing RTS, and hearing your takes has given me a bit of fresher love for the genre, I never lost my love for RTS. But I do really love this video and I'm gonna go forward trying to be more hopeful about the future of RTS as well.
I think this is a really great lesson for developers about player feedback. You really can't just take players at their word, you have to understand what they *mean* but don't always have the vocabulary to say. Players say something like "the game is too hard" because that's what they perceive, but the developer has to understand if the game really is too hard, or if the real problem is just that the learning curve is too steep. Since RTS is a genre that really thrives on depth and complexity, it may be a real mistake to make them easier overall. You may actually want to go in the other direction and make your game *more* complex in order to appeal to the quirks of the genre, but then offset that with better onboarding. Incidentally, fighting games are the same way. Not really about lightning quick execution (though the barrier for that is a bit higher than RTS games), but about underlying principles that are invisible to new players who unfortunately get tossed into the deep end too often.
This is by far, the greatest video i've watched about age of empires (or even rts), you really captures the how-tos and the fun of rts especially at the lower level. Back to the topic of "carried knowledge", the knowledge from this video can actually be applied to other rts games like warcraft, rise of nations, empire earth, or especially to other aoe games. Good job man.
Cheat codes are literally the reason I didn't give up on aoe as a kid. The game was so hard for my 9-year-old brain to grasp in its normal mode, but by typing in cheat codes I could go blow up the AI's base every now and then to "even it out", giving me a chance to actually *read* what each unit/building/technology did IN GAME rather than reading it out of a pamphlet before-hand and trying to remember what it said while I'm trying to play. Welcome to the community, dude!! So happy to have you and thanks for this video!
I don't think, the onboarding is the actual problem of RTS. It's the multitasking itself. Lots of players just want to build for a while then do some scouting, then some attacking and then build for a while again. And that normally is what the singleplayer campaign gives them. The moment they realize that they have to do the short attention span loop only spending seconds doing each of the things, they go back to singleplayer. There is no reason why you couldn't just be able to set a desired count of villagers that should be maintained in times of peace. Then designate a zone for housing where villagers build new homes as needed. Then designate a few resource gathering locations and maybe priorities and free villagers take care of the gathering after the gathering spots have been built. The game could warn you when there are no gathering spots designated for some resource and while you aren't looking at the scout, it's defensive setting could make it actively avoid getting in range of enemy fire... There are plenty of ways to make the mandatory multitasking while absolutely nothing actually happens go away and let the player just give some orders and watch their fulfillment in a chill experience which only gets stressful when there actually is a reason for it getting stressful - an action by the opposing force which you are hopefully able to correctly respond to. I don't think that all RTS should abandon the focus on multitasking and micromanaging. But it would be nice if there would be something between Timberborn and StarCraft which is an actual RTS with direct unit control but doesn't focus on multitasking and has some unit-level intelligence and quality of life features for single taskers like me.
The multitasking doesn’t have to be stressful, you can take it at your own pace. I do this with a lot of games these days. I don’t want to be top 500 or whatever so I just play at a nice relaxed pace, I have my own gameplay loop and timings that I go through and it’s very relaxing and works very well because it gives you much more time to make better decisions.
Mobas are just that, strategy games with the "maintenance" automated - you can switch your attention between "resource gathering" or fighting, and thats it - Dota being heavier on the strategy side, lol being more on just the fighting, only missing base building but you cant have it all.
@@Kwiwikwem all of those problems are solved in every RTS I’ve ever played by using patrol instead of move. Also in AoE units on aggressive stance will automatically move to attack enemy units that come into range.
@@Kwiwikwem most RTS games usually also have a guard mode to make military units stay in one place and attack anything that attacks them. Red Alert had patrol and guard mode and that came out in 1996 so I’d be surprised if more modern titles don’t have something similar.
Can you make a cut of just the tutorial parts of the video so I can send them to my friends? Having the tutorial parts in smaller chunks might be better then sending a full hour video to them. As an AoE vet, these are some of the BEST tutorials I have seen for new RTS players. Amazing job and great video. You also have convinced me to start playing PVP again after years of AI only.
@@longbow857 No need to be rude. Yes I understand how chapters works. Maybe you should re-read my comment if you didn't understand why I was asking for shorter videos.
@@capras12 I simply replied. It's up to you to decide it's rude. Still I find your first comment a foolish request, just because of friends who aren't used to non tiktok videos anymore? Alright another tip then: place the video at the part wich you want them to see and right click the screen for ''copy url from this point''. Then they don't have to fear skipping to the point in the video you want them to see. All these options at your disposal, but you want the maker of content to match your needs? Strange.
@@longbow857 what's your problem? Why are you injecting needless insults and drama? I think it should be understandable that a NEW player might find an hour and a half video tutorial daunting. Smaller segments make the tutorials and game much more approvable for new players. Since they haven't already watch the video, they might not understand they don't need to watch the whole video in one sitting. I would love to be able to send chunks that they can progressively worth through as they play more. I would appreciate it if you would lose the rude and condescending tone.
Easily the best ACTUAL beginner guide for RTSs I've ever seen. And despite the fact that you use AoE4 to explain all of the concepts, it all translates to the other RTSs I know like SC2 and WC3. I used to play AoE2 and Galactic Battlegrounds all the time as a kid and now twenty years later I've tried to get into the PvP aspect of AoE2/4, but have had issues. Really SC2 on launch was the only time I felt relatively confident in my ability to play against other players and even then it was due to cheesey strats (Protoss cannon turtling followed by void ray spam). Definitely wanna go give AoE4 another go now, especially with the Byzantines and Jeanne d'Arc being added.
You should give Age of Mythology a try, it's like AOE but you have myth units which really spice up the gameplay, i don't know if you should bother with the MP but the campaign and the Titans expansion are really fun
AoE2 has been a huge part of my childhood, so I learned a lot of things, like unit counters and what is efficient, what is not. So after not playing it for 10-15 years, I did a few bot games to get the rust off and jumped into a lobby. I got randomed as Turks. I already knew, Turks need to secure gold, since their food based trash units are not great (lack of upgrades). But what they do have is, a decent foot archer line. So in Feudal, I made a large group of Archers and went against Green, who was very close. Green made some scouts but Archers just own Feudal age, no contest. And positioned higher on a hill... is just great. I got Castle Age sooner, got Crossbow and I outranged his Town Center, which was game over for him. But this was a big FFA match. So then I took all Green's gold, I went North and beat the Vikings with Cannons. Eventually it came down to a 1v1, Turks vs Goths. I started spamming Jannisarries and Hand Cannoneers but I quickly found out that the Huskarl spam is OP. I should have got Champions instead. Anyways, it was a great game and that, after not playing it for 15 years, was a huge win for me. And I don't even care for APM, I'm not going to Carpal Tunnel Syndrome for a game... :P
I'm a Korean gamer who grew up in early 2000s during the dawn of E-sport. You're right in a sense that the raw action-per-minute is not strictly necessary to become a good RTS player, but you still need very good multitasking skill and high concentration to become a good player. In a typical AoE2 game, you need to follow the build order, spawn villagers, lure bores, control your scout, wall off or fight the enemy scout, build walls, build farms, docks, semd fishing ships, etc. All this are happening simultaneously everywhere in a huge map and you need to pay attention to everything. It doesn't mean you need 400 apm, but managing everything with low apm still requires very good multitaking and perhaps even better management skill since you need to make every action count. This has nothing to do with strategy, it's a skill requirement for RTS players. There was the days when Starcraft pros used to win tournaments with creative strategies and out-of-box thinking (like Boxer) in early 2000s, after which came the new generation players who mastered the well established build order with super high APM and perfect multitasking (e.g. Flash) and the matches became more about who makese the bigger army faster with less mistakes and less about actual strategies. This is the direction where RTS is going in general and why people avoid it. For example in AoE2 the fastest way to become better in game is to just learn a few best build orders (e.g. fast castle knight rush) and learn how to execute them without too much mistakes (i.e. good multitasking). Ignoring APM and multitasking will free you from the pain but you'll probably remain in low elo forever.
Re: APM: Fun fact, the most general consensus in terms of APM in AoE 2 is that speed is a function of game knowledge and strategy choice. The less time you spend dawdling and choosing what to do, the faster you'll implement your choices into the game. I think the reason why apm is considered such an important thing is because for a long time the RTS scene was dominated by SC and SC2, two very very very micro intensive games where players needed to keep their fingers warm for the moments of high intensity gameplay, so they have absolutely bonkers APM averages and insane peaks, but if you actually take the eAPM average (that is, effective actions, and not random spam that doesn't achieve anything), the actions per minute counter suddenly gets slashed at least by half, usually more. SC players have historically been twitchy as hell when it comes to motion so people got this idea in their heads that RTS games are all like that. I've won AoE2 games at 1300 elo by literally patrolling units into the enemy's base while just making sure I had enough food to keep making light cavalry, focusing entirely on eco management.
You hit the nail. 99.99% of the AoE2 playerbase isn't gonna micro like Hera. If your opponent is microing his army into your base, chances are he's neglecting his own base in the process. Literally all you have to do is patrol a few knights or scouts into his base and watch him panic.
There's tons of room for micro, macro is simply more important. SC2 has a mostly 'solved' macro because it has much less room for it, which allows for the players to focus much more on micro. It's not that AoE 2 doesn't have room for micro, it's that SC2 is focused on it, rather.
As someone whose earliest gaming memories go back to Age of Empires, it brings me a lot of joy to see how much joy it's still able to give to new players 2 decades later. AoE is also as a series is such an interesting one given that 2, 3, 4 & Mythology are all great, but play drastically differently from one another in ways that make them each fun & interesting in their own right. I've actually been having a fairly fun time playing Age of Mythology with a friend against each other relatively recently since they've got into it heavily in the last year, and whilst I'd played it before I've never gone into much depth with it, but the points raised in this video; the first games we played I was trounced as whilst the transferrable skills I had helped, numbers of villagers per resource & age up requirements are different so with no solid build order I couldn't keep up, but once I was able to navigate the early game, the late game (which the guides my friend sent me hadn't covered) I was able to outperform my friend since my past experience with AoE helped with multitasking & adapting, especially when playing Greeks, the most AoE-esque faction. I do need to get back into AoE4 though; I burned myself out a bit in the first few months after it came out by getting all the masteries completed, so will be sure to use this plus the DLC as an excuse to revisit it :P
I wish more ppl played the old Dawn of War games (or that they got a remake/remaster). I love that the game forces you naturally to always explore the map and expand (because of how resources work). And I also like that that in that game, when I hear the warning that I'm under attack, by the time I go check, half my units are NOT dead or almost dead lol.
DoW was great for fact that economy was easy: two resources, two resources buildings, most time spent on exploring and fighting. Just like it's tabletop daddy 😁
This is really the best video that I could find in the recommendations. Not so long ago I decided to master the genre in pvp, but all these videos for beginners really mean that you have already had experience with real players. This video really inspires you not to give up studying the wonderful RTS genre, and also answers many questions.
I haven't watched the whole video yet so I can't comment on your teachings but THANK YOU SO MUCH for dismaying the claims that APM and competitive gaming are what "killed" RTS games, I have spent years telling mutuals that notion was complete nonsense. The future of RTS is brighter than ever and I'm so happy people are finally realizing again what made the genre so captivating while learning the common talking points about it's "death" were complete falsehoods.
I've been sitting through the entire tutorial section despite having played RTS for many years (tho I never played an AOE game), and man, you're good. And by that I mean you're good at keeping the attention of the watcher, and I really felt like I learned things from this. Plus I think you really managed to get the source of the problem (onboarding). Like the youngsters says, "W video amirite"
16:00 This is why Starcraft 1 has one of the best campaigns for new RTS players. I played this thing as a zoomie trying to see what all the fuss was about with RTS games. I had my snot kicked in by other RTS games before, but Starcraft 1 was the first RTS game to explain to me the difference between a "move" command and an "attack move" command. Ironically, this made me way better at RTS games that weren't Starcraft (cough cough, OpenRA, cough cough) because I could finally engage my meatgrinder infantry into battles by ordering them to "attack move" and shoot back at the meat grinder rather than just move into the meatgrinder and die.
I've been trying to learn RTSs for a few months now. Someone told me to start with the Starcraft series because it's good for beginners like you said. I haven't really been able to even beat the tutorial or the 2nd level. First one I finally got lucky but yeah. It's like crazy difficult so far. Then some dude on reddit said its the WORST game for beginners and that the first guy must have been trolling.. I don't know if this genre is simply out of my skillset or if I just need to find an easier game
@@ZyklonBeast12 That guy said SC1/BroodWar is bad for beginners because it requires the most APM to play against professionals. I think learning BW is fine for beginners. But, if you want to play online, it would be better to practice against the AI opponent than play the campaign. The campaign doesn't teach multitasking (like what the video explains).
@@ZyklonBeast12Starcraft is the faster rts if it can be called that (specially sc2) that requires high APM to play it in multiplayer. The AI sucks so you can play it slowly in single player.
I think the age of empires 2 campaign is really low stakes and dare i say boring You would probably find that one much easier to play Although maybe not as engaging Starcraft 1 campaign has Brutal difficulty curves though
@@ZyklonBeast12 What got you stuck in the Starcraft campaign exactly? The objectives in the first few levers are designed around core skills you need to complete the rest of the game, such as training marines, engaging in basic combat, and maneuvering troops.
