NIGHTWRAITH:

About your comment of different levels of control:

YES! The way the game should work is:
1) Before battle a gameplan is established in which the player decides what he wants to do (depending on the units he uses; if fast units are used, an all out assault might work well, giving the opponent just enough time to realize he''s dying; if slow, but strong units are used, a well designed defensive position might work better). Here, the player has all the time in the world to design that gameplan, to give his units orders, to set their AI.

2) During gameplay the player will start to issue general commands to his troops (scout this area, attack this area, stay and defend this area) to which they will respond as good as they can. (you can sort of see this as a general standing on the top of a hill directing his forces with flags etc)

3) Maybe during gameplay the player should be able to take control of individual units (especially scouts come to mind and elite units that act on their own) and give specialized instructions.

One thing about this all, is that if you want to use statistics/skills etc, you finally have a real reason to use INTELLIGENCE. If a units intelligence is higher, the player will be able to give more defined commands. The two extremes would be: animal without intelligence; player would not be able to set any commands, the creature would simply act on his own instincts; and then on the other side of the spectrum is the superintelligent being for which the player can set any command that the game allows.

WAVINATOR:

Response Time: This would fit in perfectly with the ''player is a general standing on the hill'' metaphor. Because troops would need a certain time to get the command, to recognize it and then to fulfill it. Another reason to use a small amount of elite troops over huge amounts of low level troops (because the elite will simply do their job better and faster).

----

The second level in my game design, is that the player is actually a god directing his troops (or in sci-fi settings, the player could be a general using mindlink to order his troops around). And the more powerful the deity is, the more control he''ll have over his troops (giving him the ability to use more troops, issueing orders faster, being able to give more commands, raising morale of the troops).

When players fight eachother, their units would gain victories, but also suffer defeats. Victories would grant their leader more power, while defeats could cause a loss of power.

The units themselves would be mortal while the god could be immortal (or maybe even the gods themselves are not completely safe from harm). I thought this a nice system to incorporate death into a somewhat RPG setting (the units would be able to gain power each fight... but they could die instantly in the next one)

Right now, I''m focusing on the matter of strategy. It''s all nice to think up new systems, but what I really want is a game that allows for a lot of different strategies. Players should play the game NEVER being able to expect what''s coming. They should really have to scout ahead, study their opponent, then set up their forces and hope for the best. For now, I see the setup like this:

Two players hook up and enter the game. A map is made, and the scouts of both sides are allowed to enter. The scouts examine the map and players choose a destination for their army to travel to. After a set time, the armies will start to arrive onto the map (fast armies could arrive fast, slow armies will come late). The players can now choose to set out with their scouts to discover the enemy, meanwhile setting up their own base of defense (or setting out with their army right away in search of the opponent, which would thin their ranks and generally weaken the army). Once an enemy is discovered, the scouts have to run back to base to report etc.

This was also why I wanted to give AI to each unit. If the scout can act on his own, the player can just send it away and wait for its return. The ''fog'' that we''re familiar with, will not lift where the scout is, the fog will only lift for certain units (leaders that have a direct link with their god). When a scout comes back to report, a general indication could be placed on the site where the scout thought he saw enemies, size depending on number of enemies.

There''s enough ideas here to fill some more pages (as I''m sure we can all do about our own ''game'' ideas) but I think that when units can be given AI, linked with player commands, a lot more can be achieved, because it gives the player more time to think things through, to make educated decisions. Strategy will replace speed, even though the game can still run as fast as before.

I don''t know if any of you''ve mentioned this before (I''m too lazy to read it all =o), but what about Rainbow 6? You''d plan out the operation beforehand, and then your team members would execute, with you helping out....

CLIFFHAWKENS:
I haven''t played Rainbow 6 myself, but from what I''ve heard and read, it sounds like what you say is correct. Imagine that type of gameplay for an RTS, controlling a lot of units (not sure what is viable, but let''s say 100 units), each of those acting on their own set AI. Or some might be grouped into formations, all acting as one.

The player could be one of those units when there''s only a small number of units (10?) involved, much like Rainbow 6. On the grander scale, the player would best take on the role of general, commanding his armies from a hilltop or something.

Computer-controlled units will always stay computer-controlled units.

The best game is a game that isn''''t.