It seems like I'll have 2 options with my RTS entry. I can put in as much AI as possible for the opponents you play against, and hopefully get something OK. Probably of a standard like Warcraft II's AI. Or I could put the time into implementing a pretty solid multiplayer game for LAN. Since I've not done that before it would take up all the time I reckon so it would be a skirmish game only, with no AI players at all. And no campaign. I wondered what people (particularly judges) reckon on this? No multiplayer for an RTS will presumably be noted, and since the standard for RTS AI in new games is high then I reckon my effort will fall short - probably all RTSs will in the contest. But is a skirmish-only game where every player has to be a person a 'game' or just a demo? I kind of want to decide before doing too much on either front since I think trying to do both and ending up with stupid AI and a ropey multiplayer mode would be worse than either of the other options!

I think by making the game a single player game (AI), you can actually control how the player experiences it: the way you expect/want them to.
That's why you always see a disclaimer in multiplayer games, something like: "Warning: the gameplay experience might change during onlineplay." Yeah, something like that.

I could enter a great version where there were ONLY AI players [smile]

That wouldn't have any game(to)play, would it? XD No serious, gaming is about getting the experience.

Any comments from judges on a multiplayer-only skirmish RTS compared to a single-player only game (with a mini-campaign I guess)?