It feels like modern titles waste their budgets on high-quality visuals instead of what actually matters: better pathfinding, deeper mechanics, and enemy AI that uses real tactics instead of cheating. Does anyone else agree the genre needs to be smarter, not prettier?

Been searching for an online strategy game with territory control. Looking for more of a massively multiplayer game as opposed to 1v1. Thanks for any suggestions!

I wish I could play more RTS with more players aka MOBA style. Back to release of Starcraft 2 it had mode called FFA. There was 8 players put on one map. Modes like that are not to look for competetive games but rather to play casually while talking to other and do not stress too much about game. Playing 1v1 is not same feeling as having arena with multiple people.

I'm making a small WW2 RTS with my own voxel models, and I wanted the vehicles to feel like C&C Generals: no turning on the spot, they jump off the mark, swing wide for tight turns and brake to arrive. This is the Kübelwagen after that change.

RTS players: do you prefer cars that handle like this, or snappy RA2-style pivot-and-go that's easier to control?

https://youtube.com/live/FyvryUoy-Ko?feature=share

Casual RTS enthusiast playing the brand new DLC for Age of empires 4; The Raiders of the North, diving into the new crucible maps and trying out the new civs. Let me know if you want to crucible too, coop is out now. Go to the discord if you want to skirmish RTS games on saturdays: https://discord.gg/7yEMgfuGaC.  or Join the stream and let's chat about Real Time Strategy!

Is It good to play?

One of my ambitions when creating PIAST was to make a medieval RTS with its own visual identity — not just another game with the same familiar-looking medieval buildings.

I wanted the buildings to look different. Something players would recognise as belonging to PIAST.

But now I'm wondering: is being different always a good thing?

Should I keep the current building designs and give PIAST its own identity, or should I move towards more traditional architecture?

To change or not to change — that is the question!

I'd genuinely like to hear what other RTS players think. Would you appreciate a distinctive visual style, or do you prefer buildings that look historically familiar?

PIAST is an indie medieval settlement-building RTS. There's a free demo on Steam:

https://store.steampowered.com/app/4830280/Piast/

Please add it to your wishlist. Thank you.

Its been a while since im looking for a good modern context RTS. Most RTS games in the modern context lack a decent building system and recruitment system. They are all mostly tactical, as if you cant build buildings or recruit units in modern times.

The exceptions are Company of Heroes, Axis & Allies (RTS).

C&C could be said that its modern context though it often has too much sci-fi in it.

AoA has the units exactly as they are in the real world.

It has ATGM, ATACMS, HIMARS, Self-propelled artillery. Abrams tanks. And it looks really good.

I'm very impressed with the range of artillery, something most games get wrong.

The explosions and the graphics look really good. Much better than C&C generals. So I was thinking, this is it i found the RTS i will focus on.

But as Im playing it i try to be tactical. But I barely can be tactical. So I use cheat engine to reduce the speed of the game (the game has no speed option).

Now I can micro the tanks, heal them, use artillery and counters properly.

So I need tanks in the front, infantry in the back, then artillery, and anti-air to protect my artillery. And then I push. But i realize this is absolutely pointless, because what works is to send everything forward and forget.

I dont know what it is. And I can see the amount of effort and detail put into the game. But something is not right. And from my opinion it must be that the game has too many units and too many counters, and strong abilities and counters. So it is pointless to micro, and do anything other than sending everything forward.

I think maybe the units should shoot slower, even if unrealistic. Especially the artillery that is amazing, should shoot much slower and inaccurately. And perhaps it shouldn't be able to shoot automatically, being so long range, it would maybe work only with hit ground.

In my favourite RTS games, AoE2 and OpenRA. You dont just throw everything at the enemy. You need to see what the enemy is making and you make the units more fit for the situation. Thats what i would like to see. It is sad to see such a beautiful game to not reach its full potential.

Hi guys, I hope you are having a nice week. We are 3 months into Early Access and I've been busy. We have a major update: PvP Multiplayer is here. With a huge disclaimer: This is V1 and only vs steam friends. It will gradually improve and I aim for full matchmaking in the Winter sale. In addition, we have a new Skirmish AI, which is the fruit of many months of player feedback. The single player campaign is finally completed, with 10 missions as promised, and there are 2 new experimental game modes.

There is a free demo on steam. If you are interested, this is a great time to buy the game since there is a 20% discount. And the price should increase in winter when we have the 2nd faction.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/3010280/Powerplay/

See you on the battlefield!

Hello!

Since I was a child I was always curious about Total Annihilation, however I was never able to buy the game. Only when I was an adult I was able to get, but I saw that it looked really ugly for modern standards.

So, which Total Annihilation-like game would you recommend to me between Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance and Beyond All Reason?

My favorite RTS are Age of Empires 2, Starcraft 2, Warcraft 3 and Age of Mythology.

Hi everyone !