This is a very good video, and I deeply appreciate it, as someone who has, in the past enjoyed RTS games, but hasn't played one in a long time (I think Homeworld 2 was probably my last foray). I think the aims of this video are broader than just being strictly an on-boarding video, so the structure of it makes sense in that context. But I feel like a companion video to this that serves as an actual lesson for beginners would be fantastic. When you asked what the most basic skill in RTS games is, I couldn't actually remember. And while "multi-tasking" is a fine answer in abstract, it's a little like saying "moving and shooting" is the basic FPS skill. It's not wrong, but using 2 control sticks and the trigger button, or WASD and the mouse to move and aim and fire is what that skill ACTUALLY is. Using control groups to effectively assign tasks and juggle multiple objectives at once is really the answer, and while that did come back to me, the practical example at 41 minutes is the first time a beginner would see this explained in reasonable detail. Again, the video is not merely an on-boarding video for one particular RTS, it's an overview of the issue with how to approach on-boarding in the genre at large, and so getting to that essential skill halfway through the 85 minute video makes complete sense. What I would be fascinated to see is how you could make an actual beginner's guide teaching this skill in a... I dunno 7-minute video. Perhaps this is something you've already done, or even mention later. I had to stop the video and get going to bed, if you do get to that I'll happily put in an edit after I come back to finish viewing. I think the analogy to using the controls to facilitate moving, aiming and shooting simultaneously in an FPS, and how managing and assigning tasks to control groups is that same kind of basic skill in an RTS is one that REALLY hits home. Putting people in the mindset that honing THAT skill is the best way to quickly access the depth of the game would do loads of heavy lifting in getting people into the genre. After nearly 2 decades out of the genre, this video has encouraged me to give some of the games on my backlog a go. I imagine a brief "How to Play Practically Any RTS Game" video would reach even more people.
AMAZING video! I am one of those players that always admired RTS games but never got into because of the APM deal. Recently I thought again about getting into Age II and saw some of those tutorials featured in your video, it was enough to put me out of the game again. But thank you, now I'm actually motivated to try it for real 😁
my personal experience with rts is more as a sandbox than a proper genre. some of the first video games I ever played were R:TW and C&C3, and being very young I sucked ass at them. and though I had very little desire to improve, I loved the visuals, the army/base building, and the process of controlling a lot of units and watching them tear through the map. as a result, for basically over a decade I just set all my rts games to easy, ignored the multiplayer, and just messed around in them. it’s only in the past couple years that I’ve even attempted to improve at these games, and even then I have no desire to be competitive; just to be competent enough to have fun in somewhat challenging matches with friends. and whenever I do go into random multiplayer matches, I still get rolled in minutes with no chance to do anything interesting or fun. I mostly play total war “hybrid strategy” and modern wargame rts titles these days, but after this I might just have to give aoe another shot. lol
Ooo boy, an hour+ long video essay on a topic i know very little about! Bout to put this on in the background as I zone out doing some repetitive task Thank you for making my workday much more entertaining
@@CloudCuckooCountry WARNO is my current RTS of choice, but I have had AoE4 since day 1 on gamepass and not played more than an hour or so. Will give it another try after watching your video!
When you said that AOE 4 was "The best beginner's RTS" my first thought was "Have you ever heard about this obscure indie game called Warcraft 3?". To be fully clear, I had never touched AOE 4. I had played quite a bit of AOE 2, 3 and AOM. So I can't really tell if this game is as good at, well, explaining things as WC3. Because my God, Warcraft is good, and I mean REALLY good at this. Prologue and the first Arthas campaign work like a glorified tutorial, and I firmly believe that this is probably the best implementation of "first time playing" sort of tutorial in the whole genre. If even four-years-old me without any prior experience in real-time strategies could handle it, I think anybody could get a good grasp of what the game is like without any additional tutoring from a meatbag beside you. I know that it is kinda off-topic, but I just wanted to mention that if graphics are not an issue, WC3 ought to be at least a good contender for a "Baby's first RTS" out there, both since it has a great tutorial and that you can find it's DNA in a lot of other RTS to this day
Got to agree, Warcraft 3 is my favourite RTS ever. Giant Grant Games recently did a video going over just how good the campaign is. I think that having a good campaign that not only serves as a tutorial but also gets the player invested in the story is a perfect entry point for a new player.
Yayyy, made a really well-paced video that may inspire me to look into the community a bit more. I'm excited for more RTS games like Natural Selection with a "commander" influencing and commanding real players. Games that make you feel part of something bigger motivate me more than any dopamine joyride or drip-feed that I see many modern (corporately designed) games try to be.
Hihi from the stone age. My first RTS was Dune 2, and I ABSOLUTELY LOATHE multitasking. Yeah, you're right and it's entirely possible to learn some [very basic] multitasking [that won't help you against a passing papa smurf], problem is, there are people who enjoy OTHER aspects of the game. I can keep up with the chaos if I strain myself enough, but [aside from being much harder than you say it is] it's not fun at all - it's draining. When the game ends, all I'm feeling is how tired I am, which may be remedied by mild satisfaction if I win, or exacerbated by humiliation (because I KNOW all that shit is actually super easy!) if I lose. The thing about juggling is that if you start thinking instead of acting/reacting, you INSTANTLY drop [almost] everything.
I'm like that too. That's why I poured hundreds of hours into Northgard (which is by no means a simplistic RTS, the meta can get plain monstruous) and steered clear of Starcraft. That's why even though AoE seems great, I never got into it. I'm okay with multitasking that comes from actual decision-making, but not with multitasking that comes from lack of automation. Example from AoE: why do I need to manually queue up villagers in city centers? Why can't I just have a "keep producing villagers" button I can toggle on and off? What does it bring in terms of game experience to have to check that queue and repeatedly click on some icon to make sure it never goes empty? My stance is pretty simple: if I'm very likely to have to do something, then make that thing as straightforward as possible, and possibly provide an opt-out for advanced players so everybody's happy. It's like openings/build orders. Why not just make it an actual part of the gameplay, rather than having us follow some list on some reddit post or whatever? The best tutorial is the one you didn't realize was there all along. Or if it's simpler, just expose a list of initial configurations when we're still in the lobby, and have us start with some pre-built base (or at least make it one of the game modes). Just like Netflix has a "Skip Intro" option specifically because going through it again and again becomes repetitive, why couldn't RTS have one too ^^? RTS games don't need a revolution to attract more players, the fundamentals are good (though it's always great when games try to refresh a formula). They need to think more about QoL and about which actions it is really crucial to have the player performing (core gameplay loop), and what others could be hidden behind some "advanced mode" option. That kind of idea has been floating around for a while, but it always encountered some substantial gatekeeping.
I like watching RTS games being played well and I like learning about them, but I hate actually playing them. The multitasking isn’t fun whatsoever. I don’t think there’s anyway to fix this due to the ‘real time’ design. They are actually ‘tactical action’ games due to the juggling required and unit control. Strategy is only a small part of them.
@@ywenpI agree 100% most RTS games are like ritalin simulators it’s not really about strategy most of the time. The games emphasize an impossible skillset, micromanaging dozens of units and buildings from a relatively tiny viewport. This squeezes the strategy out of it. Total War is an exception because there’s a small amount of units under your control and combat has a slow pace so you have a chance to see stuff and react to it. Close Combat games are similar to Total War and have almost excruciatingly slow movement due to how much range and how fragile units are. This gives room for strategy to breathe.
I agree! The reason I learn hotkeys and whatever is to streamline the most irritating part of RTS which is for me when a battle kicks off, you want to watch it but you realised your economy need attention or you need to queue up replacement units for the ones dying in the fight you want to watch and enjoy so you get this awkward screen switch of anywhere from a couple of seconds if you bothered to get good at it or 30 seconds if you don't have a clue. I COULD play better and split my attention between my unit and base but I just don't want to. They are Billions has this solved for PvE at least. A PAUSE button. Such a game improver.
Honestly, you had me at "APM has diminishing returns". One of the things I didn't know about the human mind before I started playing video games is how intertwined our concept of "optimization" is with magical thinking. When you play an MMORPG or indeed any kind of game that features ways to customize your character and/or playstyle, there will invariably be a discussion on which choices are best for every situation you might encounter, and invariably a community of the actual SUPER nerds (whom regular nerds would beat up and steal their lunch money if they didn't also rely on their ability to destroy the balance of any numerical system) will calculate which options are superior. And then everyone else will just copy them, usually without even questioning how MUCH more superior those options are. If a specific build results in a 4% increase in damage per second over the previously accepted build, people will flock to it, regardless of how taxing it is to play. The people who make these are generally the equivalents of pro players (Either actual PvP pros or huge raiding guilds competing for world firsts or other records) or just random math nerds whom may not even play the game at a pro level but just sees creating the most optimal build as a fun math challenge. In either case they could not care less about how good your APM would need to be to play the build, or if it's enjoyable to do so. Thus it's taken quite a long time for people to actually try to codify more ergonomic builds that do less damage but are more fun to use, and I feel this kind of ties into the same issue as with RTS.
Yeah exactly. Improving your APM does give you better results, but after about 80-100APM the improvement is so marginal that it's really not worth it for the average player, especially when improving other things gives way way results at that level RTS professionals play at high APM because at the top top top top top level they're maximising every relevant skill anyway, so they might as well maximise APM too
I think part of that magical thinking is feeling like doing something, anything, is better than doing nothing, even if you're doing something unproductive, or worse still, counterproductive. Ex. detouring down every side road when driving because you keep moving, even if the trip takes just as long as it would have sitting in traffic on the shorter route.
@@beowulf_of_wall_st No it really really doesn’t. There’s no such thing as an RTS player who “doesn’t waste actions”. And nobody can individually micro 100 soldiers. Intermediate players do not play these games at absurd speeds. They just have better knowledge and multitasking than beginners. If you don’t find it fun, that’s fine, not everyone finds everything equally fun, but don’t pretend that the reason you don’t find it fun is because RTS players play the game to a level of perfection beyond reality
I needed this video so much. For the longest time I’ve been looking for a video to help me learn the very basics to get into any rts because frankly I have a bunch in my library that I never got around to playing because there were no vids like this one. Thank you, amazing vid!
I watch this video every time I get frustrated and feel like quitting playing rts. It helps every time ❤ I'm going to try the final battle for the gdi campaign again now WITHOUT the tib bomb!
Wouldn't multitasking fall directly under apm? The juggling analogy is a perfect parallel here, if you cannot move fast enough to catch the balls falling, then it's impossible for you to catch them, regardless of how much you can plan in your mind. There's a sort of wall there, a minimum requirement of speed that you can't do anything without. Strategy and planning become completely irrelevant when your opponent has sent an army to you before you've made a unit.
Yes, but the narrative of "200apm" is absurdly false. Note the player highlighted there 'Chariot Rider' who was winning games with an average of 45 apm. 45! That's less than ONE action per second! So yeah, I would say you require a minimum apm of like... 30. But that's achievable for anyone.
Multitasking only “falls under apm” in the sense that yes doing two tasks requires more actions than one task, but all that shows is that “apm” is a bad way of conceptualising what a player is actually doing. You’re not going to get units out faster by spam-clicking, and you don’t need to be a 7-way multitasking god of the game to have fun. Just like you don’t need to be able to juggle 7 balls to be considered a skilled juggler. The point I’m trying to make is that splitting your attention is the skill the game is testing Like, if apm really made strategy irrelevant, how do you think it’s possible for someone to beat a master-level StarCraft 2 player with 1/5th of the apm?
Here's a fun exercise to consider when you "think" having a 200+ APM is needed to "be good". Look at a "high APM" player, and if this average is achieved just by spam clicking a node without actually changing the overall action, or having any outcome, I want you to _quarter_ that average. Not half. Quarter. Because that's how they inflate the APM to make it look like they're doing something, when in actual fact they're doing nothing but waiting for a point in their build order to be reached. If making your movement node dance a few inches and wearing your mouse's buttons down is needed to be "godlike" at RTS, why is that not included in the beginner guides or race/age/degenerate overviews? Seriously, pretty much every high skilled content player in an MMO mashes those buttons faster the more stressed they get, but it's still going to be three seconds before anything actually gets registered. Most of the "flurry" of actions comes from queue building, or switching from bookmarked spots back and forth. The only time physically making actions faster may matter is during micro heavy army fights, and even then, you still can effectively just be making mistakes that much faster. A bad plan with a smoking keyboard is still going to get demolished by a player who knows what they're doing. And besides, you're forgetting something. *"There's a sort of wall there, a minimum requirement of speed that you can't do anything without. Strategy and planning become completely irrelevant when your opponent has sent an army to you before you've made a unit."* _When does mashing the command allow the unit to be built faster? Or increase the rate that the resources are produced faster? Same timers for everyone, right?_ The only time this works is if the player you're saying is "too slow" literally is, as CCC stated at the start, most likely brand new to the genre, and you're telling them they need to be at a Grandmaster level of knowledge, input skill and comfortable with split second flashes of screen updates within freshly installing the game. You're putting kids into a boxing match with Mike Tyson. And then, we have the second problem with this. If being faster at inputting and base planning was all that you need to beat anyone, then why isn't the top flight of an RTS some meta rush build that is solely the fastest way to kill eco lines? Because pushing buttons quickly has no bearing on the match aside from a stat line commentators can throw out to talk about something during downtime or set up phase other than the weather, event news, or my left foot. And remember. If all they're doing is making a point dance from side to side, or just switching between camera views and building selections without mechanically achieving anything, then all they did is the equivalent of me producing this comment. You don't know if I touch typed this at 150-200 words per second, tapped it out with my nose or foot, used a voice to text program, or trained my [insert animal here] to shit post on command. It's still here all the same. Same with "needing to have 100/200/300 APM". Yes, I could learn how to type "I am mashing please help my poor keyboard" faster for an hour a day, but I'm screwed if they change the words. You start with learning the basics and learning the game. The speed can come later.
@@CloudCuckooCountry I guess that's true. The idea just feels so contrary to everything I've been told that it's almost hard to accept. Which is sort of the point you made in the video.
I think you hit on a very important point that RTS's aren't popular because they are hard or are focused on eSports too much but that people have no frame of reference for an RTS. If you play Call of Duty you can use that frame of reference for so many games like Gears of War. But there is no game that allows you to understand an RTS. So, with no frame of reference it can make it very hard.
