Sandman and fuzztrek-
But I think radical is what makes the truly best games.

Think about it, before Wolfenstein came out, there were no 1st person perspective games. Before the original Dune, there were no real time strategy games.

It took someone with a lot of cojones and vision to come up with a new style and a new way of playing. If designers never did anything radical then new styles will never come into play. I think it''s the same with movies too....you can make the type of "Blockbuster" movie that you think will sell because it caters to a lowest common denominator philosophy, or you can create a movie (or book or TV show, etc) from your vision. Look at Braveheart for example....how many people would have thought a movie about an obscure 12th century Scottsih hero would turn into a virtual icon? Yes it starred Mel Gibson, but he''s been in not-so-good movies like Ransom too.

Maybe because I''m designing my game in the open source philosophy, I have no fear of being radical since making money is not my ultimate goal. I can see why people who wish to make money may want to hedge their bets by staying to the tried and true with a twist here and there. I for one though want to see very radical games which challenge the very essence of what we think of as games and entertainment, and I would imagine my posts reflect that The very things we take for granted and that we assume are vital to "fun" are what i question.

I''m not saying my ideas are going to revolutionize the industry or anyhting...and in fact, my ideas are are mainly just different ways of doing the same thing. Truly radical ideas offer you not just new ways, but new things as well.

My point is that designers should stretch their imaginations and not fall back to the safe and comfy all the time.

Are my ideas different? I think so:

1) No godlike control of units: Just because you click on a unit does not mean you have access to it, just because you give an order to a unit means it will follow it, and just because your unit sees something doesn''t mean you the player will see it. As far as I know, no game does this. In my game, an avatar represents the player on the board. I want the player to feel like he is leading his forces...rather than controlling them.

2) Control via intelligent agents: Units are not controlled directly, they are controlled by intelligent agents capable of autonomous control. Player selects officers which in turn control units. Most games have the units with some sort of AI, but mine will be unusual in tha tthe units themselves only have very limited AI< and the Officers are the ones capable of independent action and control. Officers will be able to communicate with each other to do planning and coordination.

3) Order system: Officers are issued orders which are based on the officers rank. Orders have many parameters and functions which can be set by the player (think of macros but with more refined control). Some games have a very limited order system...such as formations, or things like attack, retreat, regroup. My system will be much different in that it will incorporate the fact of officers having different methods (orders) they can call, and that being turn based, the orders will be far more intricate.

4) Campaign system: Units are affected by losses to the units as well as supply issues. Units will take casualties that can be replaced, units will lose ammo and fuel, etc. Logistics will play a role in the campaign system to make sure that units can keep fighting. 80% of an armed force is composed of support units to maintain the fighting force...most games do not factor this in. Lots of games incorporate campaign play, like Close Combat, or TOAW, but these are more hardcore wargames than mainstream RTS games.

5) Communications, Command and Control (C3): While command and control have been explained above, communications refers to the fact that units and officers must communicate with the player. This is the point reflected in bullet 1) that says just because a player can click on a unit doesn''t mean he has access to it (it''s very much like networking concepts...IP has to know how to forward the packets, and TCP makes sure the recepient receives it). As far as I know, no game implements this feature.

6) Organized units: Units are not created willy nilly "pizza style" but are organized along standardized lines. This post was originally about this issue alone. Kohan and Ground Control are the only games I know that implement something similar, though mine is more complex than their implementation

There are others, but they are hard to explain without going into lots of other details. I''m sure you find my concepts utterly boring, but hey, that''s your prerogative. But I think that my ideas if not radical are very different from what is offered now. I''ve said before that I think the military would be more interested in my game than average-joe player because mine will be much more true to how battles are actually fought than how current games are designed. I''ve coined my style a warfare simulator rather than an RTS.

Lol

I think the only one annoyed here is you fuzztrek. There''s a simple maxim about going to forum boards...if you don''t like what someone says, ignore them. My point isn''t to personally annoy anyone, and if you feel that way too bad. If you feel personally insulted, I''m sorry, but that was not my intention. Please feel free to ignore me if you''d like. I actually have considered other people''s comments...for example turn based. I orginally wanted my game to be 100% real time, but after seeing some people''s comments about the pro''s of being turn based, I felt that they were right on many points. So I am open to constructive criticism...not just saying things like my ideas are "stupid and boring" .

I agree though that my ideas are probably hard to imagine without a demo or something to get a good feel for what I''m trying to do. As for points 1 and 2 being contradictory, not really. I want the player to feel like a general...not a god. A general is not almighty and all powerful and has instant access to his units. He must obey the physical laws of communication (relative to the technology of the game) to give orders to his units. As for the technological side of things, unfortunately my programming skills are very basic and fundamental at best, so I don''t know exactly how complex the issues will be.

But that''s a part of the design process...the programmers will give feedback on what''s possible or not. I actually had even much more grand schemes planned for the officers, but I felt that it was probably a little out of anyone''s leagues, and scaled them back some.

So, despite what you think fuzztrek, thanks for the feedback. The smart general will not underestimate anything, or not digest the smallest piece of information...so I look at all criticisms. Some I feel are valid and germane, and others may be valid, but not germane to what I wish to do. It does not mean the criticism is wrong, just not what I feel would be suitable for my envisionment.

FUZZTREK:
For about $10 you can try out what it feels like to be in control... but to not have complete control over your units.

A game called Majesty, that you can probably pick up at a bargain bin (or pre-played).

Of course, the indirect control Dauntless wants (player commands officers, officers AI commands grunts) is different from the control in Majesty, but it really does give an entire new feel to the genre.