[quote name='Orymus3' timestamp='1357750499' post='5019517']
You need the opponent to know the origin of the fire, and that they must strike this position.
[/quote]

Actually if your game is based on our time or the future it should be no problem to give the player that information. Even today it is possible to detect incoming artillery and calculate where it came from. I guess using radar or some other high tech stuff.

That's why artillery isn't static anymore. It strikes and if counter artillery is expected it will change it's position. Just like snipers that move after a shot.

Self-propellered artillery makes much more sense for such situations.

I found it even more interesting that some artillery systems are capable to shot multiple shells and all hit the target at the same moment, preventing the units in the target area to take cover before the next shell hits.

They adjust the detonation used to shoot, then each shell is using a different trajectory (the first one takes the longest trajectory the last one the shortest). That way some system can hit a target with up too six shells simultaniously.

I would only make the strongest artillery units incapable of movement. They should however have a longer striking distance than all mobile units, else the will get shelled, the attacker withdraws out of range before the counter artillery hits and then start the whole thing again.

Dropping actual move speed is something that I have been looking into. Most commercial devs and mainstream gamers don't like it though, because they want fast 30minute session games.

I don't think "30minute session games" are something designers and gamers just mysteriously "like". I think it is a nearly unavoidable consequence of making a good RTS game.

A good RTS game has to feature substantial average probability per time unit of winning by superior strategy. If that opportunity is absent, it means players do not get the chance to make meaningful strategic decisions. Then the game is a bad strategy game, or not a strategy game. If we assume the game does offer such opportunity, and further assume it averages out to some constant per player, then the probability of a 1v1 match still going on at time t is something like exponential distribution squared, P(t)=(1-e^-t)^2. That drops very fast.

That is not right. People specifically say that they want games around 30 minutes for scheduling reasons. Also 30 minutes is a function of map sizes and gameplay style and number of units. Do you really think its a coincidence that the optimal game would fall right into a good value for the average person's schedule?

Dominions 3 and other TBS games NEVER end in 30 minutes. Is that because you cannot make significant strategic decisions? Have you ever noticed that a certain segment of gamers tend to like the super long games more? That preference couldn't possibly correlated to their larger amount of free time could it?

I have been looking into some sort of perception stat so you can hide units in tall grass or trees and so forth as well as reduced vision ranges. Not only for all factions but for specialist factions. Imagine a faction based on forest control. They see farther there, they hide better, they can move through normally impassible forest. Now moving in the forest is slower and harder to do formation, but if its big being the only one who can navigate it safely is a nice advantage, other groups having to take the long way around.

FYI, the Wood Elf race in Warhammer Fantasy Battle is pretty much exactly like that.

I'm sorry, I was not aware we were talking about table top war games...

[quote name='hpdvs2' timestamp='1357757345' post='5019564']
That's a good idea, and in general I would agree with it, but I've toying with a different idea now. So far, Star Craft and others are based on rock scissors paper technology, but the handling of each is almost identical. I've been considering different modes of game play depending on the race. So its not just weapons/defense balancers, but also tactical balancers, in the sense of how things move and work together via AI, and Player control.
[/quote]

apologies if I didn't put the "etc." at the end.

Support units, and the likes all need to be prototyped as well. The idea though is to think of units by their basic function within the game. The "why would I want X unit?". The answer can be to counter another, or it can be because its cheap, or it can be that, if you have a wall of y and a cluster of z, X actually complements them and make them stronger.

Improving a bit on standard RTS unit AI to cover basic commands like kiting and falling back when low on health. You could even do in game research options to improve AI or use a veterancy system to aid. I like an earlier post where if X unit survives long enough against Y race, it is just generally better against it.

I think ff12 included a programming for dummies style of combat. It relied on a series of easy to grasp if/then statements. (ex. If life is <50% then cast cure on self. This would be two things, life <50% and cast cure on self) The game's battle scheme was easy to grasp and allowed for a decent amount of options. I would at least suggest giving the combat system a look.

The player could set these up mid game or even use presets he/she made. You've got sniper units tasked to move to next nearest cover after firing and infantry that will only throw grenades at hardened targets (conserving ammo if the game uses that mechanic).