Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 04 Aug 2012
Offline Last Active Jul 19 2014 05:58 AM

#5084875 What's so fun about city builders?

Posted by on 11 August 2013 - 03:24 AM

A partial city building fan here. What makes City Building exciting for me was that I enjoy games which actually make me think and looking at how my city builds into a flourishing economy. 


Personally, I enjoyed playing Tropico 3 and Tropico 4. The complexity and realism of the game really impressed me.


Just a summary, it's a game about building a city in the Caribbean during the Cold War period. Other than building a city, you have to manage the diplomacy between USA, Russia and Europe as well as keeping the different factions in the city happy. Building churches to appeal the religious people, having free housing to appease the communist and so on.  


What I liked about that was the high level management required to rule the island. You have to plan how you want your city to develop economically and politically right from the start. Also, the game actually gives you a lot of freedom to control how you play the game. You can actually implement policies which helps to propel your island forward in a certain direction. For example, if I wanted the city to rapidly increase in population, I can basically allow immigrants, regardless of the skill level to enter the city. 

#5018813 RTS games, looking for some 'racy' ideas... :D

Posted by on 07 January 2013 - 06:05 PM

Zerts - Ancient tall spiritual warriors who battle using the spirits of wind and thunder. Initially, they start off as normal warriors and can only call on the powerful of the spirits after years of spiritual training. Thus, their units have long building time and yet expensive. With wind, they kill their enemies swiftly and yet quietly. With thunder, they destroy numerous targets in one go. They can cast rituals to call upon wind or thunder to boost their power. When near a church, they can activate Save's Thunder or Spectre's Wind which greatly boosts their combat ability. It lasts for 1 minute. When injured in battle, they can cast the skill meditate to restore their health quickly but however needs to be uninterrupted for 2 minute. Able to fight effectively though outnumbered.

#5018072 Dynamic Game Content for an MMO RTS...

Posted by on 05 January 2013 - 11:10 PM

Of course with this massive of a struggle, I imagine that Blitzkrieg style attacks may be preferred.


The trick is how to make it last as long as possible and to prevent the Blitzkrieg style of gaming, build up for months and months only to have the game determined by Blitzkrieg. Maybe something which forces someone to advance. As I have mentioned previously, geography may be key. It is easy to defend a small choke point but not a massive battlefield. Large areas leave more room for more mistakes as there will be a large area to defend making it not as difficult to exploit the enemy defenses. 


Making the map extremely large can be a good idea. There can be a lot of routes too which players can route by to ambush their opponents and seize positions from the shadow leading to a cat-and-mouse chase where players continue fighting against each other in many different areas. Also, no matter how big your army, it's almost impossible to control every single area. Thus, no matter how badly players are pushed back, they can also come back through sudden reinforcements and pushing through the weak points out of the sudden. 

#5018069 Dynamic Game Content for an MMO RTS...

Posted by on 05 January 2013 - 10:55 PM

I like this idea.  This gives a bit of a way to defend a planet.  Perhaps there are Atmospheric Defense Systems, Something that doesn't help in battle itself, it just prevents space ships from landing in that area that aren't permitted.  Perhaps a planet should have those every X amount of space, perhaps 20 to a planet or so.  Being the first in the groups to land, you would land on a spot and attempt to put that into play, at the same time others would also be going into that area.  Dispersed evenly across the planet, these sites would become targets of the opponents until the entire surface is protected by one side.  at which point there is no escape or re supplying, though remaining troops can attempt a last stand  (unlikely) to take one of the defense systems out.
It gives goals.  This would also provide control centers.  These defense centers get extra government resources to maintain them.  Perhaps these players also get to influence the target areas that the battles occur.  getting to identify which areas should have more drop offs for battle. 


To add on the the planet colonization, maybe some planets will have some native population which inhabits the planet. Players have to negotiate with them first. If it fails, they will have to take the planet by force. This way, it does not give planets free planet. They have to go through some hardship to colonize it by battling against the ai defenses. At the end of the war, the player can choose to kill off the residents or win their support and allow them to be part of the population of a new government which can enhance the rate in which the city is rebuilt instead of getting your residents to come over from another planet. 


Agreed.  I was figuring this might play from multiple perspectives that way.  some players will be mostly interested in Tactical Combat, and others only in City Building.  I was figuring that City Builder's could let there troops go out to others.  I.e. Other friends can use the squads.  Both people gain if the squad succeeds.  Also, early players, not connected to teams or guilds could provide their squads out to an open forum in a sense.  
Additionally, Combatants who have no interest in the city side, could start using these free squads to use.  Combatants will only have access to low level troops.  After proving them selves with the starting troops, they will get get better resources to go into battle with.  After any available human players squads show up on the list, it will be followup up by AI squads, so even if player squads aren't available, AI ones will be.


