Quote:Original post by Frequency I think that's the problem with some RTS's that will not be named: if you took out the micromanagement there would be no strategy left. In my eyes this is a flaw of the game, not the idea of removing micromanagement. Isn't this an RTS? Give more meaningful choices to the player.
this is one of the reasons i don't like rts games; they're almost always RT with minimal s. if you break most of these games down to the actual strategy involved, it's almost always one single, simple strategy(zerg-rush?), and whoever has the best UBER-MICRO wins. all i've seen in the last few years worth of rts games is better graphics, the same ai(with no i), more of the same 10 billion mouse clicks to keep your army gathering resources to build more mindless drones that don't know how to walk from point a to point b. i'd like to see a rts game without the endless micromanagement, and instead some ai that lets you plan out your STRATEGY instead of having to repeatedly tell your gatherers to keep gathering and fighters to stop committing suicide and getting stuck on terrain.
i believe CTar is on the right track.
(after reading this post again "rpg" and "mmorpg" came to mind [lol])
The biggest reason that all the micro-management is in RTS'es is that the market research says that the majority of the fans want more micro-management. So the RTS developers keep adding more to make their bigger fan-base happier.
I'm totally with you that there's not really any strategy in RTS games. Bascially most matches are decided in the first 5min of play. Everything else is just playing it out.
Personally, I also prefer _less_ micro-management. However, in the absence of strategy, if you remove the micro-management there really isn't any skill left to the game. The "skill" in contemporary RTS games is how fast you can click on stuff, make hot-key group binds, and micro-manage the crap out of your army.
Well I feel like I should comment on this matter, as I am currently developing a 3D RTS with an empahsis on micromanagement. Personally, I see giving the players the ability to use micromanagement a good idea. However, we also want units to have AI, so that they choose the most important target to attack, as well as options for automatic formations (two of the armies in the game are squad based) and tactics. However, micromanagement will also be important for those who can.
Here is an example. A squad of USAN soldiers consisting of an anti-tanker, two machine gunners and a leader with a rifle encounters a USSR tank. The entire squad shoots the tank. This may win. However, with an anti-tank tactic, the team might try to take out the turret gunner and then cover the anti-tank gunner who would shoot rockets at the tank. A player with micromanagement skills (see über-micro) might attempt to manouver his anti-tank gunner towards the rear of the tank, where less armour is. The player may decide to take a machine gunner with him, and leave one with the squad leader (the dude with the rifle) to provide covering fire. The squad leader then tried to take out the man on the tank turret.
So just plain clicking will get the player somewhere. Using advanced AI tactics, which involves researching and selecting the correct tactics for the situation will give significant advantage. But actually micromanaging the units will easily win an equally matched battle.
Thus, a blend of good macromanagement and use of AI tactics can match a player with great micromanagement.
That's the way I see RTS games should go. But of course, I would.
Let's not get into the RTS strategy vs clickfest debate. I think we all know that some people think RTS games are strategically interesting and others do not.
The idea presented by the original poster is really just an extension of the idea that a player can move a group of units with a single click, or that a unit will move into range before trying to attack, etc. Basically the idea is to build in some assumptions about what a player's likely intent is, and provide that as part of the interface.
Unfortunately, assumptions don't necessarily enhance the player experience. There are a number of RTS games that allow players to set a "stance" for their units, but in many cases this adds micromanagement, because you're then obliged to set your units' stance appropriately (since your opponent can do the same). I don't think it's a particularly popular feature. I think the Warlords Battlecry series allowed players to employ user-created AI scripts. That hasn't taken off either - mostly because the optimal strategy is to download the best set of scripts, which isn't exactly exciting.
So in short, I think you really need to think this idea through, and explain why it will necessarily enhance the fun of an RTS game.
you have the normal detailed map where you can select, click units, then you have an overview map. you can toggle the main window via a hotkey. The overview map shows the map of the battle field and a toolbox similar to paint. selecting units and drawing a circle on the map makes thos units patrol/defend the area. drawing lines across the battlefied may signify you want to hold that line. selecting 2 groups and then draw a parabola-like tool to command the groups to perform a pincer attack. you can drag/erase these drawings on the overview map to change your strategies on the fly. You do not need to see the actual units, just the moving lines on the map, then just zoom in on the action for tweaking.
The overview map provides general strategies while the detail map gives some leeway. example is using the overview to attack a convoy makes the selected units follow and attack the convoy. zooming in on the action, you can select individual units to attack the defenders of the convoy while the rest of the group attacks the convoy. releasing the single unit automatically makes it join up with its buddies to attack the convoy, avoiding the problem of some units getting left behind.
another possiblity is assigning "loose formation" in the overview to minimize damage from seige weapons. This will make the units avoid clumping together even if you select them and attack a single target. You can set them to attack the mill in the overview screen then when you see a catapult, select them all to attack the catapult in the detail map and forget about them. once they finish the detail map commands, they will go back to attacking the mill. Lets say you can also assign numbers to buildings in the overmap map so you your army will destroy the base as ordered leaving the player free to control the detailed map for unexpected defenders, etc.
Or put a "last stand" icon in the overview which automatically causes all units to go to that location. erasing the last stand from the overview will cause the units to go to their previous commands/strategies.
for resource, you can paint the forests where your harvesters will gather wood. if they use all the wood you can display a notification easily in the overview window rather than wait for the player to notice his harvesters are idle.
I hope this helps.
---------------Magic is real, unless declared integer.- the collected sayings of Wiz Zumwalt
What I really would like to see in a RTS game would be
- The ability to actually plan an attack for instance. So that you can time things.
