Make big list of (groups of) units. Generate such groups randomly, or decide on ''authentic'' groupings.
Give players 10000 credits each. (Any arbitrary yet large figure here is fine. Players can be voluntarily handicapped by getting a smaller figure than their opponents.)
Let them bid on the units they want, thereby setting their own perceived value on them. Highest bidder gets that unit or group of units.
Repeat until all credits or units are gone.
Kill each other.
Note that this applies as much to the Skirmish thread as the ideas posted above.
Building your army (RTS)
KYLOTAN:
LOVE IT!
You could even do without the credits. Just toss a coin, let one player pick first, then the other player pick two times, then the first player pick two times, etc.
Great idea to keep each and every game interesting.
Woohoo... I''m on day 4 on my C++ in 21 days course. %Another two weeks and I''ll be a master programmer!%
LOVE IT!
You could even do without the credits. Just toss a coin, let one player pick first, then the other player pick two times, then the first player pick two times, etc.
Great idea to keep each and every game interesting.
Woohoo... I''m on day 4 on my C++ in 21 days course. %Another two weeks and I''ll be a master programmer!%
Sylvermyst
To have a logical reason why units would not be able to retreat could be something like this...
In the grand strategic map, there ARE resources. These tend to be Cities, natural resources like mines, or manufacturing centers. They could also be transportation hubs, communications centers, or even an individual or unit itself. Armies fight because either one side has to defend a position/resource, or because the attacking force outmaneouvered the defending force. If one player decides to play "chase" by not engaging the enemy, then he forfeits whatever position he had to the enemy. Also, sometimes it is impossible to escape from the enemy as terrain will prevent it, or the slowest units will not be able to keep up (how about a rebel army that needs to protect refugees?). Part of strategy SHOULD be knowing when to run away however....something that most RTS click-fests never account for.
That''s why I think strategy games should have multiple "levels". One level would be the map of the actual battlefield itself. A higher level would be a grand strategic map that showed where your forces and resources were (ala Shogun, Master of Orion, Imperium Galatica, etc).
To have a logical reason why units would not be able to retreat could be something like this...
In the grand strategic map, there ARE resources. These tend to be Cities, natural resources like mines, or manufacturing centers. They could also be transportation hubs, communications centers, or even an individual or unit itself. Armies fight because either one side has to defend a position/resource, or because the attacking force outmaneouvered the defending force. If one player decides to play "chase" by not engaging the enemy, then he forfeits whatever position he had to the enemy. Also, sometimes it is impossible to escape from the enemy as terrain will prevent it, or the slowest units will not be able to keep up (how about a rebel army that needs to protect refugees?). Part of strategy SHOULD be knowing when to run away however....something that most RTS click-fests never account for.
That''s why I think strategy games should have multiple "levels". One level would be the map of the actual battlefield itself. A higher level would be a grand strategic map that showed where your forces and resources were (ala Shogun, Master of Orion, Imperium Galatica, etc).
Author
Dauntless:
I think thats the way I am probably going to go...
You''ll have a big world map which you can plan your overall strategy, based on the resources present in each region and the enemy forces that are based there. Turns will be based on a three month period (ie each turn represents a season)
The time scale of an individual battle should be something like one month. There will be a small amount of base building, but it will be more like makeshift stockades and prefab fortifications than full on heavily fortified positions just sprouting out of the ground. The defender will tend to have the advantage - even if the actual units are balanced (yeah right) he will tend to have better static defenses.
I think I will probably be sticking with the reinforcements idea... I want some army building (because I want a reasonably long game, and fixed units at the start of each battle will tend to reduce the game length) but I only want to allow the player partial control over what he can have - I like Kylotan''s economy model, I dont think I will use it exactly as Kylotan described it, but there may be some sort of self balancing "stock exchange" mechanics going on behind the scenes when it comes to letting the player choose his reinforcements...
I think thats the way I am probably going to go...
You''ll have a big world map which you can plan your overall strategy, based on the resources present in each region and the enemy forces that are based there. Turns will be based on a three month period (ie each turn represents a season)
The time scale of an individual battle should be something like one month. There will be a small amount of base building, but it will be more like makeshift stockades and prefab fortifications than full on heavily fortified positions just sprouting out of the ground. The defender will tend to have the advantage - even if the actual units are balanced (yeah right) he will tend to have better static defenses.
I think I will probably be sticking with the reinforcements idea... I want some army building (because I want a reasonably long game, and fixed units at the start of each battle will tend to reduce the game length) but I only want to allow the player partial control over what he can have - I like Kylotan''s economy model, I dont think I will use it exactly as Kylotan described it, but there may be some sort of self balancing "stock exchange" mechanics going on behind the scenes when it comes to letting the player choose his reinforcements...
An attack on peons should be devestating (although it may make the military units fight harder, something to think about). Peons will definatly be able to group-train.
Lack of food is just one of many factors that go into if/how well units fight. For example, if a group of units is fighting a slightly larger, better equipped group, most likely, your units will start to fall back towards thier home base area. The closer they get, the harder they will fight to defend that area, until, when they do get all the way back, they will not run, and fight to the death. Hopefully, once the numbers get sorted out, it will be a fairly realistic system.
Z.
Lack of food is just one of many factors that go into if/how well units fight. For example, if a group of units is fighting a slightly larger, better equipped group, most likely, your units will start to fall back towards thier home base area. The closer they get, the harder they will fight to defend that area, until, when they do get all the way back, they will not run, and fight to the death. Hopefully, once the numbers get sorted out, it will be a fairly realistic system.
Z.
quote:Original post by Silvermyst
KYLOTAN:
LOVE IT!
You could even do without the credits. Just toss a coin, let one player pick first, then the other player pick two times, then the first player pick two times, etc.
Glad you like it
I see what you''re saying about just allowing players to pick alternately rather than bid. There are benefits in terms of simplicity, especially for players who haven''t played before.However, apart from minor details (such as easily being able to handicap better players, as I mentioned), there''s one more problem with this system: if the random generation of units/groups produces 1 group or unit that is much more powerful than the others, then whoever picks first wins. And this takes us back to the original problem... how to balance units/groups of units so that 1 is not significantly better than the other. The auction mechanism gets around the need for this, because everyone has the chance to take that powerful 1st unit, if they agree that it is important.
KYLOTAN:
Yes, whoever gets to pick first, gets the best unit.
But whoever gets to pick second, gets the second best AND the third best unit.
Ever played chess with two rooks against a queen?
Woohoo... I''m on day 4 on my C++ in 21 days course. %Another two weeks and I''ll be a master programmer!%
Yes, whoever gets to pick first, gets the best unit.
But whoever gets to pick second, gets the second best AND the third best unit.
Ever played chess with two rooks against a queen?
Woohoo... I''m on day 4 on my C++ in 21 days course. %Another two weeks and I''ll be a master programmer!%
That''s ok, providing that you can ensure that Unit #1 is not better than Unit #2 and Unit #3 combined Which takes us back to balance. It''s not as difficult as assigning arbitrary point values though, so at least it''s some improvement.
Which takes us back to balance. It''s not as difficult as assigning arbitrary point values though, so at least it''s some improvement.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