Ill just this here. Beastyqt, one of the top 3 competitive player in Age of Empires 4, maybe even in top 2, has played a game vs his wife. His wife is Conqueror 1, which is in top 1% of all players. She is good. Very good. He played with 1 hand and beat her in less than 10 minutes. APM means shit if don't have the STRATEGY
Harstem ( a semi pro Starcraft player) has done many low apm challenges where he would beat other grandmasters with barely any apm for example So in general for rts games knowledge and efficiency is much more important than clicking fast
I'm watching this for the third time because of how entertaining this video is. I don't know why but I really enjoy it. And it actually helped me really get more into AoE2 than before and really improve. Thanks!
Man seein RTS in this light similar to a video I made aswell is a delightful dejavu.........may lead me to not giving up on RTS games. Though I have no idea of the genre, this sets you on a good start.
48 years old and I've been playing RTS since the original Warcraft. My favorite game of all-time throughout many years of gaming is probably the original Starcraft. Let me just say that one, I'm in agreement on how fun AoE 4 has been and two, this video is amazing. Well done and thank you from a long time RTS fan. Participating in keeping this genre alive and well is a huge positive for the gaming community whether the majority realize it or not. Again, amazing video and so well done.
I don't think RTS is really in decline right now. I think it was in the past in a very steep decline but right now I think it's in a pretty healthy place as a genre compared to a decade ago. If anything the genre is having a small renaissance. I think the decline was caused by a few factors, the biggest of which is that RTS does not translate terribly well to consoles, it's a very PC centric genre. I think the decline of the RTS single player campaign and in particularly the trend of RTS single player campaigns not playing by mostly the same rules as the multiplayer hurt a fair bit too.
I agree, PC gaming got a massive kick to the face in 2006 or so, when Intel decided to get into the graphics hardware space without having hardware that did basic realtime 3d. Took about 10 years for laptops and other integrated graphics systems to get good enough to play video games, but that all happened right as the Great Recession started, and as the 7th gen consoles and the push for cross-platform games were on the rise (and the tools to make them far more easily than before). PC gaming has more or less recovered since, but the 2010s were not kind to it at all. Also I kinda blame StarCraft 2. Both because of the aforementioned singleplayer campaign not being a multiplayer onboarding track (IIRC the devs did this by design), and because, to put it bluntly, if StarCraft 2 was a licensable engine instead of a game, RTS and its derivative genres would probably have been considered very lively in the intervening time, judging by how active the StarCraft 2 arcade is. It would be like if Epic never licensed the Unreal engine, but Unreal Tournament 3 had had a really elaborate modding and level making scene that every prospective FPS developer latched onto instead.
I played AoE starting with the very first game - not because I'm actually that old, but because when my parents got to America it was the first video game they saw, so they played it and loved it. I grew up with them and played them all in sequential order. While in recent years I've been more into Total War, AoE will always have a special place in my heart
I think my generation were probably the last one to not have the innate basic skills necessary already drilled into us when we first came to RTS games. Because we were used to DOS as our main operating system. We hadn't yet got to grips with Windows, and all the necessary UI awareness and mouse navigation abilities were not yet second nature to us.
I hadn't ever considered multitasking as something to work on. It's as you said, playing an FPS for the first time is crazy hard, just trying to get the camera to do what you want while moving. Now that I know what things to point out to new players I'll definitely encourage more onboarding. :)
I guess the *real* time strategy was the friends we made per minute.
New KPI: FPM
Goated
Clever
And then lost in a failed attack.
You mean slurs per minute?
My first RTS game was Age of Mythology but my first RTS game I played online was Company of Heroes. I got stomped so hard in my first online match that the guy messaged me afterwards and asked if I was new to the game. He then pulled me into a match vs AI and proceeded to show me the ropes about resource management, expansion, planning, everything really. He stomped me into the ground again after but I finally had a grasp on HOW to play. Probably would have bounced off online play if it wasn't for that guy.
This video feels like what he did for me but for AoE IV, thank you, gonna try the series again
He sounds like a cool guy. We should all strive to be like that guy
Exact same thing happened to me but in dawn of war. Guy just said I should be beating medium AI with ease, but I just simply came to the conclusion that this genre, at least for multiplayer wasn't for me. So, I never played PvP since. I think the guy in the video is right on some things. But RTS games are hard and are competitive. Don't kid yourself. But, you have to stick through the butt kicking phase until you can win without being lucky. The skill gap in these games is massive, its an entirely different animal than FPS games.
@@DukeWoozeIt seems to me that many people, especially newcomers, feel so discouraged about losing, they forget to enjoy the game. Of course, RTS isn't for everyone, but I believe many would enjoy the genre more if they played against people in their level and learned to not care if they lose against players who have more experience. Here is the thing: the ranked system helps exactly in this! It matches you against people in your level. Of course, to find your level initially, you might have to lose a few games, but that should not completely discourage you from enjoying the fun aspects of the game. Especially after you find your level.
@@bva0 True, maybe one of these days I'll jump in a ranked match. But, from my perspective it is frustrating to lose admittedly, especially coming from a genre I am good at (FPS). But what makes it worse for me at least is that it seems like I have no idea why I'm losing, or at least it isn't clear initially. It's like you're lost and it makes you feel dumb, hell maybe I am lol.
I got tower rushed in my first Warcraft 3 MP game : (
Brilliant video! Fun fact: we intentionally kept the line of sight of the Scout in AoE4 considerably larger than AoE2, as well as starting the player with 3 sheep under the Town Center, precisely to help reduce the amount of multi-taking in the early game. On boarding is still an area of concern for PC, if you ever get the chance to try the Xbox version of the game let us know what you think about the large difference between the two experiences.
I noticed there was a lot of changes made to AoE4 to make it more friendly than AoE2. It’s a very well-designed game! Tell the dev team it’s turned into one of my all-time favourites and I’ve been loving the Sultan’s Ascend expansion and can’t wait to see what they do next!
Please give five seconds of freeze time at game start for queuing actions!
@@Bomber679 losing five seconds from your enemy its not a big deal, you will improve little by little
@@mena2138 You're missing the point, bud.
If that was the goal then why not add a few moments of freeze time? At the moment the game is incredibly frantic for the first few seconds while you are required to
1. Build a villager
2. Tell your villagers what to do
3. Get your scout moving
4. Setup Hotkeys
5. Move sheep closer to TC
A 3s pause would make this a bit better.
THIS is the video EVERY RTS player should watch before trying to learn the genre. It is insane how I`ve played RTS games casually for years and never thought of them as having multitasking as their core. I am astonished by how a book review channel published a better "begginer's guide to playing RTS" than a several RTS dedicated channels. Thanks a lot for this. As a member of it, I feel like the RTS community really needed this. Thank you! Thank you!
as someone who plays rts for 25 years I must say this is the first time I see these concepts laid out in front of me in such a coherent and visually appealing way. well made video!
most of his concept and idea will be stright WRONG if he que in broodwar ladder...imgine playing vs the regular korean guys...its unforgiven and you indeed need high apm
@@majd2I know too. You might think it a strategy not to limit this video's scope to broodwars ladder, I mean, it says RTS right there on the topic I think. Your APM too high to notice *grimace ouyeach* ?
And my instincts tell he's trying to introduce gaming as concept to people who do bookclubs. I might be wrong about this one though.
i see your point, but most RTS comeptitive scene is super harsh, anyone been there will know...the slightest mistake or miss timing will cost you the game. NOT saying that RTS cant be enjoined by everyone casully ofcourse..
maybe broodwar standsout since the game been developing for 25 years and the level there is alredey high even in low rank ladder
@@tondekoddar7837
@@majd2The premise isn't to not have a high apm but not MOG new players to rts by making them worry about APM when that comes through experience anyway and repetition anyway plus apm means fuck all when the actions are stupid you're just making more stupid wasted actions
@@majd2 you can just play 2v2s and 3v3s with friends and randos for fun
I play 1v1 mostly to hone my build orders enough not to just die off but put off a fight
Thats enough
It's always super fun when someone makes a video WAY outside their channel's usual wheelhouse, because you just know they really, really care about whatever it is they're jumping to and that level of enthusiasm is infectious. And now I'm downloading Age of Mythology again lol
Thanks for making a really digestible breakdown of the basics, this is a wonderful thing for any competitive community to have.
AoM is getting its own DE version called Retold, probably next year or so.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn Retold that's a beautiful way to word a remaster.
I didn't realize this was a literature channel. This is amazing
Why yes I play Age of Mythology, how could you tell?
As someone who’s literally been playing RTS since early childhood and even played competitively at a semi-professional level, even I felt like I was learning more from this fundamental basics guide to RTS than from a lot of “beginner guides” that are actually about specific improvements for intermediate players.
Also all the quotes and citations from other videos to supports your points felt really clean and well done and shows just how high effort this video really was so koodos to you for that. 11/10
I taught my 68 year old mother how to play StarCraft 2 this weekend and she was already getting the hang of it after a few games. She isn’t destined to be a pro gamer, but she was doing macro, multitasking and beating the computer, so no one can tell me its too hard. Its all about onboarding and difficulty scaling, like he says.
@@astrosoup Difficulty scaling is what helped me the most.
@@astrosoup Do you think we really _have to_ spend an hour in-game setting up the same exact naval task force templates for every single match of HoI 4?
Instead of just _saving_ our starting strategy templates?
…and we wonder why people don’t bother learning Navy…
I don’t. Same with queuing building, or god forbid, actually incorporating the WC3 ai building into the game mechanics…
- Which is exactly what WC3 MOBAs did, btw.
Your argument about multitasking just blew my mind. I played BroodWar (and some other RTSs) A LOT during my teenager years and never got good at it, even reserarching build orders, theory and etc. Since I could never understand why, I eventually got frustrated and started dedicating my gameplay time to other genres, thinking I never had the mechanical skills. Being a terrible multitasker and watching your video, I think I finally understand what kept holding me back. I'm willing to give RTS another go with AoE4
Aoe4 is a ton of fun. I got into it because of this video.
I hope you followed through
@@brandon8667 AoE4 is sooooooooooooooo much fun :) Have already 2k hours into the game. Its super super awesome! Keep with it, its fun in everey stages =)
@@brandon8667 @LeJulles I bought it on the Steam Sale and have been playing the campaigns, really like it! I know they're very different from normal matches, but I'll soon dive into them
I'd recommend you try to aoe 2 too
Who would have guessed that the very best introduction video to AoE4 would have been made by a book reviewer and not a AoE4 dedicated content creator. This video is simply amazing. Hands down the best introduction to RTS games I have ever seen. Thank you for this jewel, it will be my guide now for introducing my friends to my favorite game.
I think the "adaptive strategy" point is kind of an ultimatum for whether you'll like multiplayer RTS or not. A lot of players will want to play a certain way and when they realize they can't do that they'll stop playing. It's a similar problem to what Overwatch had. The game marketed itself as a game where you play a Hero that matches your playstyle, but when you actually start playing you realize it's actually better to focus on counterpicking your opponents, which soured a lot of people on the game.
Maybe the comparison to Overwatch is not as relevant because in there, switching a character might be way more demanding than switching strategies in a RTS game.
@@MemoriesLPI disagree. Having played both extensively, switching and learning a new character in Overwatch is WAY easier than changing how you think strategy in RTSs.
I’ve changed*1 characters in Overwatch and learned to use them strategically in less than a week. But changing towards the Meta and/or adaptive strategy in AoE has taken me years and has certainly led me to just avoid online and play local/coop/lan only.
*1 (“added” is a better word since you are adding them to your response strategy)
T90, GiantGrantGames, Razbuten? This man is a legend and a man of culture. Still watching it rn but you referenced a lot more creators from the RTS scene. This is such a love letter to RTS
Aussie drongo for aoe 4
even saw Grubby who's most known for his Warcraft 3 stuff but he's an awesome guy and worth checking out.
always reminds me that it was playing dune 2 on a freinds dads 386 that made it clear to me that pc gaming was where i needed to be and leave consoles behind.. haven't looked back since
Hey man this video rules, as a person who used to love RTS games as a kid but kinda fell off of them and fell victim to the whole APM fear stuff and all this made me download AoE 4 off Gamepass and I'm loving it. Thank you for this.
Mission accomplished :D
AOE4 really is one of the best games for low APM play too. You can macro up and just throw waves of units at them without even looking. That can win you a lot of lower level games too and is really quite funny when you think about it.
Same for me but with supreme commander
Fantastic video. Also love that totally nonchalant Diamond rank flex 1:16:50
I've been meaning to get into RTS for like 8+ years ever since I was introduced to Total Annihilation by an amazing substitute teacher. I've played off and on, but always felt like I was severely lacking in understanding or "getting it". I still feel this way about DOTA.
This is a very encouraging and inviting introduction
Thanks very much! Glad you found this video encouraging!
I wasn’t originally going to show off my rank, but then my friend said that I can justify it because it proves you can be well-above average at the game without pushing your apm into the 150+ range haha
I've been at a gentleman's 40 APM for 10+ years, so I don't know why people think you HAVE to play at the skill ceiling to have fun and play against similar opponents.
Most APM is useless SPAM. What makes you better are UAPM (Usefull Actions Per Minute), like Micro your Army better.
The strategy section of your review was enlightening. Even as a platinum player I never really thought that deeply about the rock/paper/scissors nature of aggression, defense, and booming. Well edited and well done!
Great video. I absolutely fall into the camp of people scared away from the genre after experiencing that feeling of being thrown into the deep end without knowing how to swim. I feel like I finally got some swimming lessons here! Well done!
I personally would suggest getting started with AOE2 or 3. 2 has way more support and a much bigger scene, it’s also a lot easier to go from civ to civ than StarCraft or AOE4. That being said AOE3 has a love of mechanics that make it easier for new players
In my Top 50 Tips for AoE4 video - where the first tip is to NOT focus on APM at all, and that it's at the end of the list of things to improve on - I still get comments on that video bashing how clueless I must be for suggesting that.. 11 I don't know who started this APM myth or if it's just an easy coping mechanism for people to fall back on, but it's proven to be a tough one to dispel for the genre for some reason.
