Zero-K is a free, open source RTS game with gameplay similar to Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander. You start out with a commander and use it to construct a base, expand across the map, and defeat your opponent. A game can have thousands units on the map at once, creating massive battles of epic proportion. There are over 100 unique units that can be made at 1 of 12 different factories. One defining characteristic of Zero-K is that it features a flat technology tree, so you can build any unit from an appropriate factory. There are also dozens of other structures that can be made to help defend, attack, scout, collect resources, and more.
The game's development has been quite active, with updates coming fairly frequently. Also, the player base is pretty active. There's always a 4v4 or 8v8 game beig played, as well as some 1v1s and 2v2s. Nothing like Starcraft, but pretty good nonetheless, considering it's open-source and not particularly well-known. It's never too hard to find a game to join and play, anyway.
If you've played Total Annihilation or Supreme Commander before and are looking for a game with a similar feel, this may be your best bet. If you've never played either of these games, you ought to give it a try, since it's really fun to control such huge armies. It is free after all.
Prominent Features
Epic Scale - Hundreds or thousands of units on the battlefield
Zero-k features both single-player missions as well as multiplayer games. Are are a wide variety of single-player missions:
A sandbox where you can play with the units without fear of being attacked
A couple of tutorials on how to play the game
1v1 against an AI opponent
1v2 against 2 AI opponents
2v1, similar to 1v1 except you have an AI ally
Chickens, which is a horde mode game type where alien "chicks" spawn frequently and try to kill you
Other missions with various victory conditions
Multiplayer games typically range from 1v1 to 8v8. You can also add AI players to balance out a team or if you like comp stomps. Furthermore, you can play the "Chickens" game type cooperatively with others.
Here's a 1v1 game featuring two prominent players in the Zero-K community.
If you decide you want to play Zero-k, you can download it at the website. After the game is installed, this video should guide you from there. It will explain some of the lobby's functions, how to start a new game, and the very basics of how to play.
On February 13 2012 15:46 decemberscalm wrote: Always fun to rock back into TA Spring every once in a while. What exactly does this have to offer comparatively?
Compared to Starcraft, it's very different. Here are a few points off the top of my head:
Resources are represented by rates of income vs spending, as opposed to fixed values. So instead of having 520 minerals to spend, you would have an energy income rate of +10 and energy expenditure rate of -8, resulting in a net of +2 energy, so your energy storage bar would slowly fill up.
The user interface is a lot more forgiving than in Starcraft. For example, - You can queue up hundreds of units for a factory to produce. - Resources are only spent on currently-producing entities, not on queued entities. - A factory can be set to repeat a certain unit production cycle indefinitely. - It's very easy and quick to give construction units dozens, even hundreds of queued orders to carry out. - You can zoom out to look over the entire map.
No unit cap, and no required structures to allow for more unit production (e.g. pylons).
Gameplay not as fast-paced
Only one faction, where the differences in gameplay come from the players' starting factory choice (1 of ~11).
Flat technology tree
Water units
Pretty much all units can attack while moving.
If you meant how Zero-K compares to other Spring games, I believe that Zero-K is the most polished game currently available using the Spring engine.
On February 13 2012 15:56 Golgotha wrote: wow will try it out. how in the world do they balance 100 different units?!
thanks!
I get the feeling that it's easier to have a perceived balanced game with a smaller player base. Fewer players means fewer strategies that get figured out that can abuse a certain unit. When a game has millions of players, imbalance can be found relatively quickly. With a player base of a few hundred or so, it can take a lot longer.
On February 13 2012 15:56 Golgotha wrote: wow will try it out. how in the world do they balance 100 different units?!
