Enough of this Rush/Boom/Turtle dynamic.  Halo Wars has a different dynamic, which can be basically summarized as Tactical vs. Strategic.  Each has a fairly distinct playing style.

Tactical: Has carefully planned build order, attempts to rapidly gather a standing army before the enemy is prepared for it, this can be anything from early Hogs to late Grizzlies.  Economy is neglected in favor of getting a standing army.

Strategic: Has no real order, focuses on building up an economy as quickly as possible.  Doesn't bother to build a standing army, instead, observes the enemy in order to evaluate when to drop a unit production facility or reactor, then takes advantage of the durability of buildings and lockdown to catch up.  Attempts to figure out what unit the opponent is going for and builds a counter for it.

In short, the Tactical player wants Tactical Superiority in the form of a standing army that can outfight the opponent and pressure their base.  The Strategic player wants Strategic Superiority in the form of a strong base that can rapidly produce counters to most unit builds.  Most players will do some mixture of the above.

If a Tactical player fights a Tactical player, its generally a question of who can micro and outproduce the other one first.  If neither of them gains decisive victory, they switch over to the Strategic mindset.

If a Strategic player fights a Strategic player, its going to be a long game, as neither player feels threatened enough to build an offensive military, instead getting what they need to capture bases.  They will probably fight once they hit full pop.

If a Tactical player fights a Strategic player, the Tactical player will likely have to strike early and hard.  This will have 3 possible outcomes, the Strategic player has their base overrun and destroyed, the Strategic player fends off the Tactical player but not without having their growth stunted to the point that both players have equal economies as well as militaries, or the Strategic players fends off the Tactical player without major losses and is then able to counter and flatten the Tactical player.

In short, the game isn't purely rushing or maxing out your pop, anything is possible.  Even when players do rush, its quite possible that neither of them gains decisive advantage, so even if high skill tiers degenerate into Tactical vs. Tactical rushing, there will still be plenty of diversity.

Sorry to burst your bubble but, if your Tactical player is any good they would destroy the barracks/depot/air pad before their opponent can produce any viable amount of units.

Then once the attack starts they reinforce with units that counter any counter units to your main force (just in case). 

That isn't what would happen for a variety of reasons.  If the Strategic player is good, they scout sufficiently enough to see the threat, and order Barracks to be built BEFORE the rush arrives, or at least before they can outright kill the Barracks.  If the Strategic player is good, they build a Turret next to an empty building slot that they reserve for the Barracks.  Lastly, the Tactical attacker can't reinforce with units that counter any counter units in the Strategic force, because they are the Tactical player and their heavy investment in early military severely slows their economy and ability to adapt to new threats, meaning that the Strategic player can switch unit concentrations far more readily.

More than once, I've shown the enemy the hard way that because they are Tactical and I'm Strategic, I've already gotten my counter-counter-counter out before they've even got a chance to amass a good army of counter-counters.

A oh so common example would be when Anders rushes me with Hogs.  I get Spartan Tanks out.  Anders gets Gauss Hogs/Hornets out, only to discover that I already have Cobras/Wolverines.

wodan460:

That isn't what would happen for a variety of reasons.  If the Strategic player is good, they scout sufficiently enough to see the threat, and order Barracks to be built BEFORE the rush arrives, or at least before they can outright kill the Barracks.  If the Strategic player is good, they build a Turret next to an empty building slot that they reserve for the Barracks.  Lastly, the Tactical attacker can't reinforce with units that counter any counter units in the Strategic force, because they are the Tactical player and their heavy investment in early military severely slows their economy and ability to adapt to new threats, meaning that the Strategic player can switch unit concentrations far more readily.

More than once, I've shown the enemy the hard way that because they are Tactical and I'm Strategic, I've already gotten my counter-counter-counter out before they've even got a chance to amass a good army of counter-counters.

A oh so common example would be when Anders rushes me with Hogs.  I get Spartan Tanks out.  Anders gets Gauss Hogs/Hornets out, only to discover that I already have Cobras/Wolverines.

There is no doubt that mid to late game strategies can be diverse and equally powerful but, a good rusher will destroy your turret within the frist second or two of the attack and target the barracks next all the while reinforcing their units. A good rusher can do this.

wodan460:

Enough of this Rush/Boom/Turtle dynamic.  Halo Wars has a different dynamic, which can be basically summarized as Tactical vs. Strategic.  Each has a fairly distinct playing style.

