"Simcity" is a feature of top RTS games

Buildings, units and strategies which synergies into a playstlye which some guys consider as "noob sim city camping" are one of the symbolic features of RTS games.

With CoH and CoH2 being on the forefront of this genre, it is ok for these games to feature such gameplay elements. It is ok if a player chooses this playstlye. What is not okay, however, is your refusal to improve yourself, your refusal to learn to master the tools at your disposal for getting rid of sim cities.

There are so many great, creative and highly exciting strategies to bring a sim city down, and succeeding to do so is one of the most rewarding experiences in life. Why should we deprive ourselves from such an adrenaline-pumping challenge by nerfing every "sim-city" unit in game (FlakHQ, Brits buildings, FRPs etc)?

Which games have Sim City exactly?

To me Sim City means making a well fortified frontline base which is hard to take down and even annoying for the enemy, but does not mean it will win you the game.

Now I know the term from CoH, but many other builder games such as from the Age of Empires series and hell even StarCraf has a sort of "Sim City" gameplay as well.

Another example is Supreme Commander.

However, those games aren't shoving it down your throat like Relic are with the Brits.

And since Sim City for the OKW is basically their HQ trucks, you have a choice, you can sit them at your base to be better protected or set up somewhere near the frontline so you can retreat, reinforce and heal faster as well as repair and have some protection from your Flak HQ.

While the Brits only have their emplacements the the Forward Assembly, the emplacements are basically stationary units.

And I see less and less people building emplacements as Brits, however, they keep building the mortar pit because without it, the Army lacks an in-direct fire unit that's not doctrinal, that's the problem.

You're being forced to get the mortar pit IF you want none-doctrinal and fuel costing in-direct fire support, while the 17 Pounder and Bofors both have mobile alternatives and are not required to be built most of the time.

Same goes for CoH, you were forced into making the emplacements as a Brits since they were basically your main Army, you had to go Commandos for a mobile MG and a mobile mortar which costed a lot in terms of man power and came in too late to be effective from the HQ Glider, and you had no mobile AT gun like in CoH 2 so you were forced to get a 17 pounder since your PIAT sappers alone wouldn't be able to repel all enemy Armor and you had to hold them off before you could get a Firefly, but at least you had the Bren carrier with the Vickers MG upgrade so you could bypass the MG emplacement in some form.

Will give the trolling attempt a 7/10 - solid content but User name and this being your first post deducts a few points.

The difference is that in any of those RTS games you mentioned:
- The longest range for any artillery unit is, at best, 1/10th or 1/20th of the entire map length
- They require you to acquire control over resource sectors that are distributed all over the map
- You can't camp those resource sectors forever, since resources tend to get depleted

Compare these to:
- 2 VPs being all you really need to control
- Mortar Pit/ISG range
- LeFH/B4/ML20 range

6/10. Nice attempt.

Locked down. Nice try.