In any case, fantastic video mate. Had no idea you made videos yourself - subscribed and will watch your video essays moving forward.
Thanks so much, AoN! I love your videos and you do a lot of good for the AoE4 community
IIRC the whole APM hype came from English-language commentators of Korean StarCraft: Brood War games, since one of the first things people noticed was how rapidly they were pressing keys. Of course as the English speaking community got better at the game people realized increasingly that the APM was a consequence of skill, not the source, it being an easily spotted difference between two communities that seemed to have an uncrossable gulf of skill made the explanation stick for anyone who watched but didn't play much.
Also doesn't help that in Brood War, rally points only issue move commands, so you had to spend a lot of attention and actions just to make sure your workers were mining. Contextual rally points wouldn't be a thing in Blizzard games until WarCraft III. To say nothing of the 12 unit selection cap, or the single building selection cap, which meant the otherwise basic action of moving an army or building the next set of units would require 2-5x as many actions to accomplish as it would in basically any other RTS. Really a self-reinforcing loop specific to Brood War, since to get good enough to realize what APM meant you needed to get used to clicking around a bunch to get the basic repetitive actions done, and getting the basic repetitive actions burned into muscle memory meant your APM went way up, which just furthered the confusion.
I think it's in part a coping mechanism, but most of all, people not understanding where the higher APM comes from.
Having high (useful) APM is a result of getting good at the game, not a prerequisite, you start out playing slow, because you're still learning what you should be doing and creating the muscle memory you'll get to use later, this happens in pretty much every game. Later you get a bit better, so you can do your build order at full speed. A bit later you're comfortable enough with it that you realise there's periods you're not doing anything useful, so you look at your scout while waiting, or move your army. The more you play the more of those small lulls you'll find, and learn to just fill with something you think is more productive than staring at the screen. Every single of these steps have improved your APM by a reasonable amount.
High apm isn't a prerequisite for being good at the game, it's the result of it.
So if I fall behind in eco production because I don't use hotkeys to switch to, and make villagers... I should be fine, right?
Myth? Yeah you're clueless. I don't give a damn how many videos you've made that means nothing. Have you seen Starcraft with AlphaStar vs Pros? Alphastar demolishes them with what are considered by everyone to be the 100% wrong units to use by having SUPERIOR APM. It was on average 1.3 times as fast during intense fights than it's competition. I have no idea what that number would be in other games, but there is some number where no matter what strat you use a set of mid-tier units with superior APM will win. Since most players are average, it's well within the realm of human ability for someone to prioritize APM and be considered an above average player and ladder. But you acknowledge facts because it dispels your narrative. So keep to your delusions of superiority that people just "cope" haha.
To any of my regular viewers, this style change is most likely temporary and I’ll get back to my usual schtick in my next video
To mimic @ptolemy2222 : When we gettin CCC Gaming????
Honestly? I came here because of your House of Leaves + Ergotic Lit video, and I'm not *super* into reading anymore, but I just loved your vibes enough to sub. I'll watch pretty much anything lmao.
Nothing wrong with a change of pace
NGL; if this was a style change, I’d double-sub. Even for other genres
for what it's worth, i have bounced off RTS at least five times in the past two decades, and was quite entertained listening to you talk about it. you're a good storyteller even when not talking explicitly about stories themselves, so the specific content is less obligatory to an enjoyable video than simply being yourself in how you approach the presentation.
I am only 40 min into the video but this has got to be the BEST AOE 4 guide videos or any rts noob video i have watched. You are spot on with everything you talk about with the pros trying to make guides. Its not really their falt, they been playing pro for so long they have forgot what it is like to be a fresh new player to rts. You have indeed found the answer to onbroding people to rts. Honestly i think we need more new players streaming and making guide videos to even out all the pro streams. I would watch a steam of someones first game, i think it would be a nice change to see people make all the same mistakes i do.
The main issue I have with RTS is it doesn't give you any time to sit back and THINK. Everything is happening way to fast for someone like me who struggles with multi-tasking, target fixation and reacting to changing conditions. I end up either completely freezing and staring blankly as my opponent steamrolls me, or I just do one thing exclusively and let everything else burn to the ground off-screen.
It's incredibly satisfying when everything goes well but the amount of research, preparation and 'in-the-zone' concentration needed to play well is draining and I'm almost never in the mood to play it.
That said, most people probably aren't as limited as me and would prefer the chaos and challenge over the stuff that I play instead (grand strategy)
My entire teens were RTS games, and AOE was the biggest. I used to build custom maps and story campaigns and all sorts of maniac stuff. The handful of matches I did with you were the most useful in understanding why the one family friend I used to play with would *always* win.
And now you are a furry
@@jenstrudenau9134RTS to furry pipeline is real
@@jenstrudenau9134 Shame.
RTS games are great.
Onboarding has been an issue for a couple of genres I'm trying to get into, with RTS and Fighting games being the biggest issues. I didn't really have the term onboarding though, I called it a Missing Link.
For fighting games it was that there are tutorials on how to move and punch and kick and block. Then there are tutorials on how to properly do bread and butter techniques for the character you've picked. There's a massive black hole of important information just NOT THERE about timing, distance, combo basics, low strikes and anti-air, etc before I learn how to do super moves on Ken.
There's a reason smash brothers was so popular, obviously iconic characters, but more importantly you don't need to know anything to play.
You can just jump in and have fun, the mechanics are simple enough, every combo knocks you away so if you don't know how to escape it you get control of your character quickly enough.
That is exactly why I've only ever been able to really get into Smash Bros, all the traditional fighter tutorials can give the basics but I've never been able to "get" how the games actually work. At least with Smash Bros I don't feel like I have to memorize long button input combos.
i think you ought to try some modern fighting games.
All the things you said weren't there, are there! Combo basics are taught, what is and how to anti air, distance is taught through what does attacks do, low and high strikes are already covered in how to defend yourself (or you wouldn't be able to block, like ever), and I'm not sure what do you meant by timings, i would assumed you meant how long does attacks last but the specifics of that is when the onboarding process is over and you want to know more about the game.
I really really think you should give fighting game another try maybe the new Street Fighter, there is Granblue Fantasy Versus Rising that is coming out if you are more into anime aesthetic.
These games have "modern" features like simple inputs and auto combo so you can jump in right away.
(I would also like to say that detailed tutorial have always existed, i think just not the majority, Blazblue Centralfiction, Skullgirls, Them Fighting Herds and so on always teach all the things you said was missing and some of these games are decently old, like Blazblue Centralfiction was released 8 years ago!)
Honestly I've accepted that fighting games are something I'll never actually take part in, the time investment for me to make guilty gear my main game is just not justifiable when i love so many games and genres as much as i do.
Plus
Inputs, and combo flowcharts make the games very nuclear and weirdly noninteractive once you actually learn them.
These, coupled with the base mechanical requirements make the games very... lonely. You're not really playing with a person, and in a friend group, anyone who gets too far ahead, or too far behind basically can't play anymore.
It's a good fit for sitting at home, alone playing for a few hours, but it's a very asocial experience, in my experience.
The games are great as long as you're playing with someone, and niether of you really know what you're doing. They get much, much worse once both of you start actually learning how to play, invariably at different rates, and then niether of you are having fun.
Dude, this is maybe one of the best beginner guides to RTS ever put out. All this stuff I kind of knew from years of playing, and I never would have thought to tell a new player about it. Bravo.
14minutes in at your video and I already feel revitalized to try this genre again after years of not wanting to try it because of being bad at real time (and after trying a lot of turn based strategy). Thanks for this
This video covers most of the major problems Ive had with this genre do effectively. At multiple points in the video I was mentally bringing up questions like "well if I need to keep switching back and forth so quick what is even considered the best way to move my camera?" right before it was covered. Amazing work
This is reminding me of beginner level fighting game content, where the fundamentals are way different than what most people have experience with, and the only perspective most people see of it is of the very top level of play, making the genre seem more difficult than it really is.
People new to fighting games might try to wrongly focus on long flashy combos, frame-perfect inputs, or whatever the top level Koreans are doing. Even though those long, situational combos with precise positioning and frame-perfect timing are built on years of practicing fundamentals which boil down to "shuffle forward and hit the other guy's green box with your red boxes". Like how in RTSs, too much focus is on APM, having the most efficient build order, or whatever the top level Koreans are doing. Even though those high APM squad tactics are built on years of practicing fundamentals which boil down to "click on your guys, click on the other guy's guys, then click your building to make more guys".
Gonna reinstall Starcraft and run through the campaign again while trying to use keybinds more this time, maybe hassle a homie into some Starcraft II, DoW, or Zero-K or smth.
I had the exact same problem myself when I got into fighting games. It took me years (of being beat by people who never practiced) to realize that drilling combos was not the way to start. Thankfully in that genre's case it was easy to find a community that knew how to help new players get into the genre, even if that only really exists (or at least existed) offline. Learning the competitive side of RTS by hopping onto the Brood War community ladder in 2008 was not so helpful, since there is no room to mess around, or even have people around to teach you, the basics.
You're right. Literally any multiplayer game is the same way. They are made to be fun, but they are also competitive, and expect you to always keep learning, and not to mind losing over and over, til you find out what works and start winning. Most people would rather just play against ai, turn the difficulty down, have some fun stomping the ai, then go about their day.
So what if you just can't keep up with a person in Street Fighter because they're so fast? You might know every trick in the book through years of learning them but you're still getting hit. This is exactly how younger fighters in boxing and MMA beat seasoned veterans. They can acknowledge the discrepancy exists, why can't RTS gamers? You'll never see a boxer telling a young fighter that practicing on the speed bag is "Coping" lmfao. Justin Wong one of the greatest there ever was at Street Fighter is retired. He should be winning 100s of thousands of dollars beating everyone at tournaments, but he isn't. Why? His APM (reaction time) just isn't as fast as it used to be, and these people half his age with 1/3 of the knowledge are beating him. He still makes up new tech on his channel for just about every new fighting game that comes out, his brain ain't the problem his speed is.
@@Mutiny960Bro I swear people would deny the sunrise if they could 😂
@@Mutiny960 Nobody is saying APM is irrelevant at top level play, did you even watch the video at all?
It's about the fact that APM is the *last* thing you need to be improving.
Focusing on higher APM when you don't even have the basics down won't do you any good.
Same way in FGs, you being able to react to a 3-frame startup is irrelevant when you react by jumping into it and getting hit. 🗿
Same way in boxing, your punches being faster doesn't matter when you don't even know where to punch.
Justin Wong is a top player, his opponents are also top players, of course that it where reaction time actually starts being important.
Been playing RTS games since around like 1997 and I have to say without the Starcraft/Warcraft 3 campaigns I don't know how I would have learned how to play RTS games. They start you off with limited units and mechanics and build you up over the course of the campaign. It reminds me of Valve's approach to teaching players mechanics in their games, breaking a seemingly complicated task down into multiple smaller and easier to understand parts and then teaching one piece at a time.
I mean, yes, but basically no RTS teaches multitasking. My typical RTS experience is to build up the base, block the enemy raids, build an army and go over the enemy. I've never done these in a multitasking fashion. There is never a pressure to do so.
What he proposes (and I agree) is basically to have a tutorial where you need to do two things at once and failing to do so would fail the tutorial. THE RTS tutorial would be three timers around the map and you'd have to click on each of them when the time is right (one every 10 seconds, another every 7 seconds and another every 11 seconds for example). THAT would actually be an RTS tutorial. I've never seen anything even remotely close to that.
@@GonziHereSC2 and WC3 had campaign missions where you control 2 factions at the same time or get attacked by multiple factions at the same time
@@GonziHereyeah, the original problem is that the Koreans sort of invented the idea of hyper competitive play with StarCraft using techniques like multitasking and build optimization where it was never designed to be that way. That’s what made it so fun back in the day, seeing how they were pushing this game to new limits. RTS then started rolling with all the assumptions they developed without ever slowing down to design an onboarding process for those who weren’t watching pro play. RTS never died, it was just always really niche to begin with. And this was back when PC gaming itself was niche. It will never make candy crush money, so it ended up in everyone’s back drawer. Cool to see microsoft supporting it at least. It can make money, even if it isn’t infinite money.
I really appreciate your relaxed pace in this video. RTS games have always felt super intimidating, even as someone who regularly plays mobas and assorted pvp strategy games. I've always thought the ideas in RTS games seemed really fun though, I'm kinda excited to give them another look armed with some of this info!
How did it go?
The real reason we are spam-rightclicking the ground is because our lizard brains think it will make the units go faster.
It does
Yes, they feel the pressure from up high and speed up their animations
Actually it's for positionings your units, because sometimes the Pathfinding and the slow speed of a unit can be annoying. Repositioning, Going around obstacles, being impatience and control. It Doesn't make them faster, but more agile.
@@PourriGamer I always thought the spam-clicking was a relic from the infamously horrible pathfinding of the Brood War days, when half your units would go the wrong way unless you gave them repeated orders and you could glitch SCVs through mineral fields
@@MB1999uk dragoons and Goliaths were the worst and I still think they're hahaha.
This makes total sense, I played a lot of RTS (Warcraft 1, AOE, etc) but multitasking was never my strong suit so I switched to Dota as soon as it appeared because it was easier to just focus on one hero instead of a whole faction.
Also the teamplay aspect of Dota was really cool since a cohesive team of mediocre players was far better than dispersed team of good players.
21:20 My favorite moments in RTS games have been times where I win because I pulled off a distraction, faked a retreat to bait enemies, or threw my (on paper) less powerful army at a more powerful one only to come out on top because I had an ace up my sleeve. RTS games make you feel like Sun Tzu.
All warfare is based.
