Some RTS games boil down to either who can run through a predetermined build order the fastest, or who can micromanage the f*** out of the other guy...Those types of RTS kinda suck...
Age of Empires 3 however requires a bit of strategy and it moves a bit slower than some games so you're not penalized for not being jacked up on 5 hour energy. You might also try AI War....as an RTS it requires a LOT more strategy, but it's also kinda hard to get into... Then again, if you find RTS in general boring then AI War will probably be boredom on steroids.
You know what? not all games are for all people. If you don't like em, don't force yourself.
I wouldn't say that, Age of Empires 3 requires a huge amount of micro. --- EVGA
Maybe try something like World in Conflict or Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II? Neither have base building so you can get to the action faster. --- "I just wasted a bullet. Don't waste your life." -Big Boss
Well have you tried playing the Warcraft III's campaign?
As someone who finds rts's incredibly boring: yes I have, and while I never beat it, both it and Starcraft 1 and Brood Wars were a lot of fun. I also enjoyed what I think was called Warlock on the Game Boy Color as an rts, although that was a LONG time ago. I just haven't really enjoyed any rts's since I tried Warcraft 3. --- "You may not believe this, but I was once a remarkable man," -Denny Crane
Always preferred TBS games personally. More room for actual strategy being the determining factor in winning rather than who can reach the highest clicks per minute.
Depends on how you define strategy, tbhq. I definitely can see your perspective, but quick thinking and making split second decisions is a large part of RTS, and I believe those elements are strategic.
However, for more thought out long term planning I think that TBS is better. --- "planetside 2 would only have 30 people running around on a small map fighting." - GunWolfAlpha