Balance certainly didn't happen overnight. It would be more accurate to say, rather than being inspired by TA, Zero-K is actually directly descended from TA through a series of mods and forks, and a move to the spring engine (some TA fans will probably recognize a few unit names that never got changed). So that means a legacy even older than Starcraft with a lot of testing and evolving balance over the years. Of course, it is pretty much just a hobbyist project, so like beamer said it doesn't have the loads of good players that Starcraft has to pick out and abuse all the nuances and details. But the developers play actively with the rest of the playerbase and are very serious about listening to player feedback, and patches can be deployed quickly. So while it can't compare to BW/SC2, compared to many other commercial RTS out there the balance is pretty tight.
I decided to finally try this game. It is a bit hard to understand at first. I still don't know what I am supposed to build. But it is very micro lite so it's a nice break from starcraft. Also the multiplayer is very polished and its easy to find a game. The variety of units is nice too.
After spending hours and hours on zero k (mainly big team battles and lanning with my bros) to see what it brings to the table for TA style action, I have mostly good things to say. Really wish the op had TA somewhere so they would know its descended from it.
Like a lot of old rts's, TA was micro hell to play to the best of your ability. Zero K changes this by having units auto micro. I know this sounds terrible from an SC perspective, but believe me, its such a breathe of fresh air for TA. The focus is on strategy and tactics as opposed to apm. You will still need really high apm to play at the best of your ability and keep everything in motion, but its no longer hell like it was in BA (balanced annihilation).
Economy: No longer is there techning up. Instead the units are all spread out to different themed factories like jetpack/specialst bots or heavy vehicles. They feel like individual races as they all play completely different. They have an incredibly small amount of unit niche overlap for such a diverse range of factories. Of course you will be shoe horned into only playing viable factories in small games, but in big team games you've got a lot of options to pull out a lot of different strategies. Instead of getting moho's to expand your eco, you hook up more power via grid to "overdrive" your metal extractors. Of course this comes secondary to expanding your territory to hold more extractors and claim wreckage.
Because of the new unit system, its not ALWAYS flash's and pee wee's raiding every game. Its wonderful to see some unit diversity. Its hard to not fall in love with the units. The new Zeus looks sick.
The ui is a lot tighter, which was badly needed for ta spring.
The game is plays small 20 minute face games instead of giant epic slug fests so common in BA.
The bad is the constant irk of bugs every now and then. In its current state, you will be the victim of an annoying and sometimes deadly bug eventually. Not too terrible though, easily ignorable.
Mention the unlock system and I'll sad panda at you. While not a fan of unlocks systems, its required due to the free nature of the game so that banning disruptive players will actually hurt them.
Overall, its definently a new beast compared to TA and BA. Have to say I'm enjoying the heck out of it. Shame it has such a small community. No grand advertisement plan like Blizzard can easily do for its games.
On February 13 2012 12:51 beamer159 wrote: There are over 100 unique units that can be made at 1 of 12 different factories.
Oh dear, that doesn't sound like a healthy design at all.
Mirrors are always balanced.
Mirrors may always be technically balanced, but that doesn't necessarily mean the game is any fun. Rock, Paper, Scissors is balanced because both parties have access to the exact same tools, but most everyone probably agrees it is a game of luck with little to no replay value.
Having a balanced game in terms of winrates shouldn't be their primary goal.
On February 13 2012 12:51 beamer159 wrote: There are over 100 unique units that can be made at 1 of 12 different factories.
Oh dear, that doesn't sound like a healthy design at all.
Mirrors are always balanced.
Mirrors may always be technically balanced, but that doesn't necessarily mean the game is any fun. Rock, Paper, Scissors is balanced because both parties have access to the exact same tools, but most everyone probably agrees it is a game of luck with little to no replay value.
Having a balanced game in terms of winrates shouldn't be their primary goal.
The problem i normally have with games with entire big tech trees and more than 30+ units a race with long focus is when you devote to some army comps or odd timings where you mass something and all-in and it beats most of everything unless you were prepared. Then games to counteract that they make nearly all early game timings impossible to pull off with some constraints then the game is focused entirely on endgame rock/paper/siscors. Idk, ill give it a go later this week
On February 13 2012 12:51 beamer159 wrote: There are over 100 unique units that can be made at 1 of 12 different factories.