Tactical: Has carefully planned build order, attempts to rapidly gather a standing army before the enemy is prepared for it, this can be anything from early Hogs to late Grizzlies.  Economy is neglected in favor of getting a standing army.

Strategic: Has no real order, focuses on building up an economy as quickly as possible.  Doesn't bother to build a standing army, instead, observes the enemy in order to evaluate when to drop a unit production facility or reactor, then takes advantage of the durability of buildings and lockdown to catch up.  Attempts to figure out what unit the opponent is going for and builds a counter for it.

In short, the Tactical player wants Tactical Superiority in the form of a standing army that can outfight the opponent and pressure their base.  The Strategic player wants Strategic Superiority in the form of a strong base that can rapidly produce counters to most unit builds.  Most players will do some mixture of the above.

If a Tactical player fights a Tactical player, its generally a question of who can micro and outproduce the other one first.  If neither of them gains decisive victory, they switch over to the Strategic mindset.

If a Strategic player fights a Strategic player, its going to be a long game, as neither player feels threatened enough to build an offensive military, instead getting what they need to capture bases.  They will probably fight once they hit full pop.

If a Tactical player fights a Strategic player, the Tactical player will likely have to strike early and hard.  This will have 3 possible outcomes, the Strategic player has their base overrun and destroyed, the Strategic player fends off the Tactical player but not without having their growth stunted to the point that both players have equal economies as well as militaries, or the Strategic players fends off the Tactical player without major losses and is then able to counter and flatten the Tactical player.

In short, the game isn't purely rushing or maxing out your pop, anything is possible.  Even when players do rush, its quite possible that neither of them gains decisive advantage, so even if high skill tiers degenerate into Tactical vs. Tactical rushing, there will still be plenty of diversity.

Wrong. The game, just like every other rts, follows the same basic principles. These consist of the 3 basic strategies, rush, boom, and turtle, and the many variations in between.

---

Always outnumbered, never outgunned.

Sir Truffles:

Wrong. The game, just like every other rts, follows the same basic principles. These consist of the 3 basic strategies, rush, boom, and turtle, and the many variations in between.

Do you even play the game? While there are unique benifits for rushing, booming, teching, and turtling, the benifits for rushing are heads and shoulders above the rest. The "turtle" strategies in this game are almost identical to rushing, the difference being you stay at your base and counter your opponents rush. Build order and expantion are the same though.

JymXu:

Sir Truffles:

Wrong. The game, just like every other rts, follows the same basic principles. These consist of the 3 basic strategies, rush, boom, and turtle, and the many variations in between.

Do you even play the game? While there are unique benifits for rushing, booming, teching, and turtling, the benifits for rushing are heads and shoulders above the rest. The "turtle" strategies in this game are almost identical to rushing, the difference being you stay at your base and counter your opponents rush. Build order and expantion are the same though.

Every strategy is beatable, and obviously I play the game, remarks like that in a forum just are not needed. By the way turtleing isn't just stopping your opponents rush, it's a defensive strategy which requires you to defend off attacks, slowly gaining map control compared to attacking the enemy. A turtle strategy never "attacks" so to speak, rather just slowly expands until they control the entire map.

---

Always outnumbered, never outgunned.

Sir Truffles:

JymXu:

Sir Truffles:

Wrong. The game, just like every other rts, follows the same basic principles. These consist of the 3 basic strategies, rush, boom, and turtle, and the many variations in between.

Do you even play the game? While there are unique benifits for rushing, booming, teching, and turtling, the benifits for rushing are heads and shoulders above the rest. The "turtle" strategies in this game are almost identical to rushing, the difference being you stay at your base and counter your opponents rush. Build order and expantion are the same though.

Every strategy is beatable, and obviously I play the game, remarks like that in a forum just are not needed. By the way turtleing isn't just stopping your opponents rush, it's a defensive strategy which requires you to defend off attacks, slowly gaining map control compared to attacking the enemy. A turtle strategy never "attacks" so to speak, rather just slowly expands until they control the entire map.

My apologies, perhaps I was being rude.