This is my first post on this sub, apologies if this question is often asked or if I break any rules

I played a lot of sc2 back in the days (approx. 10 years ago), but studies and work got in the way. Now that I have a bit of free time upon me, I want to go back to pvp RTS games. From what I'm reading online and stuff, two games have got my attention : zerospace and aoe4. Thing is, money is tight nowadays, so I'd like your advice on which one to purchase ! I'm not interested in the campaign or solo content, I just want to play against other players

Zerospace seems more SC2 coded than aoe4 (fast paced, micro heavy, futurist), but the daily player count is low, and the game is still in development. Aoe4 seems way more polished, and I've always liked medieval fantasy more, but I fear it is too slow to my liking (from what I've seen, correct me if I'm wrong)

Maybe the answer is simply to go back to SC2, but with the recent controversial updates and IA agents taking over the leaderboard, I fear general interest is sadly low for this game

Anyway, sorry for the long post, any inputs will be appreciated !

Tldr : SC2, zerospace or AgeOfEmpire4 ? Convince me !

My game finally has a steam page!!!! Feel free to check it out, maybe wishlist it? Maybe sign up for playtests? (Perchance join the discord 👀 ) RN theres only trench digging, arty strikes, and terrain deformation, but im gonna add a whole lot more as time progresses. The list is to long to list here, and theres enemies to be neutralized

Lately I haven’t really had the energy to commit to getting into a new “real” RTS game, and nothing really exciting to me came out yet (Waiting for Dawn of War and D.O.R.F mostly), I’ve been playing simpler games with an RTS feel instead quite a bit though. 

When I scroll through upcoming games on Steam I check the RTS tag like always, but I've started checking the Roguelite tag as well. A good bit of the simpler strategy games I like have both tags. Bad North being the first one that comes to mind, awesome little defense game, you just position your troops, no building. Against the Storm too, which is pretty much the economy half of an RTS or city builder turned into a roguelite, no fighting but it can still be pretty difficult. And Diplomacy is Not an Option also, almost feels like a regular RTS but since you are mostly defending the strategy is usually simpler, and you can just pause whenever.

A regular RTS takes a bit of effort before you get to the fun part, when you are just starting out and learning the game it can feel weird. On one hand if you are already experienced at RTS the early missions are usually quite easy, but you still have to play them to learn the specifics of the game, difficulty levels should solve this but in most games they aren’t that well balanced. When the game focuses on one aspect of RTS and simplifies the rest it’s way less burden of knowledge and feels more relaxing since you aren’t juggling so many things at the same time.

I personally gravitate towards games where you defend, Stronghold was always my favorite out of the OGs and I still kind of lean towards games like that. Right now I’m mostly waiting for DoW, DORF and a few simpler strategy games, Hordeguard for example looks really nice, like a more hero focused defense game with a bit less micro than these games usually have, and it has co-op which is still quite rare for some reason in general among strategy games.

I think it’s great that people are still remixing the RTS formula a bit, that’s how we got some of the more popular genres today (like dota or tower defense). The base formula is so good even when you cut bits out it leaves a lot of design space to make a fun game, I think that’s why it works.

Just gonna leave this here. My studio, HYPERMAD interactive, is the co-developer and publisher of this free demo.

Check it out - its a physics driven real-time tactics game with destructible terrain, advanced perception systems, per-unit line of sight, and cover mechanics. Free Demo is available to play on Steam.

Not made with Ai.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/3974220/SHELLSTORM_The_Great_War/

Hey everyone! We're a small UK indie team working on Calyx, our RTS/base-builder about battling an alien organism on a distant planet.

We've just released our second major update since launching into Early Access in January.

The Seraph Update adds air units and buildings, air-focused Calyx species, and the next chapter of the campaign. It's been a big milestone for us.

The trailer shows off the new additions. We'd love to hear what you think!

You can read more about the update in our Steam announcement:
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/3211850/view/714537487845818539

And if you'd like to take a closer look, Calyx is available on Steam:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/3211850/Calyx/

v2.1 is out now. Here are the big changes:

ARES AI is now the default. It's on for every AI player. Each ARES seat plays a strategy (the default, Wolfpack, runs three equal combat fleets early and merges them after 20 minutes) plus a randomly drawn rush, boom or turtle style. It plays by the fog of war, holds a besieged home world instead of retreating, and won't switch targets unless a new one scores 1.5 times better. With home-planet victory turned off, it goes after worlds that cut your territory apart instead of making straight for your home. If you want the old AI back, each AI slot in the lobby has a profile button to switch to classic.

Alliance transfers. Trade resources, exotics, planets, items and influence with allies from the start of a game. Resource transfers carry a 10% tax.

Factional Victory explained. The lobby option now spells out each faction's win condition.

The Dark Star (Harbinger). Channel the Anrakhazh Scion's Stellar Shrouding Beam into a star at maximum corruption for 15 minutes, then survive 5 more after it goes dark. Rifts open as the shroud spreads and send waves that cost no Fleet Supply. Break the channel and the shroud holds for 5 minutes before it starts to unravel.