Oh dear, that doesn't sound like a healthy design at all.
Mirrors are always balanced.
That's not really true. Mirrors only means one player will not have an advantage over the other from the get go due to imbalance, but it does not necessarily mean there won't be over-dominant strategies even if they are available to both players (for example, SC2 PvP was not balanced several months ago).
It's not balance that I'm concerned with at all really. It's more the fact that with that many units, you're bound to have redundant units as there is only a limited amount of roles and mechanics that needs to be filled in an RTS game and, asymmetrical factions aside, you can fill all of them with like 20 units. The classic titles that focused on a huge number of units usually did so more for the flavor of it for the sake of adding more content to the game (at that time most RTS games were focused on single player campaigns as well).
Anyways, sorry for hijacking the thread for random game design remarks. I haven't yet gotten around to trying the game, I hope to be able to do so over the weekend.
On February 13 2012 12:51 beamer159 wrote: There are over 100 unique units that can be made at 1 of 12 different factories.
Oh dear, that doesn't sound like a healthy design at all.
Mirrors are always balanced.
Mirrors may always be technically balanced, but that doesn't necessarily mean the game is any fun. Rock, Paper, Scissors is balanced because both parties have access to the exact same tools, but most everyone probably agrees it is a game of luck with little to no replay value.
Players of RPS who know each other tie >80% of the time on average. It's poker not chess.
Those calling imbalance should give the game a go. Of course it's not perfect, but it's admirably good.
The different facs, as stated, sort of play out like different races, or at least different openings - you generally pick a fac to start and stick with it through to mid-game at least. This actually works well with the relative overlap between unit roles; different facs have units that fill similar roles, but your strategic choices are often to do with the strengths/weaknesses of the whole factory rather than individual units, and the factories are quite well differentiated.
I created a chat lobby for this game. On the chat screen, enter chat/channel/teamliquid at the top to open the channel. Hopefully we can congregate here and operate some IH as well as help those of us that are very new to the game and need help (like me )
How graphically intensive is this? Basically what I'm asking is, is there anyone on Linux who has any experience with playing this with open source drivers?
I'm glad to see some interest in this game. It really deserves it. To all the naysayers, I would suggest trying it out before passing judgement. Sure, it's easy to claim imbalance after hearing how many units there are, but you should really try the game out to see if it's actually as bad as you think, especially since it's free. I bet you'll be pleasanty surprised.
On March 23 2012 07:10 Chocolate wrote: I created a chat lobby for this game. On the chat screen, enter chat/channel/teamliquid at the top to open the channel. Hopefully we can congregate here and operate some IH as well as help those of us that are very new to the game and need help (like me )
I like this idea. I'll be sure to join that chat channel whenever I'm on. Hopefully, it will slowly populate with time. Also, I'm going to try to start streaming myself playing this game to give people an idea of what its gameplay is like. Hope to see you guys in-game!
Less than two weeks ago a new version of the game was released with some changes and balance tweaks. As for the community - the game is fairly active for such a tiny playerbase. I myself have played for a bit more than a month and so far it's really fun. In the beginning it seemed quite unbelievable that a game with more than 100 units could even be remotely balanced, but having played it a bit(around 130 battles or so), balance seem quite decent. There's constant discussions on it on the forums and devs seem to listen to the community quite a bit.
I guess the main problem right now for Zero-K is the semi-absence of a 1v1 scene - teamgames are being run all the time but 1v1 lobbies only fill during the peak hours.
As an old time Total Annihilation, Spring and Zero-K veteran i can say this game is pretty awesome.
Maybe one of it's strongest points is its fully customizable interface and a thing called "custom formations". And it's worst must be it's looks and it's currently small player base.
