I''m designing a RTS in space but i''m haveing diffilties coming up with classes of units. As stated in other post it is important to have different class. I though of a few but really need more. -fighters a really good against big huge battleship things because the huge weapons can''t hit the fast little fighter things. I have somemore but i''m still thinking bout them. Nick

Sentry guns (stationary, like the guns on battleships)
Mines - could explode or send out energy bursts
Assault transports - slow moving with heavy weaponry, built to withstand a pounding

Various classes of fighters:
* Light and quick - scout craft
* Cumbersome with heavy armor and weaponry, hit and run, not built for heavy dogfighting - bombers
* Medium speed and armor with decent weapons - dogfighting craft (my personal favorite)

Thanks, in a earth RTs you have air units, maybe i could use cloaked units and only units that have a certin weapon or radar thing could attack them.

Thanks Alot! Are you develping your own RTS?

Classes shouldn''t feel artifical. By this I mean that they should all have functional roles that fit within a larger scheme. Units fit within a larger whole, and all the units should play off the strenghts and weaknesses of the entire organization.

In other words, units are like players in a team. You can''t have a team made up of all running backs, or all Quarterbacks...but that''s how some RTS games play out. They dole out the unit types in what I call the "Development Tree" syndrome. Basically this means that the units that you start out with tend to be very basic, and only by researching technology do you gain the more advanced units to play with. To me, this is a very stupid gimmick that early games used as a coolness factor. My major point of contention is that while technologies do increase, units are not created in a vacuum.

Take for example fighters in a space sim game. What good are fighters without carriers to transport them? And what good are Destroyer Escorts (or the original and more older Naval term Corvette) if they have nothing to protect? What good is having a naval fleet if you don''t have somewhere to dock and refit them (a starbase)? Unfortunately, this is what tech trees do....they create contrived unit classes that the player "earns". Unless your game spans scores of years....tech trees should not introduce new unit types. If you think about it....there have been almost ZERO new unit types invented since the turn of this century (submarines, flying aircraft, carriers, battleships, tanks, artillery and everything inbetween has existed this century....the difference has been in how well they do what they do). The only notable exception I can think of are missles (and I don''t include helicopters or jet craft, as these are really just specialized types of aircraft). Now there HAVE been some inventions, but they have changed the way units are used....for example the aforementioned jet technology, radio, and atmoic weapons.

But my point is that actual unit TYPES has not varied almost at all since the turn of the 20th century. So if you think of unit types, make sure that ALL of them are available to the player at the beginning of the game.

I''d highly recommend going to a bookstore and looking at any Naval warbook for your inspirations. Think about what technological levels will exist in your game and how it might impact unit design. For example, in my game I have two factions with two different forms of FTL travel. One side has developed a warp tunnel engine which essentially creates a worm hole into a dimension with curved space. It means that travel is not instantaneous, but they can immediately go into this "warp space" whenever they please (albeit not near gravity wells). The other side uses a Quantum Leap effect, and instantaneously transports the ships. It''s downside is calculating the Quantum effect and powering up the engines which take time. However, it is not as affected by Gravity wells.

Try not to think of Rocks/Papers/Scissors analogy for your unit designs. In real life, one unit is often effective against many other unit types, but can in turn be vulnerable to many unit types (an aircraft carrier for example). Also, some small units CAN take out larger vessels if they are skillful or lucky (in WWII even battleships had to watch out for destroyers with torpdeo launchers). So really, no one class is necessarily designed to take out another class of ship. The closest "speciality" ships there are are Escort ships which are designed to defend their targets (usually either merchant ships or other larger ships).

I don''t agree with Geoffery Dunn''s analysis at all that Chess takes a RPS style of unit balancing. He even says himself that a lowly pawn can take out a Queen....to me this negates the whole concept of RPS. He even asserts that how can you say a Bishop is better than a rook?

To me, RPS is a system wherein one unit type is designed to counter another unit type. Let''s say there are 5 unit types:

a < b
b < c
c < d
d < e
e < f

However, there is no commutatitve property that asserts that a < c or c < e. In other words, A is ONLY definitely beaten by a unit B. However, it may be equal to unit C. In chess, there is no such thing, as any one unit can beat anyone other unit depending on the circumstances.

What I detest most (and yes I do mean detest) about RPS is that it concentrates the player''s attention on the unit itself rather than how to use that unit. To me, the more interesting variables in strategy games aren''t what to use and in what quantity, but rather what are the other extenuating circumstances and variables that affect the properties of the unit. For example, is one unit fatigued while the other is fresh? Does one side have terrain advantages? Does one side have superior commanders or better morale? To me, these elements are more interesting than the question, "what type of unit do I use?" that RPS stresses.

RPS game balancing simply can not simulate battles in which inferior forces defeated larger superior forces because they do not answer these questions. Moreover, even if RPS balanced games did factor in these questions, reality has shown that it is not really what kind of unit is used, but rather how you use it.

Maybe I think the way I do because of my martial arts training, but we learn that all techniques and all weapons have their place. In fact, I was just reading Miyamoto Musashi''s classic "The Book of Five Rings" about his view of weapons. In it he says that swords are good weapons because they are good general purpose weapons...but they are not inherently the BEST weapon. What''s more important is for the warrior to understand the nature of his weapon, and understand it is a tool. Musashi went on to say that while a spear may have an advantage in long range combat out in the open against a sword-wielder, if the sword wielder knew how to get into range that the advantage could be taken away....but on the other hand, a skilled spear wielder could learn how to minimize his weaknesses even in close combat (by using the spear much like a staff).

The gist is that even inherent weaknesses in weapons can be minimized or even used as an advantage depending on the circumstances. I believe that RPS simply can not account for this. Other forms of balancing must be put into place to allow for these possibilities.

I''m rather hard against RPS for two basic reasons....I think it is unimaginative and I think it is unrealistic. The realism part some will argue is not important because realism != fun. However the unimaginative part is I believe a fun factor element...as I believe other forms of balancing can provide more levels of depth and gameplay options allowing for multiple paths to victory.

As for rewarding players for progressing through the campaign, I suggest having persistent unit types that progress in experience. Not only is this rewarding in terms of better fighting characteristics, but it builds a sense of history and esprit de corps...and you become attached to those units. Things that happen in real life.

In regards to overwhelming the player at the beginning with unit variety, I''d suggest training missions at the beginning that slowly train the player into integrating combined arms warfare. For example, having a player escort some merchant ships and protecting them at first against cloaked vessels (space equivalents of submarines) and then maybe against fighter craft. Then you could have training missions involving protecting a space carrier while also having the carrier space forces attack other objects...requiring the player to learn defensive skills as well as utilizing attack skills with a different unit type.