Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
POWA Creations

How should a RTS be...

This topic is 4272 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

I´ve planned to make a kind of medival RTS game. Based on a deep story. I will probebly not even begin with the real game this year (Maybe I´m a Wannabe that just has to much hope) I have just made som graphics and music :p Well here is the thing. How do YOU want a RTS to be? How do YOU want to raise soliders and figth with them? How do YOU want the economic part? // POWA Creations // [Edited by - POWA Creations on November 8, 2006 11:29:08 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Quote:
How do YOU want a RTS to be?
...
Based on a deep story

^^ Not that, not until the game rocks ass. Not only because it is entirely unnecessary for most RTS games (which it is), but also because if you can't spell (which you can't) then I'll be damned if you can write a compelling story.

No offense meant by that, but forget the story and give me a fun game.

Quote:
How do YOU want to raise soliders and figth with them?

With good and customizable AI. I don't want to have to micromanage every character to make sure they do exactly what they should do. I'd rather be the overlord, the commander that handles the more abstract concepts of what they should do. The "attack this guy, use this ability in this situation" should be handled by AI unless you choose to override it. Between battles the player should be able to customize their armies behaviors, so instead of each battle being a separate case you are creating a custom army that you can modify based on your past experiences. It would be like customizing your deck of Magic: The Gathering cards or your FFXII Gambits, basically it would be creating a situation where the best players are not the fastest clickers but the best strategists. After all, isn't it a real time strategy game?

Quote:
How do YOU want the economic part?

Secondary to the strategy. I'm sick of having to build/rebuild all of my millions of armories and farms and mines and etc. I want to be able to zone off a city, set some properties in it, and let it run itself until I choose to intervene. Consider giving more SimCity-like control over your buildings, where they can run themselves unless bad things happen, and they will train units and produce new technologies without you having to babysit them.

Basically, the RTS that I want to see eliminates the micro-management drudgery that Warcraft started (it was good back then, but it's getting old), no longer playing as "God" and instead gives you the role of a military commander.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like a fantasy RTS with good graphics, a good interface like in AoE (Age of Empires), lots of strategy involvement. IMO RTS games are less strategy and more of a race to see who can build the more powerful army first, strategy games like Rome: Total War appeal to me, you make negotiations, build up armies, set taxes, and control trade. An RTS where you set up taxes on specific things, handle revolts, build up fortresses, and make alliances and other things on a large map with it looking in any shape you chose because it is a whole different world, so basically a Total War game with the look of the Battle field map, not the campaign map and some totally wicked graphics. If this is possible for a programmer to do then you would have an awesome best selling RTS strategy game like no other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by POWA Creations
How do YOU want a RTS to be?
How do YOU want to raise soliders and figth with them?
How do YOU want the economic part?

Let me answer that with some different questions...

How do YOU want a RTS to be?
How do YOU want to raise soliders and figth with them?
How do YOU want the economic part?

You're the game designer, yes? So the important thing is that the game turns out like you want, and becomes something you can get excited about.

JBourrie: Keep in mind not everyone have english as their first language. It is however, possible to write deep stories in other languages. Or even, get someone else to translate it to english. [wink]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sacrifice

I liked how you were more involved in the action. This made it a harder to manage multiple attacks etc but it was a very nice change of pace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Spoonbender
Quote:
Original post by POWA Creations
How do YOU want a RTS to be?
How do YOU want to raise soliders and figth with them?
How do YOU want the economic part?

Let me answer that with some different questions...

How do YOU want a RTS to be?
How do YOU want to raise soliders and figth with them?
How do YOU want the economic part?

Well, it could be good with some ideas. I love Rome:total war. But the 3D and all this factors :/ I don´t think I can do such a great game, at least not on wile...
I was thinking lika a mixture of American Conquest and Stronghold (ecept the fantasy thing of the later games)
and make economic thing large. BUT controllet by AI if you arn´t there. I wanted it to be like a Citybuilder-RTS. For example if you don´t have swords you can not make a Swordsman, even how much gold you pay(if you not import it). The sword must be made buy the blacksmith who need Iron, wood and workers, then you need a mine and a woodcutter (or import wood and iron). The workers need homes, food and entertainment to keep happy, and that makes the whole settlement popular.
I.e I don´t want it to be like the old classics. I want more depth, not just a competition of who makes most soliders.


Quote:

JBourrie: Keep in mind not everyone have english as their first language. It is however, possible to write deep stories in other languages. Or even, get someone else to translate it to english. [wink]


I have corrected all in the first post now. I´m Swedish but a misstake like putting a "d" in "maby" was´nt very proffetional.
The fact that I havent passed school maby a clue to the other misstakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You need to keep in mind that RTS is a very broad genre. The answers of your questions depend upon what kind of game you want to make and for who. Some people like micromanagement, even though very few people admit it. People often ask for more emphasis on the strategy element, however very few people would think too much strategy is fun.

In some RTSs you have a very big army which you can control (AoE, Warcraft, etc.), in these games micro-management is often a big part of the game play. You could quite easily however get rid of lots of the micro management, the question is, would it make the gameplay any better? This might seem obvious that it does however I think the companies which have made actual market research disagree with your obvious interpretation of gamers' needs.

Quote:
How do YOU want a RTS to be?

Remember when asking this question on this forum, most responses will be from experienced players who is a little geeky. This might not represent the general gamers' opinions.

