Indeed :-)

My suggestions to improove this would be:

(a) less micromanagement. Basically the possibility to have commander units that then take care of certain things. That can notify you ("enemy sighted - engaging" "under heavy fire - retreating") and that have the ability to handle certain aspects, like movintg artillery units attached into the back etc.

(b) more distinctive units. Units that have a special cause. An Artillery that has a high or extreme max range, and a big min range, and that is totally helpless, using a lot of supply. Anti tank infantry that is helpless against ground troops (or extremely ineffective). Stuffl ike this - the old problem of requiring a good mixture of units and to use them in a good and effective way.

(c) more realism in units damage - I know exactly one RTS wheree the backside of a tank has less armor value than the front side. Together with (b) thiswill allow small specialised units (with good tactic) to ambush larer forces, while (a) will allow the user to focus on this, without bothering too much on how to position individual soldiers in the scope of the larger battle.

Regards

Thomas

I don't agree that there is no strategy in RTS games, but I do agree that there is relatively little combat strategy .

You can measure the efficiency of a strategy or tactic using an equation like this:

efficiency = payoff of strategy/player effort needed to implement

The problem with the vast majority of RTS games, is that the game rules do not really reward military strategy well enough. You cannot well afford to split your forces - coordinating multiple groups of units in different parts of the map require considerable player effort, and give you very little additional payoff. Unless the player is very good at micromanagement, he'll fuck it up, and end up with substantially less payoff than if he had just sent in a mindless swarm.

Economic strategy on the other hand, is very well rewarded. The player effort involved in developing and implementing a new build order and pumping a suitable number of peons is relatively low, and the payoff for getting it right is huge - you end up being able to build twice as many units as your opponent in half the time. With those sorts of odds, you don't really care about strategy - its just Seek and Destroy.

So, how do you fix it? Well the approach I am taking is to ignore economic strategy all together, because I am not interested in that - so remove resource management. Next, alter the game rules so that correctly positioning your units can make a substantial difference to their effectiveness - include rules taking into account manoeverability, fire arcs, and terrain. Make it so that combat isn't just about who has the most units, but who has the best position, and then strategic and tactical gameplay will follow. Finally, alter the interface slightly to improve the number of options available for each unit, without adding so much complexity that the game is unplayable.

[edited by - Sandman on June 25, 2002 7:14:48 AM]

quote:Original post by Sandman
I don''t agree that there is no strategy in RTS games, but I do agree that there is relatively little combat strategy .


So, how do you fix it? Well the approach I am taking is to ignore economic strategy all together, because I am not interested in that - so remove resource management.

Just out of interest, how does the player obtain units without an economy? I''m assuming that you replace it with some form of point system or other means ( please don''t say that the units available are fixed ). Do they have a choice of what units that they can use?





"Making it up! Why should I be making it up. Lifes bad enough as it is without wanting to invent more of it."

quote:Original post by Zarquon
Just out of interest, how does the player obtain units without an economy? I''m assuming that you replace it with some form of point system or other means ( please don''t say that the units available are fixed ). Do they have a choice of what units that they can use?

The player can obtain units more or less freely, subject to some limitations. I''m still fiddling about with the details, but you can read about (and give feedback on) the basic idea here.

Sandman - sounds like a good idea, I like a change from the norms and it''d make a change from the standard build base - collect resources - build army - level enemy, RTS.




"Making it up! Why should I be making it up. Lifes bad enough as it is without wanting to invent more of it."

I believe that the origanal poster was not saying that there is no strategy in all RTS just very little and as some one said "you get better results by just mindlesly rushing than placing you troupes carefully"

if any of you have played in any of the AOK tournaments(I have) you will agree that thoes who win the tournaments are not sitting back carefully planning strategic moves they get in there and blast away with the best fastest and most powerful units they can get.

I also agree with the original poster on Knights&Merchants(which I have played)the micro management was handeled if you built your town right and would take care of its self. Allowing you to concentrate on your armys. also making units wase alot more than just point and click so army size was some what limited and the odds you wer up against wer pretty bad. Attacking from more than one side had its advantages also. I think that this is the closest any game has come to true strategy.

check it out at http://gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/nov98/kam.html

M Vanwa

Nothing is impossible