I still stand by my other comments. The early game strategies are all based on producing the maximum force in the smallest time frame. Mid to late game strategies can diverse but, unless you want you play a neat and tight early game you aren't going to make it to those later stages.

Technically, tactical and strategic are not the things that you described. Tactics are small-scale decisions and actions that are taken to ensure momentary success and short-term gains (such as securing a location). Strategy consists of long-term plans, things that you work towards- your primary, zoomed-out way of looking at things (such as turtling/booming). 

And tactical and strategic are not the correct ways to define players. Rush/turtle and boom are better classifications. A player who is skilled in tactics is usually good at short term gains, and as such, they are likely to win battles in which the teams are overall equal OR where the strategic player has a slight advantage. HOWEVER, a player highly skilled in the subtle art of strategy usually plans well, scouts and monitors his/her opponent, adapts and although may lose some border skirmishes (which may lead to an immediate loss), will ultimately win if they play their cards right. 

Although i do admit that players are rarely only skilled in one aspect (i dont even know if thats possible). Most players will be a mix of both, but with an advatage towards one- tactics or strategy.

Feel free to comment and/or criticise.  

---

Everything is overpowered!!!

JymXu:

Sir Truffles:

JymXu:

Sir Truffles:

Wrong. The game, just like every other rts, follows the same basic principles. These consist of the 3 basic strategies, rush, boom, and turtle, and the many variations in between.

Do you even play the game? While there are unique benifits for rushing, booming, teching, and turtling, the benifits for rushing are heads and shoulders above the rest. The "turtle" strategies in this game are almost identical to rushing, the difference being you stay at your base and counter your opponents rush. Build order and expantion are the same though.

Every strategy is beatable, and obviously I play the game, remarks like that in a forum just are not needed. By the way turtleing isn't just stopping your opponents rush, it's a defensive strategy which requires you to defend off attacks, slowly gaining map control compared to attacking the enemy. A turtle strategy never "attacks" so to speak, rather just slowly expands until they control the entire map.

My apologies, perhaps I was being rude.

I still stand by my other comments. The early game strategies are all based on producing the maximum force in the smallest time frame. Mid to late game strategies can diverse but, unless you want you play a neat and tight early game you aren't going to make it to those later stages.

I've won my fair share of games using different strategies other than just producing units, using a boom strategy can be very effective if done right, it just doesn't happen to often with the number of people rushing.

My take is that the experienced rts players rush and all the new people who have never played an rts before don't know what to do, so naturally they complain "op" instead of learning proper counters to it.

I have never been beaten by a 1 minute warthog rush or prophet rush.

---

Always outnumbered, never outgunned.

I agree that rushes can be beat, what I don't like is how you have to beat them (little diversity).

HighArkAngel:

Technically, tactical and strategic are not the things that you described. Tactics are small-scale decisions and actions that are taken to ensure momentary success and short-term gains (such as securing a location). Strategy consists of long-term plans, things that you work towards- your primary, zoomed-out way of looking at things (such as turtling/booming). 

 Correct.

Wodan while trying to explain the two terms confuses the issue because they are wrong. Wodan is describing two strategies, not the difference between tactics and strategy. Two strategies which are better describe as the 3 common strats rush, turtle and boom.

Guys you all need to stop nagging about the rushstrategy. Read what aloysius said that rush won't be taken away cause thats a strategy and all strategys can be braked! The real problem is those who quit when there strategy doesn't work. For example today my ally left cause we didn't had won after 15 mins. He said that we were screwed then because we needed to kill them in 10 mins. Learn to counter all strategies and stop nagging about it to other loosers on the Halo Wars website!

The aggressor almost always has the advantage. He can reap whatever he needs from the map while you're sat there thinking you have the eco advantage...

---

*´¨)
¸.·´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·´ P r i n c e s s

You dont get a defense advantage.

There isnt anything a defender gets to help. To fight off the rush, it does require everything, so you will be on equal ground. Although, the rusher will get the advantage 99% of the time.

While rushing they can grab the map and have a eco/tech advantage. Also, both of you lost units, but the defender also lost a building or two. So now the rusher has the advantage again.

Its very rare when the defender comes out top after a rush. Unless of course, the defender is FAR better than the rush.

---

1v1 - 48
2v2 - 50
3v3 - 47

Best player evar!!!1!