>Strategy games are generally based around territorial control. In this case, I would make upgrading an existing mine less efficient.
You need to consider this case-by-case, so I would disagree from a specific standpoint. But you're generally correct. Before anyone take other things into account, it's crucial to see this dynamic that you're referring to. But in the case of my game (mechanically), it's less relevant. It's still a factor, but there's also math you can do to account for this.
E.g. instead of giving upgraded buildings +10% yield at 10% cost of a new building (a linear approach), you could make the returns non-linear in some way or just linear to a much smaller extent (e.g. starting at +2% yield at 2% of the cost of a new building.
The reason why this isn't enough is because it enables you to concentrate your forces more easily. If you have 1 mine heavily upgraded and your opponent has 5, its easier for you to pick a small force and harrass each of those than they can (they need to take pretty much all they have and come at you).
That's why the upgrades need to be small enough of a benefit and take enough time to upgrade, so as to account for these things.
Active is better here, especially if its not more powerful, but mainly for versatility. For example, allowing a pikeman (typically good vs cavalry) to have a shield at all times, which is good vs archers, it just too good. Enabling a pikeman to temporarily lower his guard (lose his bonus vs cavalry and some defense) to move faster (get closer to archers) through the use of some sort of rush/charge command (stamina based let's assume) isn't powerful per se, but if you have a lot of pikeman, and the opponent has only archers at a safe distance, it allows you to take calculated losses to charge into them disallowing them any hope of escaping. Active = option. And they become only efficient if the player knows what he's doing.
Great reply here, I agree on the philosophy. That's why I'm currently looking into Starcraft and similar RTS games where there's a lot of focus on active abilities, as well as timed ones (those with great effect but looong cooldowns).
I disagree. By midgame, if you are still on level 0 armor and/or weapons, you cannot compete in any decent diamond or above match unless this is a zerging fest of some kind. Most of the skilled layers end up with victories by outmatching the dmg/def tech.
But that could be said equally about the number of units you got or how you macro them. You need upgrades, but a bad microer can lose against someone with inferior tech if the other guys kill off his units 3-by-1. I remember a match where I had about 12 units and he had 18 or 20 or so, and I won the standoff with only 3 or 4 units lost. Not because I had better tech or in spite of his tech being better, but because of micro alone. Now give that player +1 or +2 in both weapons and armor and I'd still win the fight, although with maybe 6-8 units lost instead.
However, I'm not in Diamond league and I haven't played SC2 in ages, so you may be right about that game though. Balance is key.
It is not a very good game mind you, but it has some good decisions ;)
Youtube was my friend once again Oh and in other news, I coincidentally checked out Army Men as well, a really geeky and fun concept. Although the gameplay was a different story alltogether.
Most realistic medieval rts generally fail to capture the real essence of a siege. Most pro RTS players do understand the importance of strategy over busting the front door.
Against a turtling opponent, the idea is to cut the chain of supply (Sun Tzu) which means cutting ressources and reinforcements. A player on "one base" can be cut from the outside world. A novice player will buildup an army and strike the coup the grace and will fail (this is how turtling wins: defeating overeager opponents) but a pro will capitalize on his mobility advantage to occupy more resources and control the map.
There's also the idea of top players swapping their strategies mid-game (e.g. from attacking aggressively to suddenly turtling over a bigger perimeter), which is a nightmare to manage but it can seriously upset the information the opponent is getting about you, if executed well.
I feel the trebuchet-like units are hosers for the turtling strategy which should not exist. In reality, the trebuchet fired twice an hour on average (unlike most depictions) and rarely hit critical structures aside from walls. Modern RTS assume that this is a precise tool used to detroy critical positions but it really isn't.
You're hitting the nail here, IMO. I do want a Trebuchet to my game, but it's highly limited by the factors you're mentioning here. In my concept, you cannot use the Trebuchet offensively (it's stationary and has an active ability that may or may not cost stone to fire and has a cooldown). You target an area and it hit's randomly within that field. The Trebuchet is strictly a late-game item and the counter to it is any fast units that are able to move away from the field in time. In some minor sense, it's the equivalent to Starcraft 2 nukes.