My favorite moments is where I trip over my own D and win
Like ignoring a bunch of gold, realizing you have 4k gold in the bank in feudal. Age up, win
The good ol Mongol fake retreat
Play Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle Earth 1 and 2. They’re fantastic. They’re free to download online since it’s been abandoned but they still have a few active modding teams providing regular updates. BFME and Age of Mythology made me fall in love with RTS at a young age. Both great introductions to the genre.
Where can I find them?
I think War of the Ring is also abandonware and can be downloaded for free, it was LOTR rts that came out few months before BFME1, and it was LOTR game made in Battle Realms engine. They are basically the same game when it comes to gameplay, except this one is set in Middle Earth instead of alt-universe feudal Japan period.
While we are at it, did you ever play Battle Realms? Amazing, extremely overlooked and underrated RTS game.
@@JustSomeWeirdo Besides getting used copies of the old CDs, you can't buy them digitally as they're in copyright hell since EAs license to sell Lord of the Rings games has expired.
THEY ARE FREE!?!?!???
Wow! I must find these gems again! They were great fun!
I love this video, have shared it to friends, and I listened well to this. I decided to finally jump back into 1v1 ranked games, I've always been scared of it. I used the scouting, and checked my opponent, saw a rush coming, and prepared appropriately. This meant for once I didn't need to quit early, and the game played out into a nice back and fourth that I eventually won. But I was only able to feel comfortable as I understood from this, that the other player is likely just casual too and building whatever. It was fantastic and I'm keen to play more! , Cheers for this video mate, helped with RTS Anxiety for me!
Finally, an actual good beginner guide to RTS, great job!
WTF. This is one of the best and most encouraging video game videos I've ever seen and you don't even do that normally hahaha. What a twist!
Brilliant! I like how you focus on APM being kind of a red herring - not that it's irrelevant, but that it's kind of the tail wagging the dog. The physical dexterity matters but having enough good decisions to fill each minute of time matters more and the speed will follow with practice. I also like the high concept of the genre you present (a multi-tasking resource-acquisition game) and the structure provided for a new player with an opening sequence (English longbow build) and a method of ending the game (kill villagers/units, add rams). I'm often in the position of teaching games to my friends and I find something like that ("This game is about X. To win, you need Y to happen. To get to Y use method A or B.") works well for me, too. Kudos!
One of my first games were Warcraft 3 and Starcraft, and being a kid, I was very bad at them. As I grew, I found myself being very anxious around the genre, believing that I'm not cut for it. Your video has me doubt that assumption and wanting to try my hand at RTS again.
I *LOVE* strategy.
I think there are 3 things that limit my enjoyment with RTS the most:
1. the... multitasking 💀
yeah, so here's the thing - when I was deep into starcraft 2 for a while, it was pretty cool and I was doing alright but I've noticed _it affected my life_ in a negative way - I've found it harder and harder to focus on just one thing, which is kind of important when my job is programming, you know? is that what ADHD feels like - always multitasking when you don't want to? and yeah, once I stopped playing SC2, my focus-on-one-thing recovered pretty fast, thankfully, but now I'm wary to try games that demand high levels of multitasking :/
an another angle is that the UI makes you constantly look in the minimap corner - this also affected my life and I couldn't just look at one spot without jumping my eyes back and forth sometimes, especially when I felt like I was expressing my skill in some way (is it weird for these RTS things to transfer to other areas of life so easily? idk!)
2. no follow-up after a match ends
somebody beating me on the ladder with a well-executed timing attack is no problem, I'm just going to learn from that and, hey, I've noticed my opponent is not so great at scouting, so I should probably exploit their weakness next ga... wait, that's it - I'm never seeing this opponent ever again?
AoE is much better in this regard in that it actually suggests rematching but 90% of other RTSes mainly have 1v1 matchmaking that then boots you back to the lobby/menu after the game ends, often also depriving you of the ability to chat - WHY? I want to play against _players_ who I can feel are _people_ - how am I supposed to do that in 5 minutes? which leads me to
3. social aspect
what's the point of multiplayer if you don't feel like you're playing against a player? this manifests in 2 ways: players who drill 1 "strategy" and either execute it perfectly and win or get countered or matched fairly and lose because they have no other tricks - this is mostly a problem because of my previous point, IMO, and this is the reason why I dislike it - it's like I'm playing a build order and not a real person; the other way is that RTS involves a lot of actions that hardly affect your opponent and are just a baseline - like controlling you workers. If I wanted to learn to manage workers optimally, I would play singleplayer, what I want is _strategy,_ so it's very odd that this management mini-game is present. AoE is especially awful with this because you'll scout your opponent at like 2-3 minutes in at the earliest and then actual interaction will start only ~5 minutes in, _at least,_ so that's 5 minutes of mostly singleplayer in every single match - why? I'd love to just skip to the good parts that involve _strategy_
tangent: fighting games have similar concepts and they not only fix these "problems" but actually excel at them, which is great
I believe I've tried _ALL_ the RTSes that were shown in the video except Beyond All Reason and 1 other game of that style (Supreme Commander, maybe?); my absolute favourites are Offworld Trading Company and Tooth and Tail (both were shown!) and they totally excel at being strategy games first, management/multitasking later
...problem is, they don't have many players so it's hard to get a 1v1 going and Offworld Trading Company is best at 4 player free-for-all, which... means I've only played OTC once this year :/
still, I've found online friends in communities for those games and it's possible - Tooth and Tail has a tournament with all levels of skill going on right now!
now, about the point of recruiting my _best_ friends to RTS - yeaaaaaah, welllllll... a lot of other problems exist here and RTS is really quite a time sink, so I'm not even sure if I _want_ to throw that onto my friends... but if I did, everyone has already played some RTS and has their favourite - I love Tooth and Tail, my friend likes AoE2, my other friend likes Supreme Commander, my third friend will only play Warcraft 3 custom maps instead of the regular skirmishes and the list goes on... no idea how to get over this hurdle and actually play RTS together - so we mostly end up playing shooters and party games together on rotation and RTS doesn't make the cut :P
Most of the “apm” stuff you do in these games isn’t real gameplay but it’s absolutely necessary to practice it to git gud.
APM is not a problem, it's a symptom. The vast majority of RTSs hyper focus on micro management on multiple levels; from economy to army movement, these titles are purposefully designed for the player to be able to manage most functionalities of the game as well as possessing the tools to improve on those skills even further. While that design philosophy provides users with a lot of creativity and skill expression, it almost promotes and influences extreme micro management, and to improve on that the player must increase the accuracy and speed of their actions and consequentially, that increments the amount of APM players perform the higher the ladder you go, but the main issue with this is that micro gameplay's influence is present on all skill levels, that is why newcomers more often than not get demolished when they first try these games like you mentioned, but it's not because their opponents are pro level individuals, It's because this obsession with micro management in their design creates an extremely deep discrepancy between players on every level, not just in the professional scene.
We can improve the way we see and learn RTSs, absolutely, that is highly beneficial, but the genre does have a problem, and until that issue is addressed, real time strategy games will remain in the state that it is.
I used to play AOE2 in high school a ton. Now im in my late 20s, and I was struggling to get back into the game due to lack of patience. This video was actually my first time learning about build orders, and that was a huge epiphany for me. I've been playing Aoe2 pretty much exclusively now. Having that general guide for the early game helped me feel much less overwhelmed in the Dark Age, and I just wanted to thank you for that. This video is amazing.
My favourite part of this video was presenting the analogy of economy and health, since not only is that a useful way to think about it in terms of attention priority, but also because it's a useful way to gauge how well you played even when you lost, which is IMO critical for maintaining interest long-term. You can't win every game, especially in ranked, but if you have a more controllable goal you can achieve and measure, it takes the sting out of losing
Not only is this a phenomenally comprehensible video for correcting misconceptions, and progressively teaching applicable knowledge for AOE/RTS, I think this is just hands down one of the best informative videos in GENERAL that I've ever watched
Doubly so as I just go into this game yesterday lol
I'm going to be honest, it feels less like this video demonstrates how RTS aren't as difficult to get into as people think and more like it demonstrates that RTS isn't difficult to get into FOR THE REASONS people think. Realizing that multitasking ability is main barrier to entry is pretty much correct, yes, but that really only helps people better express why RTS are still incredibly difficult for them to approach. Having to constantly split you attention between disjointed tasks and remember what and when you need to shift your attention to, while knowing that every second you forget a task is putting you further and further behind in a feedback loop, is in fact really difficult and overwhelming. I don't know that the juggling analogy really holds up that well because when you're juggling, you're only actually focusing on one thing right in front of you, you're not just going to forget one of the balls exists or have to look away at something else.
So I have two things to say to this:
1. Yes, it’s totally fair to say that multiplayer RTS still unfortunately presents a barrier to you if you find it difficult to split your attention. However, being able to simply split your attention two ways is a much much lower skill requirement than what is usually claimed. And I still think that’s important to point out because there are plenty of people who *can* split their attention two ways who might still stay away from RTS because they falsely believe they don’t have the skills to play it. That’s also beside the point that people can, and often do, improve their skills over time. You don’t need to be able to divide your attention 7 ways to have fun playing an RTS. You can set that as a goal for yourself if you really want to, but it’s perfectly legitimate to simply have fun managing 2 things instead.
2. You actually have a lot of leeway for mistakes and suboptimal play at the beginner to intermediate level. Players imagining that they’ve made catastrophic errors because they forgot to do something for a while is just more “RTS so hard” mythmaking that has crept down from the pro scene.
I would also like to add that you don't have to fret about losing. Playing ranked games will eventually put you at a level where other players have the same skill as you. It's not necessary to win all the time to have fun, and losing a dozen games while you get the feel for the mechanics and are eventually paired against players of your level shouldn't detract from your enjoyment of the fun aspects of the game. It's easier said than done, of course, but changing this mindset can enable you to enjoy strategy games (as well as other genres) a lot more.
This video spells out what's been putting me off the multiplayer of RTS-adjacent games like Hearts of Iron and Total War: The singleplayer experience is about pausing and slowing down to make perfect strategic decisions, manage your eco/research optimally, and give each of your units the perfect orders, while multiplayer is all about multitasking, improvising, and adapting. They might as well be two different games, with the latter requiring a skillset that I don't have.
I also found myself preferring Total War for the campaign ‘Strategy’ and during the tactical battles I just turn the speed down to half. Multi tasking just isn’t fun.
You'll do better in the SP too if you apply the MP style.
@@HighLanderPonyYT Doing better at the cost of the fun of it, yes.
You did a good job onboarding me to this vid, at one point i wondered how long this vid was thinking i had watched 20 mins. It was actually at 48 mins. Alot of good information for someone like me who wishes to get into RTS but have found the genre to be quite overwhelming. I've played some games in sc2 vs AI, but i'll try out some different games now as well for flavor and fun
after 23 years of playing RTS's full-time i finally on-boarded myself on how to Actually play them bc i was playing co-op SC2 with my wife after work and got really into the Zagara subfaction that has no hero & only 2 units, the zergling & the scourge (technically 4 but i never build corruptors or abominations). so because 100% of my army was basically suicide attackers & did fixed damage before dying, the only way i could increase the output of my damage was to build and manage my base faster so i could pump out units faster. so i had to learn to shift-queue buildings, how to order all of my workers to hit a vespene geyser before unselecting 3 & then ordering them to mine minerals, i had to learn how to time out my expansions
You have done it! You’ve created a true, beautiful guide for actual beginners. I can finally use this to indoctrinate the rest of my friends into RTS. We are so back gamers
@@colbyboucher6391 Every Korean between the ages of 30 and 50 has played Broodwar. Broodwar is far more demanding and hardcore than Age of Empires or Starcraft 2 let alone Command and Conquer.
"oh but Koreans are built different" no they just didn't have the placebo effect of "this is going to be too hard for me" before they even started playing.
Well said.Its always the very basics that get ignored since people who are experienced give no thought to them beacuse they are on auto
This feels like a breath of fresh air to someone who wants to do something new but was never taught how to breathe
another Duuuude likes RTS games, Let's go :D
I want to add an anecdote:
I've watched a lot of card games and rts games in my upbringing without really playing them myself. (It came for free with my RUclips addiction).
When I finally decided to take a swing at these things I had this distant familiarity with, I was initially put off by them. It was very surprising, because I thought I knew these games. A combination of a lot of information at once curve plus crippling social anxiety made me enjoy both of these genres at my most comfortable, versus AI and campaigns.
In hindsight I think it's a minor shame. Singleplayer can be good, but why not have both?
When I got the opportunity to play Magic: the Gathering in person, I was afraid it would be like my experience with the digital version, MtG: Arena. Not at all! In person, I could engage with the game on *my time* and *my terms*.
In the digital version, due to both the timer and an opponent you can't communicate with, you feel rushed and pushed into an environment you're not aware of.
In person, I ask "what does that do?" and then get an answer, maybe even why this or that part of the card is good, etc.
In the digital game, I get the entire card put on my screen like "here, read this paragraph" and then the card goes down onto the board the next second. I don't want to waste my opponent's time, either, so I'll admit that often I'd resume playing only having skimmed what I was playing against! It felt like you were expected to know all of these hundreds of cards from the get-go, which made me think "this isn't for me".
This same feeling of being rushed, of being expected to understand everything from the get-go with a timer looming over you has also applied to RTS games. If you join straight into a real game, you'll be overwhelmed with new concepts that you can't take on one at a time, specifically because of the genre being about the many simultaneous, smaller things.
Take the juggling example. It's like if you asked a question about one of the balls you were juggling while it's in the air. Before you're even done with that question or before you can get an answer, the ball will have hit the ground.
You need that environment where you can learn it all on your time and your terms.
In both instances, it feels like you're supposed to know something that you don't and if you don't, you're pushed along anyways, ready or not. It's like being dragged through sections you're not done with and makes you want to jump ship, fearful of getting even more lost and overwhelmed. You feel unwelcome, despite communities wanting their games to thrive.
