Strategy or more first person?

If it''s strategy, I''ve been bandying about a game idea for alittle while on a clan based warfare. The weird thing is, I have both a sci-fi and a fantasy version. The only real difference are the units, as the story essentially is the same.

In a nutshell for the sci-fi game, it''s set several decades after some meteors decimate Earth. Earth has recovered, but found itself under the heel of it''s former colonies on Io, Mars and the Moon. Basically, the colonies figured the best way to establish order and stop the fighting amongst the surviving entities on Earth was essentially to occupy it. This never boded well with some of the groups on one of the colonies and remained a dissident voice.

On Earth, since it took several decades for the colonies to gear up their industries to try to help out the remains of the Earth governments, local groups coalesced into larger groups for self-protection purposes (I estimated that after ten years, approxiametly 80% of the world''s population died). These groups over time evolved into little fiefdoms each of which was pledged support by military factions. These military factions (the most popular term being Martial Houses, but some by Clans/Septs) owed allegiance to their Sovereign and would eventually come to battle against the Colonial Forces when they arrived a few decades later.

Eventually, the colonial forces managed to convince the martial houses that swearing fealty to the colonies was the best thing they could do for their own people (the martial houses had the combat experience, but the Colonies had the technology). What ultimately happens however is a Civil War. A Civil War between one of the Colonial forces martial houses and supporting septs (septs are family groups within Clans...it''s an old Gaelic term) versus the rest of the colonies. This is the one colony that had objections over the "forcible" integration of the Earth remnants into their fold.

What I wanted with this game story was not something clear cut like a good guy vs. a bad guy. Indeed, I drew my inspiration from the American Civil War. While popular history likes to paint the Civil War as a somewhat evil and stupid Southern hegemony defying the Constitution and advocating the wicked practice of slavery, this was absolutely a falsehood. The true essence of the American Civil War was fought on the grounds of State Rights versus Federal rights. The Southern states felt that if there was too strong a central government, even an elected assembly could easily take on the form of a tyrant (whether that Tyrant be one man, or an elected assembly).

I wanted something like that in my game. I wanted something with grey lines. On one hand, you have the NEG, New Earth Government which is made up of the Colonies which govern the Earth factions under it''s auspices in the name of order and peace ("a House Divided"...would be their motto). On the other hand, you have the Io colony which believes that the time has come for the Earth factions to be freed on their own since the original purpose of the Colony''s intervention was to stop the warring between the chaos inflicted Earth forces. Since order had been restored, so should their freedom. But, and here''s the catch, the NEG is not an oppressive regime, but they are taking away more and more political power (and to a slight degree economic might) from the Earth forces.

The Fantasy is very similar, although there are some changes, but they are minor. One thing they have in common however is a central figure. The best way to think of him is as a William Wallace that essentially starts the revolution.

Well, I don''t know if that''s interesting or not to you. In game terms, the sci-fi version is much more "realistic" than RTS''s are today. I don''t envision resource management the same way RTS''s do, and I have very wargaming-esque type rules (Chain of command, Unit integrity, Morale, Logistics. CAS and artillery, etc). Units will also be very practical....ie, no giant mecha (why have something 30+ striding around on a battlefield...may as well paint a bullseye on your forehead). I also envision the game as very "campaign-oriented". What I mean by that is that just because you win the battle doesn''t mean you win the war. Thinking in TRUE terms of strategy and long-term thinking is key. You may have won the field today, but do you have the forces to keep your objective tomorrow? You may have smashed through your enemies line, but did you leave your flanks vulnerable to counterattack? And I want it to be a 3d terrain because I want to employ terrain to it''s fullest.

Don''t feel bad, I think a lot of english speakers would have trouble with my post..partially because of my poor writing, and partially because of the words I use

Unfortunately, I have forgotten most of my french (oublie beaucoup des mots francais), otherwise, I''d strike up a post with you in French

I agree with you about the resource managment. I think if it''s going to be a wargame, then resource management should be done BEFORE the fighting begins, not during it. Actually, one of the major points of winning the game should be capturing your opponents resources, and just as importantly, his supply lines.

Most RTS''s today don''t deal anything with how realwarfare is strategized. I actually prefer turn based games because I think they actually model things more realistically than real time. IF AI gets so good, that you don''t have to "babysit" units, then real time is the way to go. But right now, I think its very stupid to have herd your troops like flocks of dumb sheep, all while trying to build your technological tree and harvest your resources.