To elaborate: Custom formations is a feature that allows the player to set up formations like the in starcraft much talked about "concave" with the mouse. The player selects a group of units and drags a line with the right mouse button pressed. The selection will then line up on the drawn line. This might sound very simple and trivial, but once you have grown used to this feature all other RTS games feel like they are missing something. (Including Starcraft :S ) The amount of control you get over groups of units was really an eyeopener for me. I am still wondering why other RTS'es haven't picked up on it yet. So, purely for this feature I would suggest to check out this game ;-)
(If i am on line there you can ask me to give you a small introduction since there is not much of a single player campaign atm)
Oh, and hi lauri0 didn't expect to see you here ^^
The latest update utilizes the newest version of the Spring engine, 96.0. This is pretty exciting because the game has been using version 91.0 for a very long time, and it is nice to see the devs upgrade the game to use the most recent engine release.
Also, this Saturday (Jan 11), the community is holding a 1v1 tournament and many of the top Zero-K players will be participating. The tournament will start at around 1:00 PM EST. If you are interested in watching some high-level play, you can either join the games as a spectator and watch, or you can watch the stream with commentary here. Also, the tournament has no skill requirement to join, so if you are feeling up for a challenge, you can sign up as well. More information can be found in the forum thread.
I wish indie RTS projects would just try something other than trying to be the new TA though... like, bring something really new and different for once, both in terms of background/universe and gameplay.
On January 10 2014 16:59 PoP wrote: I need to try this out.
I wish indie RTS projects would just try something other than trying to be the new TA though... like, bring something really new and different for once, both in terms of background/universe and gameplay.
It is hard for them. Proper RTS games take much more skill and experience and money to do. There is a reason why Starcraft has nothing similar to it (except Warcraft made by same company) and why it is considered best RTS by most people.
On January 10 2014 16:59 PoP wrote: I need to try this out.
I wish indie RTS projects would just try something other than trying to be the new TA though... like, bring something really new and different for once, both in terms of background/universe and gameplay.
It is hard for them. Proper RTS games take much more skill and experience and money to do. There is a reason why Starcraft has nothing similar to it (except Warcraft made by same company) and why it is considered best RTS by most people.
Wish I could advertise an RTS that some guys and I are creating for quite some time now, but because we are so unorganized and we work on it on and off, it's not even near being advertiseable.
It's going to be based on "Machines: Wired for War" and current name is "Open Machines", but it's not really in a playable state at the moment. :/
Gonna take a look at the Zero-K tournament as I haven't seen tournament matches before.
On March 22 2012 08:15 decemberscalm wrote: Like a lot of old rts's, TA was micro hell to play to the best of your ability. Zero K changes this by having units auto micro. I know this sounds terrible from an SC perspective, but believe me, its such a breathe of fresh air for TA. The focus is on strategy and tactics as opposed to apm. You will still need really high apm to play at the best of your ability and keep everything in motion, but its no longer hell like it was in BA (balanced annihilation).
Have to disagree on this, I feel TA was very macro intensive, with micro playing a much smaller role in the game behind macro and strategy. BA was a lot more micro intensive than TA and didn't have the same scaling feel to it. Haven't tried Zero K so can't comment on that, but the idea of auto micro? Sounds hideous to me, if I want to do something with a unit that the auto micro doesn't think optimal, will it turn it around (e.g. sacrificing a unit to scout something)? I feel if you're a kind of player that prefers not microing, it would be better to turn to a turn based strategy game where there is no need for macro/micro/apm, as removing some of these facets appears to remove from the true meaning and purity of RTS.
Iam not a good TA player but yeah original TA is more macro than micro. ESC and especially TA Zero are more micro intense but still focused on macro. TBH i dont like Zero-K too much because there are too many different factories available at start, its a matter of preference though.
On January 11 2014 00:21 rANDY wrote: if I want to do something with a unit that the auto micro doesn't think optimal, will it turn it around (e.g. sacrificing a unit to scout something)?
The Smart Unit AI only applies when you give a unit a "Fight" order (similar to an Attack-Move order in Starcraft). Therefore, giving a unit a Move order, Attack order, or Hold Position order should behave exactly how you want. Also, you can disable the Smart Unit AI by clicking a button on the UI.
