🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 03:15:38 GMT, John Doe
<jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing> wrote:

>Messing with the speed control is unrealistic also. Why would you want
>lethargic moving units and long build times?

He didn't state he did. You wrongly assumed he did, and you know what
assumption is notoriously known for, ...don't you? :)

Too fast, and the 'RTS' game is about nothing more than
'titillatainment' for the attention span deficient kiddie crowd, which
share nothing in common with either tactics or strategy. 

To slow, and clearly, the proponents should be playing a turn based
game. There is an ideal speed range that suits the tenor of any RTS
game, and that is undoubtedly what the initial inquirer's question and
subsequent refers to.

In fact you're now being obtuse in attempting to uphold your initial
idiotic statement of the thread, whose purpose was clearly self
aggrandisement. One can only hope you play RTS better than you debate,
though witnessing this display of 'prowess', one can understand why
you relish the clickfest.

>That concept was implemented to some extent in
>Total Annihilation but it does not play enough of a role in the game, in
>my opinion. 

This demonstrates only the level at which you play the game. Resource
management is what this game is all. Bugs and flaws included, Total
Annihilation is still THE best RTS game yet EVER to hit the
marketplace.