But these games are not unassailable. They're not simply impossible for my plebian brain to wrap around. It's all about having the right learning environment and taking everything step by step. Weird it took me so long to figure that out here after already knowing about the zone of proximal development.
Thank you for this video. ❤
This is a beautiful comment
The Game Replay forums were a rich learning resource in early CoH. Endless tutorials on meta tactics. Replays would have comments go on for pages and get 'wubbed' which is a like.
The atmosphere was exciting and convivial. But you have to accept that the game is complex. I think it is normal for most people to play the campaign before going online.
The expansion campaigns didn't get played. I just used the new units and factions in multiplayer.
Because the multiplayer aspect is infinitely more deep. I would ace any campaign without breaking a sweat.
The ladder could be cruel mistress. But I played random 1v1 before moving to 2v2, any faction.
But it's difficult playing 2v2 without voice chat and you're teammate can feel unsupported and quit early.
1v1 is very intense and personal though. GG was invented to temper steamy heads and garner sportsmanship.
There's never been a more competitive rts scene.
When coh2 released all the casters dropped coh1. But the coh1 players moved onto World of Tanks instead. Some came back to coh1. Only 1 guy casts coh1 now. He's called Angrade.
But the tournaments came thick and fast back in 2008.
Anyway. You can't complain that complicated game is complicated. That's what some people enjoy. A very high challenge like WoT or competitive CoH.
I noticed sometimes people release CoH videos where they play co-op against the computer. It's very chill. They aren't that great. They don't play it all the time or anything. It's just a fun game to play on medium against the cpu and see the fantastic visuals.
The fun of the game is the controls are actually very tight and responsive and the rich meta game that anyone can enjoy if they simply like looking down and little people and giant explosions.
The art direction is extremely accomplished. A soft sepia tone covers everything. Lighting is put to good use in night maps, using street lights and fog and such to really add atmosphere. Sometimes it transitions into night.
It's a very evocative game that feels very cinematic.
I don't think any other rts had even begun to approach it's majesty.
I'd like to say that its a real shame that paragraphs have become the norm in trading card games, early days yugioh was too simple and I think we had a bit of a nice middle ground for a time but right now there's way too much going on without stopping to read a novel every time you want to play, so people end up just buying the championship decks and it all gets so stale, I imagine its like this in other games but I think Mtg somewhat escapes this because of all the formats that can co-exist so people can chill out and not require the top 100$ and up cards.
Whole ass essay bro
I'm only 30 minutes into this video and I love it! Your point about beginner guides not being very "beginner" friendly made me feel like I wasn't the only one and made me feel like I cn actually play and enjoy these games! Thank you so much good sir!
This video got me into aoe4 (and rts) and it's quickly become one of my favorite games. been playing 4-6 games a day as japanese for a while and having a ton of fun. It has everything i was missing from the 100 city builders i was playing. Thanks for this video it was exactly what i needed to see down to the thumbnail. Love your other content as well, cheers.
I have to admit, RTS is by far my least favorite genre, and I think you're right that it's mostly due to terrible onboarding.
I remember I tried playing Starcraft 2 at one point and I wasn't able to graduate out of the Practice League. Hell when I play Stellaris, which is much more of a 4X and has the ability to pause and give out orders when playing in singleplayer, I still have never once won a single fight against the AI on any difficulty as soon as someone inevitably declares war on me. There's just something about it turning into an RTS for those fights that suddenly makes me have no idea what I'm doing or why I'm losing.
And I think the issue is almost exactly the same in Fighting games, which I did my own little thing on a bit ago. Fighting Games often have either no tutorials, or if they do, the tutorial amounts to just telling the player to hit a button 5 times to do a move they don't understand and then moves on before they can possibly internalize that information. Then you dive into Online play, get stomped, and never want to play again.
And the thing that both of these genres have in common is that the core fundamental gameplay is wildly different from what most games are these days, namely something with some variety of 3D or 2D movement in first or third person. So like you said there is a lot of transferrable skills once you learn your first game like that, that applies to all future games like that. Hell on the most fundamental level, even playing something like a 2D Mario game probably gives you at least some intuition for say playing a 3D FPS, because you have some understanding of what controls will relate to movement and how you navigate around obstacles with basic movement and jumping.
But absolutely none of those skills will translate at all to how the fundamental gameplay works in an RTS or Fighting Game. And the other unique downside is that they are very active genres. Like for instance obviously playing a Mario game won't teach you how to play a card game either in any meaningful capacity, but card games are typically turn-based. There's no reaction-time based gameplay in most of them, so there's no stress to learning how to draw and play cards. But when you add back in that real-time element, I think that a lot of players (like myself) panic at the thought of having to learn how everything works and end up just fumbling around uselessly not learning anything.
Add on top of that the fact that since there can be a lot going on at once, it can be hard to quantify exactly what went wrong. In a shooter, if you're missing most of your shots, you know that you probably need to improve your aim. If you're dying out in the open, you probably need to take cover. If you fall into a pit in a platformer, then you needed to jump at a different time. Many games have very intuitive feedback that helps a player improve naturally without needing direct instruction. But with an RTS having so many moving parts, you might get steamrolled and think? "Maybe I needed to build more defensively?" when in reality you were already playing defensively and you just got out-economied by your opponent, which eventually resulted in one massive giant attack that overwhelmed your defenses. And that's without even getting into the nuance of like not managing your units well or prioritizing the wrong resources early on and whatnot. I think this is why people fall back on the whole APM thing. It's hard to quantify when your strategy was bad, but you can quantify your APM, so clearly if I just work on playing faster, then I can get more done and be more gooder!!
All that to say, I might check out AoE4 later. While I am still deathly afraid of the RTS genre due to my past experiences, I will admit it has been a while since I've actually even tried an RTS game, and this video has made me thing that maybe I just need a change of mindset and a chiller atmosphere to really figure things out.
stellaris's combat system is literally a bunch of numbers mashing into eachother and whoever has a higher number wins lol
The secret to most RTS RIGHT at the beginning when you're wondering why did I lose is usually you didn't build enough units especially workers. If you build 300 minerals worth of units you'll usually lose to someone that builds 600 minerals worth of units. At a higher level the difference between say 900 Minerals worth of units and 1200 minerals is much less significant than the first example even though you still missed on a lot of opportunities to build units compared to your opponent and that can be mitigated by things like building unit counters, terrain, army positioning, micro etc etc.
Also I'd disagree on most games being intuitive to why you lost. Like I think MOBAs (one of the most popular genres there is) especially ones low on skillshots you frequently lose the game and have no idea why at all even after spending thousands of hours playing said MOBA.
Same boat man. And well said. I'm not even interested in online play im literally struggling to beat the Brood War tutorial on campaign and desperately trying to understand wtf this game needs me to do. I just want to learn the story but fucking hell these games have an impenetrable skill floor
I wonder if age has anything to do with this. For one, younger people may not be used to using mouse&keyboard computers, like millennials. But more importantly, we would skim through the game's manual or watch someone else play, and learn a lot of the basics that way. Also, back then playing over LAN was the main way to play other people, internet connections were not as good.
@@ZyklonBeast12 What precisely are you struggling with? Have you figured out you can make the flying building land?
This is the RTS guide I've wanted for years but could never find. I eventually cracked into the genre myself this year playing C&C campaigns, but this is still a big help and makes me feel much better about going into online sometime. I never once blamed the genre itself for my difficulties getting into it, but it was definitely not helped by the feeling 'beginner' guides gave me about assumptions they were making about the player skill. Glad you cracked the code on why I had that feeling!
As a long time RTS fan this video was exceptionally helpful! I learned all the RTS controls/strategy when I was in my early teens so I didn't have an easy explanation for how these games were fun to other people. This will help me alot in converting people!
The ending was a complete surprise since this is the first video I've seen from you.
Took notes, saw immediate benefit and better play! THANK YOU!!!!
This is a great video. I love how you saw a gap in the content and are filling it with your own unique perspective, that's something I aspire to.
I have always really loved WATCHING RTS but I almost NEVER enjoy playing them. The experience is so stressful and for some reason, I find it impossible to have fun while losing. In other games, there are little successes that give you something to hold onto (like maybe I got a kill or two, or managed to do a cool play or something) so even if you lose in the end, it doesn't feel like it was all a waste. People always say to just focus on the little improvements and find enjoyment in that, but it just feels like it boils down to "Oh well, I just lost my 10th game in a row, but at least I did most of my build order ok before it all got destroyed."
I need some advice because I really enjoy the strategy aspects of the genre, and I watch more RTS than any other genre, but every time I feel inspired to play it, I lose my motivation after a handful of games.
be aggressive. learn a few "cheesy" build orders and go ham to 1. win more 2. your losses will teach you how to defend against aggressive builds 3. you will be interacting with your opponent more which will tech you the game mechanics faster
Mood.
Losing to PvP matches in Multiplayer is so much more demoralizing than other genres. Makes ya less willing in continuing to play more and learn.
As someone who has loved RTS since I was a child and still play RTS games, I never realized how unfriendly or hard to learn RTS is sometimes, not only is this enlightening but also very fun and hopeful? I've only ever had negative opinions told to me about the future of RTS and even told people bad things about the future while playing RTS, and hearing your takes has given me a bit of fresher love for the genre, I never lost my love for RTS. But I do really love this video and I'm gonna go forward trying to be more hopeful about the future of RTS as well.
Thank you for introducing and easing entry for the new players.
I think this is a really great lesson for developers about player feedback. You really can't just take players at their word, you have to understand what they *mean* but don't always have the vocabulary to say. Players say something like "the game is too hard" because that's what they perceive, but the developer has to understand if the game really is too hard, or if the real problem is just that the learning curve is too steep. Since RTS is a genre that really thrives on depth and complexity, it may be a real mistake to make them easier overall. You may actually want to go in the other direction and make your game *more* complex in order to appeal to the quirks of the genre, but then offset that with better onboarding.
Incidentally, fighting games are the same way. Not really about lightning quick execution (though the barrier for that is a bit higher than RTS games), but about underlying principles that are invisible to new players who unfortunately get tossed into the deep end too often.
This is by far, the greatest video i've watched about age of empires (or even rts), you really captures the how-tos and the fun of rts especially at the lower level. Back to the topic of "carried knowledge", the knowledge from this video can actually be applied to other rts games like warcraft, rise of nations, empire earth, or especially to other aoe games. Good job man.
Cheat codes are literally the reason I didn't give up on aoe as a kid. The game was so hard for my 9-year-old brain to grasp in its normal mode, but by typing in cheat codes I could go blow up the AI's base every now and then to "even it out", giving me a chance to actually *read* what each unit/building/technology did IN GAME rather than reading it out of a pamphlet before-hand and trying to remember what it said while I'm trying to play.
Welcome to the community, dude!! So happy to have you and thanks for this video!
I don't think, the onboarding is the actual problem of RTS. It's the multitasking itself.
Lots of players just want to build for a while then do some scouting, then some attacking and then build for a while again. And that normally is what the singleplayer campaign gives them. The moment they realize that they have to do the short attention span loop only spending seconds doing each of the things, they go back to singleplayer.
There is no reason why you couldn't just be able to set a desired count of villagers that should be maintained in times of peace. Then designate a zone for housing where villagers build new homes as needed. Then designate a few resource gathering locations and maybe priorities and free villagers take care of the gathering after the gathering spots have been built. The game could warn you when there are no gathering spots designated for some resource and while you aren't looking at the scout, it's defensive setting could make it actively avoid getting in range of enemy fire...
There are plenty of ways to make the mandatory multitasking while absolutely nothing actually happens go away and let the player just give some orders and watch their fulfillment in a chill experience which only gets stressful when there actually is a reason for it getting stressful - an action by the opposing force which you are hopefully able to correctly respond to.
I don't think that all RTS should abandon the focus on multitasking and micromanaging. But it would be nice if there would be something between Timberborn and StarCraft which is an actual RTS with direct unit control but doesn't focus on multitasking and has some unit-level intelligence and quality of life features for single taskers like me.
The multitasking doesn’t have to be stressful, you can take it at your own pace. I do this with a lot of games these days. I don’t want to be top 500 or whatever so I just play at a nice relaxed pace, I have my own gameplay loop and timings that I go through and it’s very relaxing and works very well because it gives you much more time to make better decisions.
Mobas are just that, strategy games with the "maintenance" automated - you can switch your attention between "resource gathering" or fighting, and thats it - Dota being heavier on the strategy side, lol being more on just the fighting, only missing base building but you cant have it all.
@@Kwiwikwem all of those problems are solved in every RTS I’ve ever played by using patrol instead of move. Also in AoE units on aggressive stance will automatically move to attack enemy units that come into range.
@@InceyWincey I'll have to look for a patrol setting or something similar in some of the other RTS games I've dropped, thanks for the tip.
@@Kwiwikwem most RTS games usually also have a guard mode to make military units stay in one place and attack anything that attacks them. Red Alert had patrol and guard mode and that came out in 1996 so I’d be surprised if more modern titles don’t have something similar.
Can you make a cut of just the tutorial parts of the video so I can send them to my friends? Having the tutorial parts in smaller chunks might be better then sending a full hour video to them.
As an AoE vet, these are some of the BEST tutorials I have seen for new RTS players. Amazing job and great video.
You also have convinced me to start playing PVP again after years of AI only.
Dude it has timestamps in the timeline. Learn how to youtube.
@@longbow857 No need to be rude. Yes I understand how chapters works. Maybe you should re-read my comment if you didn't understand why I was asking for shorter videos.
@@capras12 I simply replied. It's up to you to decide it's rude. Still I find your first comment a foolish request, just because of friends who aren't used to non tiktok videos anymore? Alright another tip then: place the video at the part wich you want them to see and right click the screen for ''copy url from this point''. Then they don't have to fear skipping to the point in the video you want them to see. All these options at your disposal, but you want the maker of content to match your needs? Strange.