On January 11 2014 00:21 rANDY wrote: I feel if you're a kind of player that prefers not microing, it would be better to turn to a turn based strategy game where there is no need for macro/micro/apm, as removing some of these facets appears to remove from the true meaning and purity of RTS.
I don't agree. RTS games generally share common traits, such as fast-paced or intense gameplay, quick thinking, 15-60 minute games, good multiplayer experience, large number of units, etc. People play RTS games looking for these qualities, and games can have these qualities even if they focus on different mechanics. It is also healthy for the RTS genre to have games with a varied array of playstyles, such as games that focus on micro over macro (Warcraft 3) or macro over micro (Supreme Commander). The fact that Zero-K tries to take some of the micro burden off of the player should not discredit is a valid and enjoyable RTS game.
I'm just a ZK fan come to plug the game, so I am certainly biased, but:
There seem to be a lot of misconceptions about the reduction of micro. The goal of the developers, which they have done fairly well at, is to remove the more 'busywork' micromanagement - think forming defensive formations or making larva injects - and putting the focus on 'meaningful' micromanagement, of controlling units across the map, managing production/economy, and actual tactics in battle.
Since maps tend to be bigger, relative to move speeds, in ZK than in Starcraft, and income is directly tied to territorial control (you build resource buildings on "metal spots" spread across the map - the main investment is protecting them, not building them up), there tends to be a lot more action spread everywhere at the same time. Raids will be going on across the entire front, and armies tend to be posturing close to each other and skirmishing more than in SC when one or more teams can sit in base and succeed. While features like the fight-command automicro and better buildqueues do exist, they don't reduce what is going on, only allow more scope for the player's attention. I used to be quite good at 1v1, in the top 30, and while the micro was less intense than in Starcraft most of the time, there was certainly no lack of things to do. The better interface made it easier to do things, but in 1v1 at least that just allows a higher scope for the play to take place in.
Raids will be going on across the entire front, and armies tend to be posturing close to each other and skirmishing more than in SC when one or more teams can sit in base and succeed.
Sounds like you only play sc2. In scbw in most cases you cant just sit in your base.
is the game too similar to TA and SC that this cant be released on steam as a f2p?
That isn't really a problem. It's more of a community size problem - there just aren't enough people who know about the game, so chances are it wouldn't get through Greenlight.
For anybody who is interested, don't forget to come and spectate the tournament. Like mentioned by Beamer, it is scheduled on January 11 6PM GMT. You can spectate either ingame by downloading the game lobby from the zero-k website or by tuning into one of the streams. Chances are there will be a caster(there may be more than one), probably Shadowfury 333. His twitch is http://www.twitch.tv/shadowfury333/
Meanwhile, for those who want to familiarise themselves with the game before tuning in to the tournament, here are some nice casted replays (both casted by Shadowfury 333, who has a lot of casted ZK replays on his youtube channel):
Spiderbots vs Cloakybots on a hilly map, players are Saktoth and Godde: link
Light Vehicles vs Hovercraft on a very flat map, players are again Saktoth and Godde: link
On January 11 2014 09:04 gostunv wrote: is the game too similar to TA and SC that this cant be released on steam as a f2p?
It isn't that similar to either, the main similarity to TA is the flow economy and a few unit-names; I am not really sure how Steam does it, but ZK and the engine it runs on are open-source/GPL; that would probably interfere with any contract with Steam.
And yeah, played BW once or twice with friends but never much.
If anyone has a good guide or resource for getting started in this game, that would be helpful. You may notice that I posted quite a while ago in this thread, but I am still very much a noob. I'm still trying to hammer out playing spider (very fun btw, lots of crowd control, hill walking, missiles are cool). If anyone wants to help out a noob, I'd be grateful.