Maybe you could provide more support for the non-battle aspect by creating a market where you can sell weapons you have built or maybe loans where player can borrow troops from other economic player for a fee. Also, they can help to guild manage the new cities which have been colonized, by managing the construction of buildings and defenses as well as how the economy of the city will be structured.


I like this idea.  For instance, perhaps you have guilds, but you also have those leading the battles on planets.  So the ones who own planetary defense systems on the same planet, perhaps they share the board.  They can see each others systems.  If another player is off line, then another can use their system.  No one would want to sabotage anything, because if the do, it weaken's their side, and they could lose the planet.  (not to mention get kicked off the game) 
This could actually fix the issue involving when a player is off line.


So you mean something like allowing your guild mates to control your troops while he is offline? Maybe it could work this way. Before going offline, players can set one of their guild mates to command their troops so that they will not lack of man power should the player gets attacked. It also can help to resolve the problems of the timezone, Asian players may be asleep while American players are very active. 

#5017580 Dynamic Game Content for an MMO RTS...

Posted by on 04 January 2013 - 06:28 PM

he first player who arrives on the planet should be the owner of the planet. If time permits, they can build a city with fortifications making it more difficult for future enemies to attack. Defenses can come in the form of walls, anti-air missile, heavy defensive artillery which destroys any target in sight. 


During war, I presume that the only way troops will arrive from other planets is via air-lift. Maybe battles can revolve about control over the airspace. A battle between fighters and the bombers will destroy any anti-air target on the ground. If it's an undecided battle then the airspace gets split into half, else if one side dominates over the air, sending reinforcements over will be more difficult but not impossible.


I thought of a weather system. Depending on the weather, it will have different impact on the war situation. If there is snow, troops move more slowly and if they lack adequate clothing, they will freeze and suffer a large drop in morale. Vehicles also may move slowly too. If there is rain accompanied by thunderstorm, it may be difficult to send reinforcements as the planes may get shot down by lightning. If there is fog, visibility will be poor rendering planes almost useless and the defensive lines will be weaker. Thus players can launch an attack during the fog and yet suffer less casualties as the guns and artillery will have decreased accuracy.


For a never-ending war, there should be a powerful defensive element involving turtling which is normally a taboo in RTS games. Making it such that it is almost impossible to break the lines using just sheer numbers and no tactic. Players have to plan over long period if they were to breach through the tight defensive lines such as flanking them.


Maybe the resources can be scattered all around the world some being extremely rich and some not. Maybe players can build resource collection centers around the safe zone to exploit the resources for temporary gain as well, maybe to fund the war as well.


How about players playing the support role? Sometimes, players are not interested in participating in these war campaigns. So what can they do? Maybe building vehicles and planes and selling it to other players especially when the former's technologies is much better than the latter. These ways, economic players can also have a part in the game.


There could be a guild system where players get together and conquer planets together as well as make new friends. It also provides for better communication. When they seize planets under their guild name, they can share the resources amongst themselves.

#5017343 Thoughts on Splitting Up the RTS...

Posted by on 03 January 2013 - 09:27 PM

I like the idea of scenery alteration. It makes the game more interesting since players can pull off more interesting strategies. For example, maybe players can build a small bridge to get around a place where they may be heavy enemy defenses involving catapults and so on. 


Maybe each player can be allowed to have a general which gives the surrounding troops a morale boost depending on what weapon they are using. Sword generals provide a defensive boost to nearby troops and so on. The idea works like real life. When the general commands the army personally in battle, they will feel motivated to battle. However, there is a consequence, if he dies, the morale will decrease instead temporary. Generals are only available when the barrack have reached a certain level, which to normal players, may be only be built at the mid game.


For the everlasting war, supply chains would be a good idea. Troops need food to survive, if they don't get it, their fighting ability will rapidly decrease. Food can be sent via wagons from the city to the military forts. Wagons are very slow and take a while to reach and yet fragile, thus they need to be protected. Enemies can deploy ambush forces along the supply route to prevent the supply from reaching. Players have to send forces to prevent such a thing from happening. Even though these battles may be small, they are pivotal to the war.


Also, experience system. As the troops participate in more wars and still survive, they can get promoted upon killing a certain amount like the Red Alert 3 system. They are stronger and perform better in battle.


I was just thinking. This system could also apply for 2v2. One player manages the economy and the other controls the military.

#5016620 Minimalistic space empire building game

Posted by on 02 January 2013 - 03:25 AM

But the thing I find a bit annoying and overused is the "everything in the end boils down to how many ships you can construct per turn". That, along with moving thousands of units on the map each turn, is my greatest complain about combat.


Maybe the amount of ships one can build depends on the population. The higher the population, the more active ships one can afford to have. In this sense, the game can also be realistic. In order to have a higher population cap, the player has to expand his empire by colonizing other planets with people or implement strategies to get your people to have more children which helps to increase the population in the long term.