That said I'd like a game where I could assign different strategies to an AI, and the AI should be able to carry this out without being ten times worse than me.

Quote:
How do YOU want to raise soliders and figth with them?

Simply put the soldier's in a queue, I don't want a message saying that my workers were ill, it might be more realistic, but it isn't as fun in my opinion.

Quote:
How do YOU want the economic part?

If I were only to consider existing systems, then I'd prefer a one-resource system (like the C&C series use). It takes to much unnecessary management to consider several kinds of resources. KISS (keep it simple, stupid), that's my opinion anyway.

Quote:
Secondary to the strategy. I'm sick of having to build/rebuild all of my millions of armories and farms and mines and etc. I want to be able to zone off a city, set some properties in it, and let it run itself until I choose to intervene. Consider giving more SimCity-like control over your buildings, where they can run themselves unless bad things happen, and they will train units and produce new technologies without you having to babysit them.

Couldn't economics increase and "complexify" the number of strategic actions (more factors to consider and more choices). Couldn't some of the properties you set be related to economics? How fast you want the development? The faster the more it costs. Which kind of resource do you want to primarily rely on? (if the game already have a multiple resource system anyway)

Quote:
You're the game designer, yes? So the important thing is that the game turns out like you want, and becomes something you can get excited about.

Very few people thinks this way, personally I feel I have succeeded as a game designer if I have either a large audience or a previously not targeted audience (see casual games for a very good example of this).

Quote:
Well, it could be good with some ideas. I love Rome:total war. But the 3D and all this factors :/ I don´t think I can do such a great game, at least not on wile...

You are trying to create your own game right? Why would you have to copy the graphics elements? Couldn't you just use a couple of the same basic design goals with a 2D/isometric engine?

Quote:
nd make economic thing large. BUT controllet by AI if you arn´t there. I wanted it to be like a Citybuilder-RTS. For example if you don´t have swords you can not make a Swordsman, even how much gold you pay(if you not import it). The sword must be made buy the blacksmith who need Iron, wood and workers, then you need a mine and a woodcutter (or import wood and iron). The workers need homes, food and entertainment to keep happy, and that makes the whole settlement popular.

Wouldn't this just add to the micro management of the game? If you can get an AI to control this, then there is no reason to use such a complex system, to the player it will basically be "do I have enough resources". Don't add realism just for the sake of realism when you're making a fun game.

Quote:
I have corrected all in the first post now. I´m Swedish but a misstake like putting a "d" in "maby" was´nt very proffetional.

To be honest, that line is much worse of than the "maby" word.

Quote:
The fact that I havent passed school maby a clue to the other misstakes.

Yet you feel you can write a good story? Your players aren't going to consider this when judging your game, if you focuses on your story then you better make sure it can compete with other strategy games' stories. Many people here aren't done with school yet, but we don't use this as an excuse, because if we did then we weren't mature enough to be here (personally I still have 3 years left until I'm done with high-school). Of course if you plan to make the game Swedish-only then you don't need English, but do you only target the Swedish audience? Also you'll look much more professional and serious if you write proper English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by POWA Creations
I was thinking lika a mixture of American Conquest and Stronghold (ecept the fantasy thing of the later games)
and make economic thing large. BUT controllet by AI if you arn´t there. I wanted it to be like a Citybuilder-RTS. For example if you don´t have swords you can not make a Swordsman, even how much gold you pay(if you not import it). The sword must be made buy the blacksmith who need Iron, wood and workers, then you need a mine and a woodcutter (or import wood and iron). The workers need homes, food and entertainment to keep happy, and that makes the whole settlement popular.
I.e I don´t want it to be like the old classics. I want more depth, not just a competition of who makes most soliders.


And there you go again on the economy tour. ;) I don't want to be bothered about the number of swords available, I want to lead armies. Not a handfull of men that don't know what to do when there's no swords around. Almost any decent army can get their hands on swords.
Adding a complex economy structure doesn't solve the 'soldier count' problem. In the end, it's still about who creates the most soldiers, except that creating them becomes harder. Yes, this infrastructure is a great target and crippling it prevents your enemy from creating more troops for a while, but that was present in older games as well: destroy the barracks and you're done.

Complexity doesn't guarantee depth. Maybe you know the board game Settlers of Catan. The basics are really quite simple, there's just 4 distinct things you can build/buy, there's 5 resources and a few other special cards. That's all, roughly spoken. Yet dispite it's simple setup, it's pretty deep. There's multiple approaches that work, each with it's own advantages and disadvantages. There's several techniques built in to keep the game balanced and most games are pretty tight.
It's not about the complexity. It's about the interaction between the various objects, and their purpose. Throw away those things that add little depth and much complexity, keep those things that are inherintly interesting.

Rather than using a wide variety of resources, you could move this decision part to the military side. Let the player decide between a siege unit and a fast unit (assuming scouting delivers actually valuable information), or between an all-rounder and a specialist - which is where scouting comes in handy: if you know nothing about his army, using all-round units is a safe bet. But once you know what units he uses most, you can create specialist units that excel against his units, without the risk of encountering other unit types that may excel against your specialists.
Because, the more time a player spends on the economic side, the less time he has to think about the strategies he's going to use. The simpler the economy is to manage, the more depth can be put in the strategy / tactics part.

Just my 2 cents. Obviously, I like the military side more. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • 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!