I know I'll be showing my age here, but I wanted to make a recap on how I got into RTS games. Many Suns ago, I was asked to join a LAN party with friends. There was this new game called Total Anihilation. Little I suspected I was about to become hooked to the RTS genre for life. In RTS games, I found the breadth of gaming I was looking for: lots of units, lots of buildings, lots of research trees, lots of ways of winning. I personally love micromanagement. I like having lots of options and the joy of mix and matching them. To this day, I keep my TA CDs with something approaching worship. Then came the Command & Conquer series, a worthy upgrade of graphics without compromising the main premise. C&C Generals (including Zero Hour) were fun but had whiff of staleness about them. Just when I thought I knew all about RTS, along came one truly epic game: Homeworld. The story line (especially the beginning) was heart wrenching and involved. The control system had you thinking in true 3D for the first time. And the views. Ah, the views! You must realise that no other space based program had ever been rendered like that. I was utterly amazed at the beauty of space. After that, there came the decline of the RTS. Somehow, game developers thought that having too many units or options was too complicated for the gamers and started making crippling restrictions. Level caps became ridiculously small. Buildings had to be positioned in specific places only. Very often, a single superunit was the only realistic one to build. Ditto with a particular research item. Story lines became childish and incoherent. Nowadays, modern "RTS" games seem to be a mangle of RTS, RPG and squad-based constructs. I am not against any of those two last genres, mind you. It's just that it's not what I'm looking for when playing RTS. There are some exceptions, of course. I found Rise of Legends to have an imaginative story line, even though you're still restricted to building were they tell you. The Age of Empire series have also good story arcs, although a bit too "american" for my taste (the Asian Dynasties expansion was an utter disgrace in terms of "westernisation" of asian values). Supreme Commander (1, NOT 2) it's the last game to be faithful to the pure RTS idea. Yes, you get superunits. But they take so long to research and build, that you feel they're only there as eye candy, rather than realistic multiplayer options. Although, at the end of the day, there is essentially no difference in game-play between SC1 and TA. I wish developers had a bit more imagination when creating new RTS games. I'm up to here with the space theme, to be honest. After Homeworld, all the others seem just a copy. Here are a couple of my (wild) ideas: - Ant or Bees colonies Not those stupid, physically impossible insectoid baddies we get nowadays. I mean real ants or bees: Queen, workers, soldiers. - Microbes Another environment which lends itself to the main idea, with slight twists like assimilating enemies, or building complex cells. I could think of a game consisting of a human body cells trying to outwit an invasion of bacteria or virus. /sigh Please can someone DO something about it ...

Well, I'm old school and a bit set in my ways. Nevertheless, I consider myself open enough to try new games. Having heard so much about Call of Heroes, I decided to give it a try (just the demo from Steam). Once again I found myself in yet another squad-based "RTS". But my dismay soon gave way to respect. It clearly shares the same 3D engine as Dawn of War 2. Considering Relic is behind both of them it's hardly surprising. Since as I said I am a bit up to here with the space theme, I found CoH much better than DoW2. The environment is superbly recreated and I found the "cover" mechanics both logical and realistic. Sometimes I lost sight of my units and couldn't find them again in the main screen as they blend only too well into the scenery. I guess that's exactly the point. You wouldn't want field soldiers dressed in bright red, would you ? My only peeve is the way resources are collected (manpower, ammunition and fuel) for which you have to control certain strategic points on the map. This not only goes against logic, it also goes against the main theme of the game. I suppose having supply lines, endless arguments with generals about the need of more support, to deal with second-rate weapons and lazy personnel would be *too* realistic :p I like base building but without going over the top and CoH has got the balance right for me. In normal RTS games, you have to build lots of defence towers to compensate for the pop-cap limits (I guess that's how tower-defence games started, right?). In CoH that would be too unrealistic and would spoil the general feeling of the game. I can see how this game got one of the top ratings of all time. I will certainly buy it now. Let's hope they haven't broken a good game with CoH 2. P.S.: I misspelled Annihilation? Oh, noes! Sob, sob, sniff, sniff ... I'm ok. ;-)

I have played Total War games. My favourite is Shogun TW (the first one). Mostly because it has Japanese speech (my wife is Japanese). I must admit I mostly played the Strategic part of it. That is, I ignored actual battles, as I was not interested in the tactical part. I know you'll probably berate me for missing half the fun of the game, but hey, that's just me. I loved the diplomacy, the research, the taking of strategic provinces (with interesting names like Satsuma and Bingo). Considering I know a bit of Japanese history, I was thrilled to control Oda Nobunaga and the Tokugawa clan. A bit different from TA, C&C and company (which are mostly tactical) but good fun nevertheless.

Having now played through the first 5 campaigns of CoH, I am having second thoughts about this game. I has fallen into the usual malaise of war games. I am constantly irritated by the way the games apply the "difficulty" level. It basically boils down to throwing more and more units at you. They are also stronger, move faster and seem to have an endless supply of resources. As the old saying goes: "God helps the Baddies when they're more than the Goodies". As any good General knows, you have to mass your forces to have a significant effect on your enemy. If your forces are more or less matched, it's your skilled use of tactics that will carry the day. Since I am a descendant of TA, C&C, SC gamers, I hate it when I only have a couple of units at my disposal. What do you mean I can only build one or two anti-tank units ? I know the Panzers are coming. I want one or two ***hundred***, ta very much. And where the hell is my air support ? Yes, I want numbers. I want infantry battalions, tank divisions, batteries of artillery, stacks of gunships, helicopters, stealth bombers. I want rabid dogs, mad scientists, megalomaniac generals, elite troops, poisoned barb-wire. I WANT EVERYTHING !!! HAHAHAHAHAH !!! ... erm ... I may have sounded a bit disturbed for a moment there. Must. Rest.