A lot of RTS discussion collapses "depth" into one axis, but RTS design actually spans multiple: map size and interaction density, unit/building variety, simultaneous unit counts, and how micro, macro, economy, and scale interact under pressure. StarCraft II (and similarly Warcraft III and StarCraft: Brood War) compress most decisions into small maps, tight army compositions, and high interaction density -- depth is expressed through execution, timing, and composition control. Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance spreads those same layers across scale: larger maps, multiple simultaneous fronts, higher unit counts, and economy systems that continuously interact through expansion, adjacency, and tech transitions.The interesting question isn’t "which has more depth", but which design space produces more meaningful simultaneous decisions: compressed systems where precision and timing dominate, or distributed systems where prioritization, scaling, and coordination across layers matter more.How do you personally weigh these dimensions -- map scale, unit diversity, unit counts, and system interaction -- when you think about RTS depth?
Is Planetary Annihilation arguably better than SupCom 1 and 2?Pro tip: SupCom 2 is a good game.
>>566199579I really like SupCom 2. Somebody should make a lobby client, or they should integrate it into FAF.
Nothing is cooler than Zero-K.
To prevent stupidity, read this before posting in an RTS thread.https://zero-k.info/mediawiki/Cold_Takes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHCXLuTix58Be amazed. This is something you would never see in /civ4xg/. This is RTS.
>>566205851I'm cooler than Zero-K.