@@longbow857 what's your problem? Why are you injecting needless insults and drama?
I think it should be understandable that a NEW player might find an hour and a half video tutorial daunting. Smaller segments make the tutorials and game much more approvable for new players. Since they haven't already watch the video, they might not understand they don't need to watch the whole video in one sitting. I would love to be able to send chunks that they can progressively worth through as they play more.
I would appreciate it if you would lose the rude and condescending tone.
@@longbow8572nd opinion here, you're being rude for no reason. Why?
Easily the best ACTUAL beginner guide for RTSs I've ever seen. And despite the fact that you use AoE4 to explain all of the concepts, it all translates to the other RTSs I know like SC2 and WC3. I used to play AoE2 and Galactic Battlegrounds all the time as a kid and now twenty years later I've tried to get into the PvP aspect of AoE2/4, but have had issues. Really SC2 on launch was the only time I felt relatively confident in my ability to play against other players and even then it was due to cheesey strats (Protoss cannon turtling followed by void ray spam). Definitely wanna go give AoE4 another go now, especially with the Byzantines and Jeanne d'Arc being added.
You should give Age of Mythology a try, it's like AOE but you have myth units which really spice up the gameplay, i don't know if you should bother with the MP but the campaign and the Titans expansion are really fun
AoE2 has been a huge part of my childhood, so I learned a lot of things, like unit counters and what is efficient, what is not. So after not playing it for 10-15 years, I did a few bot games to get the rust off and jumped into a lobby. I got randomed as Turks. I already knew, Turks need to secure gold, since their food based trash units are not great (lack of upgrades). But what they do have is, a decent foot archer line. So in Feudal, I made a large group of Archers and went against Green, who was very close. Green made some scouts but Archers just own Feudal age, no contest. And positioned higher on a hill... is just great. I got Castle Age sooner, got Crossbow and I outranged his Town Center, which was game over for him. But this was a big FFA match.
So then I took all Green's gold, I went North and beat the Vikings with Cannons. Eventually it came down to a 1v1, Turks vs Goths. I started spamming Jannisarries and Hand Cannoneers but I quickly found out that the Huskarl spam is OP. I should have got Champions instead. Anyways, it was a great game and that, after not playing it for 15 years, was a huge win for me. And I don't even care for APM, I'm not going to Carpal Tunnel Syndrome for a game... :P
I'm a Korean gamer who grew up in early 2000s during the dawn of E-sport. You're right in a sense that the raw action-per-minute is not strictly necessary to become a good RTS player, but you still need very good multitasking skill and high concentration to become a good player. In a typical AoE2 game, you need to follow the build order, spawn villagers, lure bores, control your scout, wall off or fight the enemy scout, build walls, build farms, docks, semd fishing ships, etc. All this are happening simultaneously everywhere in a huge map and you need to pay attention to everything. It doesn't mean you need 400 apm, but managing everything with low apm still requires very good multitaking and perhaps even better management skill since you need to make every action count. This has nothing to do with strategy, it's a skill requirement for RTS players.
There was the days when Starcraft pros used to win tournaments with creative strategies and out-of-box thinking (like Boxer) in early 2000s, after which came the new generation players who mastered the well established build order with super high APM and perfect multitasking (e.g. Flash) and the matches became more about who makese the bigger army faster with less mistakes and less about actual strategies. This is the direction where RTS is going in general and why people avoid it. For example in AoE2 the fastest way to become better in game is to just learn a few best build orders (e.g. fast castle knight rush) and learn how to execute them without too much mistakes (i.e. good multitasking). Ignoring APM and multitasking will free you from the pain but you'll probably remain in low elo forever.
Re: APM:
Fun fact, the most general consensus in terms of APM in AoE 2 is that speed is a function of game knowledge and strategy choice.
The less time you spend dawdling and choosing what to do, the faster you'll implement your choices into the game.
I think the reason why apm is considered such an important thing is because for a long time the RTS scene was dominated by SC and SC2, two very very very micro intensive games where players needed to keep their fingers warm for the moments of high intensity gameplay, so they have absolutely bonkers APM averages and insane peaks, but if you actually take the eAPM average (that is, effective actions, and not random spam that doesn't achieve anything), the actions per minute counter suddenly gets slashed at least by half, usually more. SC players have historically been twitchy as hell when it comes to motion so people got this idea in their heads that RTS games are all like that.
I've won AoE2 games at 1300 elo by literally patrolling units into the enemy's base while just making sure I had enough food to keep making light cavalry, focusing entirely on eco management.
You hit the nail. 99.99% of the AoE2 playerbase isn't gonna micro like Hera. If your opponent is microing his army into your base, chances are he's neglecting his own base in the process. Literally all you have to do is patrol a few knights or scouts into his base and watch him panic.
That's because AoE is mostly a macro game. There isn't much room for micro, relative to games like SC2.
There's tons of room for micro, macro is simply more important. SC2 has a mostly 'solved' macro because it has much less room for it, which allows for the players to focus much more on micro. It's not that AoE 2 doesn't have room for micro, it's that SC2 is focused on it, rather.
As someone whose earliest gaming memories go back to Age of Empires, it brings me a lot of joy to see how much joy it's still able to give to new players 2 decades later. AoE is also as a series is such an interesting one given that 2, 3, 4 & Mythology are all great, but play drastically differently from one another in ways that make them each fun & interesting in their own right.
I've actually been having a fairly fun time playing Age of Mythology with a friend against each other relatively recently since they've got into it heavily in the last year, and whilst I'd played it before I've never gone into much depth with it, but the points raised in this video; the first games we played I was trounced as whilst the transferrable skills I had helped, numbers of villagers per resource & age up requirements are different so with no solid build order I couldn't keep up, but once I was able to navigate the early game, the late game (which the guides my friend sent me hadn't covered) I was able to outperform my friend since my past experience with AoE helped with multitasking & adapting, especially when playing Greeks, the most AoE-esque faction.
I do need to get back into AoE4 though; I burned myself out a bit in the first few months after it came out by getting all the masteries completed, so will be sure to use this plus the DLC as an excuse to revisit it :P
The only RTS game series I know that explicitly teaches the player about multitasking is Pikmin of all things.
idk why its always so funny to remember pikmin is an RTS
very good ones at that, despite how different they are to others
I mean, it's Nintendo, so that tracks :P
I wish more ppl played the old Dawn of War games (or that they got a remake/remaster).
I love that the game forces you naturally to always explore the map and expand (because of how resources work).
And I also like that that in that game, when I hear the warning that I'm under attack, by the time I go check, half my units are NOT dead or almost dead lol.
DoW was great for fact that economy was easy: two resources, two resources buildings, most time spent on exploring and fighting. Just like it's tabletop daddy 😁
This is really the best video that I could find in the recommendations.
Not so long ago I decided to master the genre in pvp, but all these videos for beginners really mean that you have already had experience with real players.
This video really inspires you not to give up studying the wonderful RTS genre, and also answers many questions.
I haven't watched the whole video yet so I can't comment on your teachings but THANK YOU SO MUCH for dismaying the claims that APM and competitive gaming are what "killed" RTS games, I have spent years telling mutuals that notion was complete nonsense. The future of RTS is brighter than ever and I'm so happy people are finally realizing again what made the genre so captivating while learning the common talking points about it's "death" were complete falsehoods.
I've been sitting through the entire tutorial section despite having played RTS for many years (tho I never played an AOE game), and man, you're good. And by that I mean you're good at keeping the attention of the watcher, and I really felt like I learned things from this. Plus I think you really managed to get the source of the problem (onboarding).
Like the youngsters says, "W video amirite"
16:00 This is why Starcraft 1 has one of the best campaigns for new RTS players. I played this thing as a zoomie trying to see what all the fuss was about with RTS games. I had my snot kicked in by other RTS games before, but Starcraft 1 was the first RTS game to explain to me the difference between a "move" command and an "attack move" command. Ironically, this made me way better at RTS games that weren't Starcraft (cough cough, OpenRA, cough cough) because I could finally engage my meatgrinder infantry into battles by ordering them to "attack move" and shoot back at the meat grinder rather than just move into the meatgrinder and die.
I've been trying to learn RTSs for a few months now. Someone told me to start with the Starcraft series because it's good for beginners like you said. I haven't really been able to even beat the tutorial or the 2nd level. First one I finally got lucky but yeah. It's like crazy difficult so far. Then some dude on reddit said its the WORST game for beginners and that the first guy must have been trolling.. I don't know if this genre is simply out of my skillset or if I just need to find an easier game
@@ZyklonBeast12 That guy said SC1/BroodWar is bad for beginners because it requires the most APM to play against professionals. I think learning BW is fine for beginners. But, if you want to play online, it would be better to practice against the AI opponent than play the campaign. The campaign doesn't teach multitasking (like what the video explains).
@@ZyklonBeast12Starcraft is the faster rts if it can be called that (specially sc2) that requires high APM to play it in multiplayer.
The AI sucks so you can play it slowly in single player.
I think the age of empires 2 campaign is really low stakes and dare i say boring
You would probably find that one much easier to play
Although maybe not as engaging
Starcraft 1 campaign has Brutal difficulty curves though
@@ZyklonBeast12 What got you stuck in the Starcraft campaign exactly? The objectives in the first few levers are designed around core skills you need to complete the rest of the game, such as training marines, engaging in basic combat, and maneuvering troops.
This is a very good video, and I deeply appreciate it, as someone who has, in the past enjoyed RTS games, but hasn't played one in a long time (I think Homeworld 2 was probably my last foray).
I think the aims of this video are broader than just being strictly an on-boarding video, so the structure of it makes sense in that context. But I feel like a companion video to this that serves as an actual lesson for beginners would be fantastic.
When you asked what the most basic skill in RTS games is, I couldn't actually remember. And while "multi-tasking" is a fine answer in abstract, it's a little like saying "moving and shooting" is the basic FPS skill. It's not wrong, but using 2 control sticks and the trigger button, or WASD and the mouse to move and aim and fire is what that skill ACTUALLY is. Using control groups to effectively assign tasks and juggle multiple objectives at once is really the answer, and while that did come back to me, the practical example at 41 minutes is the first time a beginner would see this explained in reasonable detail.
Again, the video is not merely an on-boarding video for one particular RTS, it's an overview of the issue with how to approach on-boarding in the genre at large, and so getting to that essential skill halfway through the 85 minute video makes complete sense. What I would be fascinated to see is how you could make an actual beginner's guide teaching this skill in a... I dunno 7-minute video.
Perhaps this is something you've already done, or even mention later. I had to stop the video and get going to bed, if you do get to that I'll happily put in an edit after I come back to finish viewing.
I think the analogy to using the controls to facilitate moving, aiming and shooting simultaneously in an FPS, and how managing and assigning tasks to control groups is that same kind of basic skill in an RTS is one that REALLY hits home. Putting people in the mindset that honing THAT skill is the best way to quickly access the depth of the game would do loads of heavy lifting in getting people into the genre.
After nearly 2 decades out of the genre, this video has encouraged me to give some of the games on my backlog a go. I imagine a brief "How to Play Practically Any RTS Game" video would reach even more people.
AMAZING video!
I am one of those players that always admired RTS games but never got into because of the APM deal. Recently I thought again about getting into Age II and saw some of those tutorials featured in your video, it was enough to put me out of the game again.
But thank you, now I'm actually motivated to try it for real 😁
my personal experience with rts is more as a sandbox than a proper genre. some of the first video games I ever played were R:TW and C&C3, and being very young I sucked ass at them. and though I had very little desire to improve, I loved the visuals, the army/base building, and the process of controlling a lot of units and watching them tear through the map. as a result, for basically over a decade I just set all my rts games to easy, ignored the multiplayer, and just messed around in them. it’s only in the past couple years that I’ve even attempted to improve at these games, and even then I have no desire to be competitive; just to be competent enough to have fun in somewhat challenging matches with friends. and whenever I do go into random multiplayer matches, I still get rolled in minutes with no chance to do anything interesting or fun. I mostly play total war “hybrid strategy” and modern wargame rts titles these days, but after this I might just have to give aoe another shot. lol
Ooo boy, an hour+ long video essay on a topic i know very little about!
Bout to put this on in the background as I zone out doing some repetitive task
Thank you for making my workday much more entertaining
I was so sure you'd use AoEII as your example, but I got SO happy, when you revealed it was AoEIV. Can't explain how good the game is, thank you!
Legit my favourite game. I've had so much fun playing AoE4
@@CloudCuckooCountry WARNO is my current RTS of choice, but I have had AoE4 since day 1 on gamepass and not played more than an hour or so. Will give it another try after watching your video!
the book reviewer plot twist at the end destroyed me bu it looks interesting
A furry book reviewer, even.
When you said that AOE 4 was "The best beginner's RTS" my first thought was "Have you ever heard about this obscure indie game called Warcraft 3?".
To be fully clear, I had never touched AOE 4. I had played quite a bit of AOE 2, 3 and AOM. So I can't really tell if this game is as good at, well, explaining things as WC3. Because my God, Warcraft is good, and I mean REALLY good at this. Prologue and the first Arthas campaign work like a glorified tutorial, and I firmly believe that this is probably the best implementation of "first time playing" sort of tutorial in the whole genre. If even four-years-old me without any prior experience in real-time strategies could handle it, I think anybody could get a good grasp of what the game is like without any additional tutoring from a meatbag beside you.
I know that it is kinda off-topic, but I just wanted to mention that if graphics are not an issue, WC3 ought to be at least a good contender for a "Baby's first RTS" out there, both since it has a great tutorial and that you can find it's DNA in a lot of other RTS to this day
Got to agree, Warcraft 3 is my favourite RTS ever. Giant Grant Games recently did a video going over just how good the campaign is. I think that having a good campaign that not only serves as a tutorial but also gets the player invested in the story is a perfect entry point for a new player.
