Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Wavinator

What good are you?

This topic is 6589 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

... as a unit in an RTS/RPG, that is. How important should you be? Say you're the leader of a bunch of pirates or mercs. If you have a small band, your actions are going to count more than if you're running around with an army. So if your people grow in number, you eventually become obsolete unless you become some kind of super unit. I don't like this. My goal is to give the player a presence in the game, allow them to take part in struggles personally, and have a special asset they have to protect (their own hide!). I want them to be able to feel like a leader, not a useless weak unit that has to be mothered. But I also don't want them to be a hit point God... How do you stop your leader character from becoming worthless in larger struggles. I have one idea I'll toss out: the command circle. Anyone who's inside your command circle gets boosts to all of their abilities. So if you lead an attack, all your guys get a bonus if you're right there with them. (Maybe this should be based on your particular skill, I'm not sure-- the idea is to give some "management" bonus to your units.) Here's another idea: Maybe you only get respect by taking part in battles first hand (so it's based on your kill ratio, or HP to enemy HP ratio for taking on tough enemies). That way you'd HAVE to participate in battles in order to get respect, and thus tougher warriors. This I don't like as much, because it feels more like a penalty. Thoughts? -------------------- Just waiting for the mothership... Edited by - Wavinator on 8/30/00 1:41:18 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Third time I have to repost ... fuck*ng hell !

OK,
first, an officer is there to give orders, NOT to act as gunman (IMHO), so depending on the personnality, and rank, of the man, you will have different ranges of orders to give, and a different view/scope on the action.
Remember the lieutnant in Aliens (Gorman ?), now if you know a cool serie from the 80''s called Tour of Duty (Enfer du Devoir)...or maybe just picture Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan. And you get an idea of the differences of involvement of the officer.

Now another extremely important point if morale . Just look at the ass kicking of the squad in Aliens... and then look at the heroism of the Captain during the landing on the beach in S.P.R.
The officer must be amongst his troops to effectively give them orders during critical phases where they might all lose courage !
On the other hand, it''s hard to get a good view if you are under fire, and thus hard to give useful orders.

So you could have various orders depending on the rank and thus the scope of troops you are managing. For instance a captain in his base won''t be giving orders to every single fuck!n unit on the battlefield (why am I upset ... three letters : RTS), rather he will talk to the lieutnants who will do their job. But the problem is that in his base, the captain, as heroic as he can be, won''t be seen by the troops who will thus only be affected by the heroism of the commanding officer.
A sergeant could give specific move (run, crawl, walk, scout, test for traps and mines, fall back) and fire orders (cover fire, fire on three ranks, volley fire, sniper, RPG, ...).
A captain would be more giving orders like ''take that position'', ''stop this column of tanks'', ''take this bunker, damnit'', etc

Oh yeah, and I can''t help talking about a nice little thing from my days on the table top wargames : heroes !
Heroes (and to a limited extent, officer in general), could have special effects, the classic one being that the soldier doesn''t have to test morale as they normally should. But you can go further and give more interesting things, like special devices, magic, chaplain status, medic status.
God they are so many things to do...

*drools*

youpla :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about applying a new type of abstract idea to the leader. Make up a new purpose for the leader. Like umm, the leader is a doctor?! With out the leader everyone will eventually die, his strength is his ability to heal. Thus he can heal himself. Making him invaluble. Or umm, the leader is a technician and without him things will break down and become usless like weapons and transport vechials. ?!?

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by ahw

first, an officer is there to give orders, NOT to act as gunman (IMHO), so depending on the personnality, and rank, of the man, you will have different ranges of orders to give, and a different view/scope on the action.



I actually was thinking about letting the player lead from in front or behind, but was trying to beef up the advantage for leading in front. If you wanted to play cowboy, and potentially get your butt lasered off, that was fine. But I wanted it to count for something as well as be a risk.

quote:

Remember the lieutnant in Aliens (Gorman ?), now if you know a cool serie from the 80''s called Tour of Duty (Enfer du Devoir)...or maybe just picture Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan. And you get an idea of the differences of involvement of the officer.



*Off topic*
Wow! Tour of Duty was an awesome series. (Love that Janice Joplin music they used for the theme song, and how they had no compuction against killing off even lead characters...)
*Okay, back on topic *


quote:

Now another extremely important point if morale . Just look at the ass kicking of the squad in Aliens... and then look at the heroism of the Captain during the landing on the beach in S.P.R.
The officer must be amongst his troops to effectively give them orders during critical phases where they might all lose courage !
On the other hand, it''s hard to get a good view if you are under fire, and thus hard to give useful orders.



Morale is a good point. I''m a bit leery of implementing it because of the gameplay implications of low morale, particularly loss of player control... but, then again, I''m pondering NPC rebellion anyway, might as well bite the bullet and make this a part of it...

quote:

So you could have various orders depending on the rank and thus the scope of troops you are managing. For instance a captain in his base won''t be giving orders to every single fuck!n unit on the battlefield (why am I upset ... three letters : RTS), rather he will talk to the lieutnants who will do their job. But the problem is that in his base, the captain, as heroic as he can be, won''t be seen by the troops who will thus only be affected by the heroism of the commanding officer.