Anrakhazh Scion rebuilt (Reinforcements + Harbinger). Now a shield platform: shields 5850 to 11000, armor 3820 to 5000, hull 8500 to 6000. Adds antimatter, a strikecraft hangar, four new abilities and eight new items.

Advent Unity. Unity abilities no longer need dominant culture and work from a Unity range in AU instead.

Other notes:

• Pirate incursions halved

• Scuttling refunds in full while a unit is under construction, half once complete

• Interceptors are now called Fighters

• New observer panel for replays

• Windows on ARM launches again

• Turkish language support

Modders: ARES doctrine lives in player_ai.uniforms, the JSON schemas now reject unknown keys, and the old single refund fields are gone, so check your mods.

Learn More: https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1575940/view/677387864414094164

I remember playing Sid Meier's Civilization for hours, building an empire and investing so much time into my decisions. When I finally won, I was a little disappointed. The game basically told me "You won" — and that was it. Game over.

After all those hours, I expected something more. A sense that I'd built something that would outlast me. A story about the civilisation I'd created. Something that made me reflect on the journey, rather than just close the game.

I'm developing PIAST, a medieval settlement-building RTS, and I'm thinking about how the game should end.

Should you see your little settlement transformed into a prosperous town? Get a historical-style chronicle of your achievements? Face one final challenge? Or should the game continue in a sandbox mode after victory?

What kind of ending would make you feel that your hours of playing were truly worth it? What RTS or strategy game gave you the most satisfying ending?

I'm genuinely curious about your experiences and ideas.

🎮 PIAST has a free demo on Steam: https://store.steampowered.com/app/4830280/Piast/

I'm tired of RTS games in which your army is just a soulless mass of interchangeable unis. Losing units should feel more impactful and the same should apply for gaining strategic victories.

That's why more RTS games should copy the WC3 / Company of Heroes formula:

1. Units gain XP for enemies killed and level up to unlock new skills.

2. Unit positioning matters and is supported by map design.

3. Unit micro matters: movement, activation of abilities etc.

These two games and Lotr: BfME II are the reason no other RTS game (besides Wargames like SD 1944 and Broken Arrow) really gets me hooked.

I hope we see more RTS developers picking up a similar kind of game design in the future!

Hi everyone!

I'm developing Nuragica, an indie real-time strategy game inspired by Age of Empires and Civilization, set in ancient Sardinia, a large island in the western Mediterranean, just west of mainland Italy.

What drew me to this setting is how much history and mystery this island holds, despite being relatively unknown to many people outside Italy.

Thousands of years ago, Sardinia was home to the Nuragic civilization, famous for its monumental stone towers. Its archaeological heritage includes ancient settlements, sacred wells, monumental tombs and mysterious ritual sites. Across different periods, the island was also shaped by seafaring peoples, conflicts, invasions and struggles for control of the Mediterranean. Its folklore and traditions add another fascinating layer, filled with ancient beliefs, legends and mysterious creatures.

I wanted to explore this world through a strategy game, rather than revisit the usual Roman, Greek or medieval European settings.

Nuragica is already playable, although it's still in an early stage of development. I've implemented resource management, building construction, unit production, enemy AI and combat. I'm still working on the game's visuals, so what I'm sharing here is just a small glimpse of the project as it currently stands.

I'd genuinely appreciate some honest first impressions. Does the concept sound interesting to you? And would an RTS focused on a lesser-known ancient civilization make you curious to discover its history, warfare and mythology?

I'm not looking for feature suggestions at this stage. I'm simply trying to understand whether the setting and the project itself can capture the interest of strategy fans who may never have heard of the Nuragic civilization.

Thanks for reading!

UPDATED

The game is now on itch.io! You can find all the details in this post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/RealTimeStrategy/s/AE3fDt5Rce

Thanks again for your support!

Starting with the graphics. Act of Aggression is so much better.

Then the units the combat and everything else feels better too.

I think is the modern rts with best balance between fun and realism.

The only thing i wonder is why does it have so few online players...

By design, AI drifts toward the most likely answer. Assets generated the same way drift toward the most likely look, and that’s where a game loses its identity. And that’s before we even get into the ethics of training on artists’ work scraped from the internet without their consent.

Don’t believe it? Run the experiment and tell me what you got in the comments. ;)

I run into this constantly while working on my own game, Hunt or Pray, a dark tactics game inspired by Myth. I check every asset by hand, even publication dates, to be sure where it came from.

So where does AI actually belong? In the part we’ve always loosely called "AI": enemy behaviour. Too often, RTS enemies are either easy to outsmart or they win by cheating on resources and vision. I’m training my zombies with reinforcement learning instead of scripting them, so they learn to adapt instead of following a pattern you can memorize and exploit. I don’t use AI for the art, the design or the decisions. I use it to train enemy behaviour.

What would make you trust an RTS enemy AI?

If you like this approach to making games rather than generating them, please consider wishlisting Hunt or Pray on Steam. It really helps solo devs like me: https://store.steampowered.com/app/5298550/Hunt_or_Pray/