Well, there are actually a shocking lack of general guides for new players - lots covering individual aspects, but nothing comprehensive. However, here are some of those which are good: Emblis' blog isn't updated anymore, but has articles that are mostly still relevant and are very good in both tips and theory. Gameplay Guide tries to be an overall 1v1 guide - isn't totally complete but is pretty useful. Strategy Treatise is good for trying to make strategies and understand the game, but has little specific advice.
As spiders specifically, I would emphasize how weak you are to agression, especially fast raids, until you have both enough Venoms (fast stunning AoE unit) to split off to stop them, and the firepower to kill whatever they stun, without compromising yourself against other attacks. You need to use Fleas to keep great map vision and keep your opponent on the back foot until this happens, and don't expand naked - put at least a laser tower in the main raiding paths whenever possible.
Once you have a good deathball up, then it gets easier, but you need to be sure to use very good positioning and skirmishing or the more tanky factories will still be able to smash you in a straight fight. Remember that your units are both expensive and fragile. Really, spiders aren't viable as a primary factory in 1v1 except on the most hilly, choky maps - though in teams, or as a backup 1v1 factory, they can be quite good.
On January 11 2014 09:28 Dessard wrote: I am not really sure how Steam does it, but ZK and the engine it runs on are open-source/GPL; that would probably interfere with any contract with Steam.
On January 11 2014 10:07 Chocolate wrote: If anyone has a good guide or resource for getting started in this game, that would be helpful. You may notice that I posted quite a while ago in this thread, but I am still very much a noob. I'm still trying to hammer out playing spider (very fun btw, lots of crowd control, hill walking, missiles are cool). If anyone wants to help out a noob, I'd be grateful.
Like Dessard said, the spider factory can be a tricky starting factory, especially for someone new to the game. It is generally recommended that new players learn the Cloaky Bots factory first, although Shield Bots are also a great starting factory, as well as Light Vehicles for flat maps. Any of those 3 are standard 1v1 starting factories.
Zero-K is on Greenlight! If you have played this game and enjoy it, vote for it by going to this page and clicking Yes.
Also, in a couple of days, Zero-K will be having its second 2v2 tournament of the year. More info can be found in this thread. Anyone can join. If you wish to do so, just post in the previously-mentioned thread.
Great news! Zero-K has been Greenlit! This is pretty impressive considering it has been on Greenlight for only a month. From here, the game needs to undergo a few more tweaks and improvements before being released onto Steam. From the sound of it, this process may take at least a few weeks.
The thing I like most about this game is that it hasn't been figured out yet - a huge contrast with starcraft. Nobody really knows what is OP and what isn't, or what builds are best.
Probably among the fastest RTS games seen to game time. At least that is my experience from watching the 1v1 tournament today. Might just be a rush meta or small maps I guess.
No, the game really is that fast. 15-20 minutes is late game (though in team games this can be stalled a bit more easily to 30 minutes or so). This is because raiders are quite strong overall, defenses are overall fairly weak, and players are basically forced to expand faster than they can realistically defend.
In the early game, raiders are running around trying to find weak spots to exploit, and in the mid-late game, heavier assault units (which are also taking 5-15s to build on average) are able to knock through static defenses easily enough that they can easily destroy their opponent's territory if their opponent's units are out of position.
When I came to Zero-K a few years back, I thought it was just another TA clone with improved graphics. It turns out that I have a weird taste for RTS graphics and Zero-K's graphics supposedly suck. Either way, this game is about depth if anything. I've played over 5000 matches, yet there are still strategies and tricks to explore.
I'm mostly a fan of competitive play, so this is what this review focuses on.
Comparing ZK to other strategy games, you'll notice that it has a lot less rules. While there is a very basic economy that needs to be carefully maintained for competitive play, there are hardly any "wrong" openings. In the early game it's very important to scout your opponent's opening and react accordingly, as games can be decided very quickly. This phase demands good micro and APM to make the most out of the few units you have.