Your have one or more commando units infiltrate a base, and place rig the Anti Air Guns with bombs. Plan to wait to blow up just before your bombers come in range of the AA. The bombers take out the powerplant, barracks (where infantery should really be stationed in, not just spawned) and the radar tower. Immediately after that, your tank batalion rolls through the gates of the enemy base, the APC's unload the infantery and take any surprised enemy forces prisoner.
If you would be able to point and click this plan together, on a similar way to making waypoints, you could plan this and just press play when you feel like it.
You could also make defensive plans this way. If it would work like those sketches you see when a football team is discussing its tactics, and with a transparant background layered over the battlefield, it would really enable more strategy.
Another thing which really bugs me is the lack of scale; in C&C Generals you can call in a B2 for a carpet bombing campaign, it crosses the entire battlefield in under a minute and then "carpet bombs" the enemy with 4 or 5 bombs... Then just don't use a B2 and don't call it carpet bombing because it really isn't. V2 rockets which can shoot only 500 meters far and kill one tank upon impact is also very sad.
With today's computer performance you should be able to make more realistic size battlefields. Operation Flashpoint a few years ago set a good example on that one, but I would personally be more interested if the would be some urban warfare included. This would add extra features and difficulties to the game as the player has to watch the civilian casualties and collateral damage of his actions (or not, of course)
That would be a neat interface -- the "football plan" interface, where you can set up your attack plan(s).
The plan would include where you expect resistance, the amount of resistance that should "raise the alarm" and call your attention to an area, and the ability to include "backup plans" that you can swap to.
Finally, during the actual fight, you'd be able to give "exception" orders to on-field commanders.
For some extra tactical fun: "Leader" units are units with leadership skills. "Leader" units are placed into a command heirarchy. This is useful for "battlefield promotions".
A "Leader" unit has a speed, accuracy, and improv rate for it's order relaying abilities.
With 1000s of units on the battlefield, directly controlling each unit is difficult. Instead you select a leader unit, give it an order, and it tells the units it leads what to do.
When leader units get killed, you can have the command heiarchy "auto-promote" other units in an attempt to repair the leadership structure.
In effect, leader units act as personifications of "unit selection groups".
Assasin units, who try to kill your opponent's leader units, become very useful. Troop quality, which includes the leadership skills of your lower rank troops, is important for a robust command structure.
And all of this is required for you to be able to quickly turn a column of troops around and have it deal with a unexpected flanking attack.
As a plus, I'd like to see the commanding skill have a bonus effect on the troops. Like, maybe, a soldier with enough kills gets promoted to Lieutenant, and has a squad under his orders, with the commanding skill at level 0 when first promoted.
As he survives fights, he gains additional bonuses, like, being wounded and then healed gives him upgrade "hard boiled" once, which gives a defense bonus to his squad, or maybe a HP bonus. Maybe killing a man himself gives him a "top shot" upgrade, which in turn gives the squad more damage? Maybe having the squad kill two or three enemies in less than a minute or something makes the squad gain a tighter grip on itself, and have a smaller random component on the movement of each individual of the squad?
And then, maybe each commanding line in the hierarchy gives additional bonuses, but to the leaders of the units only, instead of everyone under the command, or else, you merely have to make an infinite chain of command and stack as many bonuses as possible? Or maybe, you can merely stack up to two bonuses, the closer two to your soldiers?
(The above anonymous post about the "football interface" is mine, I found it's better to register so I can edit things.)
Outsourcing management within certain areas would also improve gameplay I think. In the earlier, more simple, levels you could easily manage averything there is in a base. In this way also simcity-like features could be included in the game. Things like making roads and managing nuts facilities (powerplants, electricity & water grid, road infrastructure) can and should almost immediately be "outsourced" or delegated to another person (NPC, or cooperative multiplay). Then, this character is responsible for, for instance, Power management, and in this role will do anything within his budget and abilities to ensure a healthy power management within the confines of your base.
This will add "back office" to your army, in a real life army this takes up to three quarters of the personnel, so this will really make the game more realistic.
Just like in Simcity 3000 (and other versions) messages will pop up from the advisors if anything requires your attention, but unlike simcity the will also do things themselves.
You could even go even further by adding the ability to make sollicitors apply for the job of advisor, and have the player choose the best candidate. (think hiring doctors in Theme Hospital)
By adding back office, you will add a really substantional civilian population behind your army. This will add even more realistic features like moral of the people and of the actual soldiers, and "social acceptance" of the actions in your army. If the player would bomb a village to the ground, it would have to be kept secret or the player would face a decrease in the social backing of the civilians. On it's turn this will affect the moral of your army.
This would mainly be an added handicap for the good guys (GDI / Allies), because they would have a more open, democratic background. Which will imply free press and other necessary evils for an army commander.
Something I always wanted to see in a RTS is the possibility to have backup from the precedingly won maps. I mean, you DID build barracks and soldiers in that map, right? You did gather resources, right? So why can't you just benefit from all those resources now that you need them? You may build infrastructure right here and now, and receive the troops as soon as they come out of the barracks. But I'd like to be able to ask for reinforcements to the back supply lines, and receive it in a while after asking, without it having an incidence over my current battle.
Of course, to make it worth it, you should have to compute the same with the ennemy, who could be able to call for help to HQ too, and the resources gathered near the end would go to back lines instead of being invested building in current map.
Plus it would be nice to have to also worry for two or three generals campaigns at the same time, advancing on three different fronts. You could then decide how to manage the supplies, in order to make one general benefit of it over the otehr, thus making one progress easier than the other. Of course it would mean being able to transfer data from one map to another, as the ending state of your army would be the beginning state of your army in next map. But I think it would add something to the campaign mode, although RTS are not always played in campaign mode, for the most part.