Ah, so you don''t like throwing around waves of marines in Starcraft, eh?

quote:

A sergeant could give specific move (run, crawl, walk, scout, test for traps and mines, fall back) and fire orders (cover fire, fire on three ranks, volley fire, sniper, RPG, ...).
A captain would be more giving orders like ''take that position'', ''stop this column of tanks'', ''take this bunker, damnit'', etc



K, I confess. I was thinking of a more beer and pretzels approach to warfare because there are so many other elements to my design already. You''d be closer to pirates or raiders than a well organized military (that career option is tugging at my heartstrings, but I''m trying to ignore it because it''ll bloat the design more than it already is!!! )

quote:

Oh yeah, and I can''t help talking about a nice little thing from my days on the table top wargames : heroes !



Got em!!!

quote:

Heroes (and to a limited extent, officer in general), could have special effects, the classic one being that the soldier doesn''t have to test morale as they normally should. But you can go further and give more interesting things, like special devices, magic, chaplain status, medic status.



That''s sort of what I was thinking with this command circle idea. If you or your hero is near your troops the command circle is an abstract way of saying that you''re managing them and reassuring them. Like I said, this was purely at the beer and pretzels, Starcraft level as opposed to Close Combat.


--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Paul Cunningham

How about applying a new type of abstract idea to the leader. Make up a new purpose for the leader. Like umm, the leader is a doctor?! With out the leader everyone will eventually die, his strength is his ability to heal. Thus he can heal himself. Making him invaluble. Or umm, the leader is a technician and without him things will break down and become usless like weapons and transport vechials. ?!?



But, but... then what would I do for my doctor and tech characters...

Thanks for the suggestion, Paul, but this was exactly the effect I''m trying to get away from. I want the leader to be a leader. Rather than serving a super unit function (like the commander as Super Builder in Total Annihilation), I wanted you to be able to either get in the thick of things or supervise from a safe distance.

The latter option isn''t a problem, and is really what just about every RTS really is because you have no in-game presence. The former I''ve only seen done in terms of super-unit with unique ability or hit point God.

So I guess what I''m struggling with is making it worth your while to risk your neck.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wavinator : OK, I know you were talking about this command circle, I jsut thought that saying the same thing from my point of view might just make you think it''s a Good Idea

Anyway, the point I wanted to make with my range/scope of commandement is that you can either be a leader fighter, always the first to run for the attack, taking the risks of being killed first, wearing no helmet, etc.But those risks inspire your soldiers (basically morale bonuses, you can detail this as better movement, or better fire, etc)
Or you get the ALiens lieutenant, that the comfort of the APC, but won''t be able to "really" manage his team when things get hot...

I think this would make interesting game choices, personnaly, I would love to play the lieutenant guy in Tour of Duty, giving orders, getting feedback from the sergeant, etc

(is there anywhere I could find stuff about the serie on the net ?)

youpla :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are looking for a leader that holds a physical representation within the game but you don''t want them to have some sort of invaluable special power? On top of this, you don''t want the leader to act as a ball and chain to the corps involved in battle?? I need an answer before i can go any futher

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am wondering a little bit. how would be the battle view ?
would you be inside just like a Tribes guy, in which I can totally see myself as a commander on the field with nothing special except my orders abilities and morale bonuses (that would apply to bots, not humans).
If I am a single unit a la Starcraft, then fuc:k that man ... the only time I would accept such a view is if it was a sattelite view and I, the CO, was NOT on the actual battle field.

Except that, I love the idea of being a CO without being as almighty than the commander in Total Annihilation, or as a hero unit in Starcraft. On the other hand, I wouldn''t mind if the special powers were granted on a scenario basis (that is, the bonus has an explanation consistent with the story). for instance, artifacts are a cool idea, and it is quite normal that leaders get the best material available (armors, guns, etc).

any more details ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Paul Cunningham

So you are looking for a leader that holds a physical representation within the game but you don''t want them to have some sort of invaluable special power?



Correct. You''re a character in an RPG/RTS. You can form a party. The size of the party determines the boundry between RPG and RTS.

quote:

On top of this, you don''t want the leader to act as a ball and chain to the corps involved in battle?? I need an answer before i can go any futher



Correct. Depending on your play style, you can lead from the front and get your hands dirty in each battle. This means attacking targets, manuevering, using inventory, etc. Think Battlezone, where you could order guys around and be a fairly average unit participating in the battle yourself.

Or, you can stay safe in your ship and direct the battle from afar. This is the traditional RTS experience.

You have the first option for 3 reasons: 1) it''s how you start the game (a lone "unit" on your own, building an army if you choose). 2) It''s consistent, so you don''t find yourself starting out as a single character with all these capabilities that you can''t use later in the game, and 3) I think it would be a fun arcade/action element.

So, again, I''m just trying to make it worthwhile to risk yourself in situations personally. (Thx for the great feedback so far, btw)


--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!