Mid-game is where the game becomes really strategically demanding. You have to keep watching the enemy to make sure you're not getting countered. Meanwhile battles are happening all over the map, and you need to keep them going. If you're not keeping your enemy busy, he will simply outeco you. Battlefields leave reclaim, and you need to build defenses and constructors to secure it. While other games allow you to build a base and defend it, competitive ZK is all about map control. If you're not holding at least half of the map, you're probably losing. This phase requires you to zoom out and leave units to themselves. Strategic positioning of units and buildings is key.
Over time, players will start fortifying their half of the map into what is effectively an oversized base, and battles will become more expensive to fight. This phase rewards complex strategies and attack plans as most normal assaults will only yield little territory. Not many games get this far without being decided beforehand, but if they do, they're definitely the most interesting for me. At this stage, units and buildings are easily affordable and it's up to the player to choose the best combination. In some games this can go as far as building a unit launcher using the game's physics to catapult units behind enemy lines. Although there's a near infinite ways to win the end-game, there are similarly many ways to lose. Thus this phase requires the most experience and foresight in how each move will play out.
So if you don't mind the APM heavy first five to ten minutes (which is still much less than games like SC2), the mid- and end-game allow you to zoom out and focus on strategic decisions more than in any other game.
There is a ladder here https://zero-k.info/Ladders , as a keen ladder player I'm hoping this steam launch brings more competition to the game! Pre-steam launch there would be about 50 players online at a time, now post there are at time of writing 360.
Also periodically they have a "planetwars" event, over a weekend, where players join one of 3 factions and fight for a galaxy (each planet is a map, and games won on it contribute to your faction's progress) See https://zero-k.info/Planetwars , to see the last test Planetwars that was done before Steam launch.
When I came to Zero-K a few years back, I thought it was just another TA clone with improved graphics. It turns out that I have a weird taste for RTS graphics and Zero-K's graphics supposedly suck. Either way, this game is about depth if anything. I've played over 5000 matches, yet there are still strategies and tricks to explore.
I'm mostly a fan of competitive play, so this is what this review focuses on.
Comparing ZK to other strategy games, you'll notice that it has a lot less rules. While there is a very basic economy that needs to be carefully maintained for competitive play, there are hardly any "wrong" openings. In the early game it's very important to scout your opponent's opening and react accordingly, as games can be decided very quickly. This phase demands good micro and APM to make the most out of the few units you have.
Mid-game is where the game becomes really strategically demanding. You have to keep watching the enemy to make sure you're not getting countered. Meanwhile battles are happening all over the map, and you need to keep them going. If you're not keeping your enemy busy, he will simply outeco you. Battlefields leave reclaim, and you need to build defenses and constructors to secure it. While other games allow you to build a base and defend it, competitive ZK is all about map control. If you're not holding at least half of the map, you're probably losing. This phase requires you to zoom out and leave units to themselves. Strategic positioning of units and buildings is key.
Over time, players will start fortifying their half of the map into what is effectively an oversized base, and battles will become more expensive to fight. This phase rewards complex strategies and attack plans as most normal assaults will only yield little territory. Not many games get this far without being decided beforehand, but if they do, they're definitely the most interesting for me. At this stage, units and buildings are easily affordable and it's up to the player to choose the best combination. In some games this can go as far as building a unit launcher using the game's physics to catapult units behind enemy lines. Although there's a near infinite ways to win the end-game, there are similarly many ways to lose. Thus this phase requires the most experience and foresight in how each move will play out.
So if you don't mind the APM heavy first five to ten minutes (which is still much less than games like SC2), the mid- and end-game allow you to zoom out and focus on strategic decisions more than in any other game.
This description could be applied to Forged Alliance too, couldnt it?
On March 23 2012 07:13 Ruscour wrote: How graphically intensive is this? Basically what I'm asking is, is there anyone on Linux who has any experience with playing this with open source drivers?
Yes. It works fine on "compatability mode", no problems.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hR2Ix.png)
)
