I didn''t read the entire thread, so this may have been mentioned already, but I have one beef with the proposed limits described in the OP; they''re an arbitrary black box.

Games like chess are abstracted enough that they can have precise, unjustified limits, but most computer games strive towards a higher degree of realism. The player of the Lord of the Rings RTS will be asking, "Why can''t I have that many wizards and hobbits? Does something bad happen if I do? Even if it does, why can''t I try it anyway?"

Properly explained limits- like the fact that only nine Nazguls exist anyway- aren''t bad, but disadvantages are usually better. Maybe the combined magical energy of your three wizards goes wild and turns that lone orc sneaking up behind your base into a good-sized fire drake. Maybe your fifth hobbit doesn''t get along with Frodo and defects to the enemy, taking a sack of your gold with him. All are more satisfying then being told by a mindless computer, "You can''t have that many, because I said so."

Nice Topic Diodor

Anyway i think hard-coded ''unreal'' limits and constraints should be few and well chosen, unless it is made clear to the player that the game is very abstracted (like chess).

Even a chess newbie wouldnt ask _why_ the ''units'' move in the way they do.
If a Starcraft Marine could only move upwards and not back or two tanks would fit in a dropship, but a single tank would not, people would be confused, if there wasnt a realistic/logic (to the world the game plays in) explaination for that.

The reason for that would be that Starcraft tries to be realistic to some level, the player can kinda identify with the action in the game.

Hard-coded rules should come into effect, when the reason for them is purely game-design and not logical (f.e. a unit limit, the godlike unit-control and mapview).

If you want your game-world to be believable, dont tell the player "You can only build 9 Nazguls."
Atleast tell him "You can only build 9 Nazguls, because there are only 9 rings, which have the power to turn a human into a Nazgul" (Yes i know, maybe you should provide a reason for only 9 rings existing too )

The player knows the world we live in, he expects that things fall to the ground, that people eat, that when he goes outside it might rain.

If now in your game you dont have gravity and substitute rain with meteors which are hitting the earth even without gravity, dont expect him to accept this without providing background information.

Unless ofc you keep the game rules simple enough to make him not ask.

Still i agree in general limiting freedom and realism in general can produce the best game-designs.

I have to disagree with the points Oluseyi made aswell tho.
You can move to the realism style of the RTS games he proposed, but i feel this is _not_ necessary to create RTS games which are fun to play.

quote:
Why do RTSes place you in obviously hostile/foreign territory with no base, no troops and no fortifications and require you to spend a significant amount of time procuring those? In all the wars that have occured throughout history, the forces are assembled at home and then transported - by foot, on horse, by plane, by ship - to the combat arena. For protracted campaigns such as city sieges, food, water and other resources are brought from home, and scavaging only occurs when resources run out.

In the real world, armies are always either located at the point of conflict - which tends to be reasonably close to civilization and a source of some supplies - or in transit towards one. I can make exceptions for Starcraft in this one instance because you''re in space, but other than that it falls prey to the contextual errors of the genre.

Furthermore, real-world armies are supported by countries who have reserve resources - at least at the commencement of engagements - that they can commit to the conflict as the need arises. ie, reinforcements.

Summary Eliminate resource-gathering as a prime component of gameplay.

In a fast paced (multiplayer) game, on a relatively small map, where the obvious goal is to destroy your opponent(s). Considering you take out (prdocution-)bases and resource gathering, why would you want to attack your enemy ? In defense he will most likely have a bonus of some kind... bunkers, turrets, higher ground, a river you have to cross. Maybe i am just uncreative, but i cant think of many ways to make a player attack the other under such conditions.

Bases and resource gathering can give a game new strategic possibilities. If your army is smaller than his, without the option to attack him somewhere where he might not have many units
or the option to out-produce him, your chances of a comeback are relatively small.

quote:
Why do RTS games present you with virtually nothing in the way of intel? Even in the middle ages, a spy or scout did some recon to gain enough knowledge to plan an assault; in modern times satellite imagery, recon infantry and airplanes/drones and the like provide reasonably detailed information about the lay of the land and the locations of undisguised/unconcealed opposing fortifications and targets. This allows you to formulate a battle plan and deploy your forces as efficiently as you can, reducing the probability (with good planning) of wasteful consumption.

Fog of War is such a silly idea. Rather than fog of war, what RTS games need is a tactical map with a means of indicating the quality of information about an area. Quality decays with time, so if a recon unit takes two hours to return to base, the information there is two hours old (duh) and may be represented by a color change. If a camera is on location and connected to base via satellite (in a modern or futuristic setting), then information quality will remain perpetually high unless the camera is destroyed.

Summary Intelligence information!

Refering to Starcraft again, scouting is vital in the game, if you dont scout regularly you are pretty dead if your enemy knows what he''s doing.
Scouting options are pretty limited (some suicide unit, a fast flying unit hoping he lacks air-defense, observer, scan, overlord) but adding more units with a scouting purpose would create a grey-mass of scouting options not really different to each other.

Point taken tho, many games lack in that area

Fog of War:
In a classical style RTS, where you can overlook the entire map in a matter of seconds i''m all for keeping it the way it is.
Leave it to the player to decide how useful and current the information he gained is. If the map is huge and span of a game is more than 30-60 mins, such a feature would surely be helpful.

(Off-Topic: Implementing such a ''map'' as base for a scouting AI sounds good to me tho)

quote:
Why do RTS games make you a disembodied entity? This can actually be realistic if you are the Grand Commander or Field Marshall, but in that case you''re not likely to be setting objectives and giving orders to individual units; you''ll work with aggregations and delegate specifics. Either do that or give the player a physical location and eliminate the free roaming camera.

In either case, delegation is necessary; you can''t physically be everywhere, and you can''t logically track every single action on the map. The "Your base is under attack" warning in Starcraft was such an irritation to me; why can''t I instruct a set number of units to patrol an area and only bother me if the situation is dire? Why can''t I instruct a unit to scout an area and then do A if condition C, B if condition D or E if condition F? I know Starcraft isn''t the state-of-the-art in RTSes anymore, but it is the classic example and most referred-to title.

Summary Delegation!

Very dependant on personal preference i''d say, but i actually like doing something all the time, instead of watching AI agents execute my orders and still have the whole map in reach with 1 or 2 clicks.

If the AI was good enough to replace you in your absence, why play at all ?

quote:
I know Starcraft isn''t the state-of-the-art in RTSes anymore, but it is the classic example and most referred-to title.

Worst sentence in your whole post :-)
Starcraft is still the ''best''/most popular/most played RTS game around.

Now for those claiming Starcraft lacks strategic depth or you cant plan long-term strategies. Lets just say you should actually play the game above newbie level. Perhaps tomorrow i''ll write more about Strategy and Starcraft, but imo this is a bit off topic.

And I want to go and get some sleep now, hope to see some criticism tomorrow.

Force