Yayyy, made a really well-paced video that may inspire me to look into the community a bit more. I'm excited for more RTS games like Natural Selection with a "commander" influencing and commanding real players. Games that make you feel part of something bigger motivate me more than any dopamine joyride or drip-feed that I see many modern (corporately designed) games try to be.
Hihi from the stone age. My first RTS was Dune 2, and I ABSOLUTELY LOATHE multitasking. Yeah, you're right and it's entirely possible to learn some [very basic] multitasking [that won't help you against a passing papa smurf], problem is, there are people who enjoy OTHER aspects of the game. I can keep up with the chaos if I strain myself enough, but [aside from being much harder than you say it is] it's not fun at all - it's draining. When the game ends, all I'm feeling is how tired I am, which may be remedied by mild satisfaction if I win, or exacerbated by humiliation (because I KNOW all that shit is actually super easy!) if I lose. The thing about juggling is that if you start thinking instead of acting/reacting, you INSTANTLY drop [almost] everything.
I'm like that too. That's why I poured hundreds of hours into Northgard (which is by no means a simplistic RTS, the meta can get plain monstruous) and steered clear of Starcraft. That's why even though AoE seems great, I never got into it. I'm okay with multitasking that comes from actual decision-making, but not with multitasking that comes from lack of automation.
Example from AoE: why do I need to manually queue up villagers in city centers? Why can't I just have a "keep producing villagers" button I can toggle on and off? What does it bring in terms of game experience to have to check that queue and repeatedly click on some icon to make sure it never goes empty?
My stance is pretty simple: if I'm very likely to have to do something, then make that thing as straightforward as possible, and possibly provide an opt-out for advanced players so everybody's happy.
It's like openings/build orders. Why not just make it an actual part of the gameplay, rather than having us follow some list on some reddit post or whatever? The best tutorial is the one you didn't realize was there all along.
Or if it's simpler, just expose a list of initial configurations when we're still in the lobby, and have us start with some pre-built base (or at least make it one of the game modes). Just like Netflix has a "Skip Intro" option specifically because going through it again and again becomes repetitive, why couldn't RTS have one too ^^?
RTS games don't need a revolution to attract more players, the fundamentals are good (though it's always great when games try to refresh a formula). They need to think more about QoL and about which actions it is really crucial to have the player performing (core gameplay loop), and what others could be hidden behind some "advanced mode" option. That kind of idea has been floating around for a while, but it always encountered some substantial gatekeeping.
I like watching RTS games being played well and I like learning about them, but I hate actually playing them. The multitasking isn’t fun whatsoever.
I don’t think there’s anyway to fix this due to the ‘real time’ design. They are actually ‘tactical action’ games due to the juggling required and unit control. Strategy is only a small part of them.
@@ywenpI agree 100% most RTS games are like ritalin simulators it’s not really about strategy most of the time. The games emphasize an impossible skillset, micromanaging dozens of units and buildings from a relatively tiny viewport. This squeezes the strategy out of it.
Total War is an exception because there’s a small amount of units under your control and combat has a slow pace so you have a chance to see stuff and react to it.
Close Combat games are similar to Total War and have almost excruciatingly slow movement due to how much range and how fragile units are. This gives room for strategy to breathe.
I agree! The reason I learn hotkeys and whatever is to streamline the most irritating part of RTS which is for me when a battle kicks off, you want to watch it but you realised your economy need attention or you need to queue up replacement units for the ones dying in the fight you want to watch and enjoy so you get this awkward screen switch of anywhere from a couple of seconds if you bothered to get good at it or 30 seconds if you don't have a clue.
I COULD play better and split my attention between my unit and base but I just don't want to.
They are Billions has this solved for PvE at least. A PAUSE button. Such a game improver.
Honestly, you had me at "APM has diminishing returns".
One of the things I didn't know about the human mind before I started playing video games is how intertwined our concept of "optimization" is with magical thinking.
When you play an MMORPG or indeed any kind of game that features ways to customize your character and/or playstyle, there will invariably be a discussion on which choices are best for every situation you might encounter, and invariably a community of the actual SUPER nerds (whom regular nerds would beat up and steal their lunch money if they didn't also rely on their ability to destroy the balance of any numerical system) will calculate which options are superior. And then everyone else will just copy them, usually without even questioning how MUCH more superior those options are.
If a specific build results in a 4% increase in damage per second over the previously accepted build, people will flock to it, regardless of how taxing it is to play.
The people who make these are generally the equivalents of pro players (Either actual PvP pros or huge raiding guilds competing for world firsts or other records) or just random math nerds whom may not even play the game at a pro level but just sees creating the most optimal build as a fun math challenge. In either case they could not care less about how good your APM would need to be to play the build, or if it's enjoyable to do so.
Thus it's taken quite a long time for people to actually try to codify more ergonomic builds that do less damage but are more fun to use, and I feel this kind of ties into the same issue as with RTS.
Yeah exactly. Improving your APM does give you better results, but after about 80-100APM the improvement is so marginal that it's really not worth it for the average player, especially when improving other things gives way way results at that level
RTS professionals play at high APM because at the top top top top top level they're maximising every relevant skill anyway, so they might as well maximise APM too
I think part of that magical thinking is feeling like doing something, anything, is better than doing nothing, even if you're doing something unproductive, or worse still, counterproductive. Ex. detouring down every side road when driving because you keep moving, even if the trip takes just as long as it would have sitting in traffic on the shorter route.
@@beowulf_of_wall_st No it really really doesn’t. There’s no such thing as an RTS player who “doesn’t waste actions”. And nobody can individually micro 100 soldiers. Intermediate players do not play these games at absurd speeds. They just have better knowledge and multitasking than beginners. If you don’t find it fun, that’s fine, not everyone finds everything equally fun, but don’t pretend that the reason you don’t find it fun is because RTS players play the game to a level of perfection beyond reality
I needed this video so much. For the longest time I’ve been looking for a video to help me learn the very basics to get into any rts because frankly I have a bunch in my library that I never got around to playing because there were no vids like this one. Thank you, amazing vid!
I watch this video every time I get frustrated and feel like quitting playing rts. It helps every time ❤
I'm going to try the final battle for the gdi campaign again now WITHOUT the tib bomb!
Wouldn't multitasking fall directly under apm? The juggling analogy is a perfect parallel here, if you cannot move fast enough to catch the balls falling, then it's impossible for you to catch them, regardless of how much you can plan in your mind. There's a sort of wall there, a minimum requirement of speed that you can't do anything without. Strategy and planning become completely irrelevant when your opponent has sent an army to you before you've made a unit.
Yes, but the narrative of "200apm" is absurdly false. Note the player highlighted there 'Chariot Rider' who was winning games with an average of 45 apm. 45! That's less than ONE action per second!
So yeah, I would say you require a minimum apm of like... 30. But that's achievable for anyone.
Multitasking only “falls under apm” in the sense that yes doing two tasks requires more actions than one task, but all that shows is that “apm” is a bad way of conceptualising what a player is actually doing. You’re not going to get units out faster by spam-clicking, and you don’t need to be a 7-way multitasking god of the game to have fun. Just like you don’t need to be able to juggle 7 balls to be considered a skilled juggler. The point I’m trying to make is that splitting your attention is the skill the game is testing
Like, if apm really made strategy irrelevant, how do you think it’s possible for someone to beat a master-level StarCraft 2 player with 1/5th of the apm?
Here's a fun exercise to consider when you "think" having a 200+ APM is needed to "be good". Look at a "high APM" player, and if this average is achieved just by spam clicking a node without actually changing the overall action, or having any outcome, I want you to _quarter_ that average. Not half. Quarter. Because that's how they inflate the APM to make it look like they're doing something, when in actual fact they're doing nothing but waiting for a point in their build order to be reached.
If making your movement node dance a few inches and wearing your mouse's buttons down is needed to be "godlike" at RTS, why is that not included in the beginner guides or race/age/degenerate overviews? Seriously, pretty much every high skilled content player in an MMO mashes those buttons faster the more stressed they get, but it's still going to be three seconds before anything actually gets registered.
Most of the "flurry" of actions comes from queue building, or switching from bookmarked spots back and forth. The only time physically making actions faster may matter is during micro heavy army fights, and even then, you still can effectively just be making mistakes that much faster. A bad plan with a smoking keyboard is still going to get demolished by a player who knows what they're doing.
And besides, you're forgetting something.
*"There's a sort of wall there, a minimum requirement of speed that you can't do anything without. Strategy and planning become completely irrelevant when your opponent has sent an army to you before you've made a unit."*
_When does mashing the command allow the unit to be built faster? Or increase the rate that the resources are produced faster? Same timers for everyone, right?_
The only time this works is if the player you're saying is "too slow" literally is, as CCC stated at the start, most likely brand new to the genre, and you're telling them they need to be at a Grandmaster level of knowledge, input skill and comfortable with split second flashes of screen updates within freshly installing the game.
You're putting kids into a boxing match with Mike Tyson.
And then, we have the second problem with this. If being faster at inputting and base planning was all that you need to beat anyone, then why isn't the top flight of an RTS some meta rush build that is solely the fastest way to kill eco lines? Because pushing buttons quickly has no bearing on the match aside from a stat line commentators can throw out to talk about something during downtime or set up phase other than the weather, event news, or my left foot.
And remember. If all they're doing is making a point dance from side to side, or just switching between camera views and building selections without mechanically achieving anything, then all they did is the equivalent of me producing this comment. You don't know if I touch typed this at 150-200 words per second, tapped it out with my nose or foot, used a voice to text program, or trained my [insert animal here] to shit post on command.
It's still here all the same. Same with "needing to have 100/200/300 APM". Yes, I could learn how to type "I am mashing please help my poor keyboard" faster for an hour a day, but I'm screwed if they change the words.
You start with learning the basics and learning the game. The speed can come later.
@@CloudCuckooCountry I guess that's true. The idea just feels so contrary to everything I've been told that it's almost hard to accept. Which is sort of the point you made in the video.
I think you hit on a very important point that RTS's aren't popular because they are hard or are focused on eSports too much but that people have no frame of reference for an RTS. If you play Call of Duty you can use that frame of reference for so many games like Gears of War. But there is no game that allows you to understand an RTS. So, with no frame of reference it can make it very hard.
Ill just this here.
Beastyqt, one of the top 3 competitive player in Age of Empires 4, maybe even in top 2, has played a game vs his wife. His wife is Conqueror 1, which is in top 1% of all players. She is good. Very good. He played with 1 hand and beat her in less than 10 minutes. APM means shit if don't have the STRATEGY
Harstem ( a semi pro Starcraft player) has done many low apm challenges where he would beat other grandmasters with barely any apm for example
So in general for rts games knowledge and efficiency is much more important than clicking fast
I'm watching this for the third time because of how entertaining this video is. I don't know why but I really enjoy it. And it actually helped me really get more into AoE2 than before and really improve. Thanks!
Man seein RTS in this light similar to a video I made aswell is a delightful dejavu.........may lead me to not giving up on RTS games. Though I have no idea of the genre, this sets you on a good start.
48 years old and I've been playing RTS since the original Warcraft. My favorite game of all-time throughout many years of gaming is probably the original Starcraft. Let me just say that one, I'm in agreement on how fun AoE 4 has been and two, this video is amazing. Well done and thank you from a long time RTS fan. Participating in keeping this genre alive and well is a huge positive for the gaming community whether the majority realize it or not. Again, amazing video and so well done.
I don't think RTS is really in decline right now. I think it was in the past in a very steep decline but right now I think it's in a pretty healthy place as a genre compared to a decade ago. If anything the genre is having a small renaissance. I think the decline was caused by a few factors, the biggest of which is that RTS does not translate terribly well to consoles, it's a very PC centric genre. I think the decline of the RTS single player campaign and in particularly the trend of RTS single player campaigns not playing by mostly the same rules as the multiplayer hurt a fair bit too.
I agree, PC gaming got a massive kick to the face in 2006 or so, when Intel decided to get into the graphics hardware space without having hardware that did basic realtime 3d. Took about 10 years for laptops and other integrated graphics systems to get good enough to play video games, but that all happened right as the Great Recession started, and as the 7th gen consoles and the push for cross-platform games were on the rise (and the tools to make them far more easily than before). PC gaming has more or less recovered since, but the 2010s were not kind to it at all.
Also I kinda blame StarCraft 2. Both because of the aforementioned singleplayer campaign not being a multiplayer onboarding track (IIRC the devs did this by design), and because, to put it bluntly, if StarCraft 2 was a licensable engine instead of a game, RTS and its derivative genres would probably have been considered very lively in the intervening time, judging by how active the StarCraft 2 arcade is. It would be like if Epic never licensed the Unreal engine, but Unreal Tournament 3 had had a really elaborate modding and level making scene that every prospective FPS developer latched onto instead.
I WISH that more people and big names in the scene would start at THIS level! WELL DONE!! What a great video!!!
This is THE BEST tutorial I have ever seen! Thank you so much!
Every rts game with a pause function is technically a turn based strategy game with very fast automatic turns, change my mind
Love this video! So many good points. This must have been an insane amount of work. Subbed.
I played AoE starting with the very first game - not because I'm actually that old, but because when my parents got to America it was the first video game they saw, so they played it and loved it. I grew up with them and played them all in sequential order. While in recent years I've been more into Total War, AoE will always have a special place in my heart
I think my generation were probably the last one to not have the innate basic skills necessary already drilled into us when we first came to RTS games. Because we were used to DOS as our main operating system. We hadn't yet got to grips with Windows, and all the necessary UI awareness and mouse navigation abilities were not yet second nature to us.
but you guys can play the hell outta some keyboard roguelikes and their wacky hotkeys :p
I hadn't ever considered multitasking as something to work on. It's as you said, playing an FPS for the first time is crazy hard, just trying to get the camera to do what you want while moving. Now that I know what things to point out to new players I'll definitely encourage more onboarding. :)
Man, you have demystified the AoE 4 and the RTS genre for me. Thank you.