Also, probably the game can focus more on the strategic elements such as the geography which can give a defensive or offensive advantage to the players. For example, ranged sniper mecha hidden behind asteroids armed with devices which prevents the radar from identifying them. When the enemy is approaching, they can launch a surprise snipe attack and destroy several ships which may help in reducing the numerical advantage. In combat games, no matter how powerful a fleet or ship is, it is bound to have weaknesses. Therefore, the intel war plays a significant role in battle. Players can thus deploy spies into each other's airspace be it using long range radars or stealth ships which does not appear on the radar. When you have discovered the troop composition of your enemies, you can build ships which directly counters that of the opponent. 


Therefore, players who are able to manipulate these strategic elements to their desire will be able to battle effectively even though they may suffer from a deficit in numbers.

#5016287 What makes an RTS great?

Posted by on 31 December 2012 - 11:48 PM

That brings up another interesting thought.  What if resources are not created equal.  For instance, a robotic force would have little use for wood, but and Elf race would.  (not that I'm planning Robots and Elves:)  Each race or key might have their own strewngths and weaknesses.  And perhaps portions of the maps could be dynamic.  For instance, Instead of a map editor identifying that Crystal is found here, and Oil is found here, etc...  perhaps it could just identify that this is a Resource spot, and when the map is generated, it automatically fills in appropriate resources for the base/race near by.


Maybe the amount of resources that will be changed in each map can depend on the match-up, as you have said a robotic force require more metal instead of wood, on the contrary, the Elves may require more wood. In this scenario, adjusting the resources of just a certain area will suffice. However, what if it match turns out to be Elves vs Elves, I don't think that in this case, the type of resources wouldn't imbalance the game too much since both players are in the same circumstances, if one is unable to make wood-heavy resources, so is the other. 


Also, what I don't like about RTS games is the deathballs and AOE effect. Many a times, I see that the deathball system makes game dull. In Starcraft II, you build up a large army for 10-30 minutes in which the game can twist greatly to the side of one player in a matter of 10 seconds. Psionic Storms, Hunter Seeker Missle, Fungal Growth and Colloseus can wipe out large armies extremely quickly. In comparison, I prefer the Warcraft III style of game play. The fighting takes a rather long time which helps to express a player's combat skill better. 

#5016015 What makes an RTS great?

Posted by on 31 December 2012 - 04:08 AM

Personally, I would like RTS which have dark maps such as Starcraft meaning that at the start, only their main base will be visible on the mini-map in which players have to explore the map to uncover new areas. Furthermore, varying economic structure meaning that for each of the same map, the locations and quantity of resources will be totally randomized. In a medieval setting, if the location near the player's main base is iron heavy but wood heavy in the middle, they may have to build swordsman and Knight which both require a lot of iron as compared to archers and catapults which are wood heavy units. Thus, the game may be a melee based battles where players battle it out with mainly melee units and just a few ranged units. Alternatively, they can opt to rush to take control of the middle area where wood can be found where the one who manages to seize control at the end will have a large advantage. This also works vice-versa. On a spectator view, it would also be interesting to watch.


I feel this is one of the better ways to test the player's ability to think on the spot and adapt to the situation. Of course, to provide for balance, the areas near to the player will have the same type and quantity of resources so that both players will be in the same starting scenario.


Geography play is something which I also enjoy in a RTS. Geography is another way other than the numerical advantage a player may have, to gain an edge in the game. Ambushes, protecting an area and attacking sometimes rely on geography. In Starcraft, tanks can be placed on the high ground so that it can guard a certain pathway by firing on nearby enemies and yet enemies sometimes may be unable to counter it if a Protoss player lacks observers to provide high ground vision. Also, for melee units, they may have to walk all the way round to destroy the tank and thus even though the Protoss army overwhelms the few tanks that may have been positioned as it will suffer heavy casualties. This is one way in which geography artificially increase the value of the units. Even when attacking with a biological army head-on against a larger army, if you can seize the better surface area, the smaller army may be more cost-efficient and at times even destroy the larger one. In a medieval setting, maybe players can trap their opponent into entering a small alley where they can use the cannon/artillery to rain hell upon their enemies.


I believe that geography is one of the better ways to express a player's skill and ability and also to make up for the deficit the better player may suffer from. 

#4966665 In-game economy idea - Your thoughts?

Posted by on 06 August 2012 - 08:17 AM

In my opinion, for RTS games, you would preferably want the games to be as intense as possible instead of a scenario where one player attacks while the other defends. Even worse, the opponent is a turtle(One who only defends) and prolong the game into a stale and boring game. Although turtling is a stupid tactic which can cause you to lose because your resources get exhausted, people still do it which irritates me whenever I play RTS games. Hence, there needs to be a method which can simplify the task of destroying even the strongest defense line. At the same time, not comprimising the viability of light defensive build where players choose to forgo the early game and prepare themselves for the mid/late game.

Method can include long seige weapons such as rockets and tanks which can constantly be a threat for fortification as well as destructive weapons which can only be used once in a while. English bad sorry.Posted Image