The only thing I worry about is compleating the game. The nice thing about FPS is that its just about killing the others. At least in my (very limited) experance with strat games is that it takes a long time to beat them and you cannot get further unless everybody is there ie Diablo 1 and 2. However if that has changed and its just about doing the level then I am all for it. As long as I still can waist all of you at HALO.

Bob, I think you have the wrong idea here. Playing a strategy game at a LAN party does not mean playing cooperatively. It means killing each other off! You'll see, you'll like it.

Well....
Only if there is more death and destruction then I guess its ok.

I think that RTS games aren't as popular because they all have the same strategy:

1) Get as many worker units as you can in the first 5 minutes. These are used to obtain resources and build 3-5 basic attack manufacturing buildings.

2) Build 100 of the least expensive attack units available.

3) Defenses are basically a pointless waste of money unless you have an unlimited supply of resources and can avoid detection by other players for the first 45 - 60 minutes.

4) Send your massive army of weak units into the other players base so that it overwhelms them.

5) Burn baby, burn!

Bottom line, strategy games don't involve too much strategy. It all depends on who can get the most units the fastest. That's why I'm not a huge fan of RTS games at LAN parties. However, some of the funnest LAN parties I've been to have been coop RTS games against bots where the computer is given an almost insurmountable advantage. I've got a couple of maps like that for W3 that I think we should try. However, the learning curve for RTS games is always so high that it usually ends up that only 2 or 3 people are actually having fun playing the game. I don't think a straight up head-to-head FFA will be much fun.