The right thing to do at any moment should depend heavily on what your opponent is doing. Many RTS games lack this -- i.e. you pick a way to play at the start and don't need to adapt, all you need to do is follow your plan properly.
There should be multiple ways to win, but they can be countered by the opponent, so that it is often wise to change your plan.
What do you look for in an RTS?
Two things I think would contribute to RTS games are: Asymetric Warfare and getting away from Wars of Attrition.
With Wars of attrition, the games are essentially about who can wear down the opponent fastest. Even in games where there are "Strategic Points", the game is won by wearing down the defenses of the opponent at these points and the game is usually won or lost by attrition long before the strategic points come into play.
The solution to this is to allow players to effectivly fight even if they don't have much resources (therby attrition is not a major factor).
This brings me to the other concept, that of Asymetric warfare.
With AW, it should be possible, for a player to fight and even achieve victory when most (if not all) of their units/basees have been wiped out. This would involve being able to bring in fresh units without having a base to build them from (it could be possible to have an off map base to build from and bring in units by drop ship/teleport/magic/etc).
These units would be designed not to use overwhealming force or firepower to defeat the enemy, but either use their own power against them or use underhanded techniques (infiltration, cloaking, etc).
With Wars of attrition, the games are essentially about who can wear down the opponent fastest. Even in games where there are "Strategic Points", the game is won by wearing down the defenses of the opponent at these points and the game is usually won or lost by attrition long before the strategic points come into play.
The solution to this is to allow players to effectivly fight even if they don't have much resources (therby attrition is not a major factor).
This brings me to the other concept, that of Asymetric warfare.
With AW, it should be possible, for a player to fight and even achieve victory when most (if not all) of their units/basees have been wiped out. This would involve being able to bring in fresh units without having a base to build them from (it could be possible to have an off map base to build from and bring in units by drop ship/teleport/magic/etc).
These units would be designed not to use overwhealming force or firepower to defeat the enemy, but either use their own power against them or use underhanded techniques (infiltration, cloaking, etc).
Having played a lot of warcraft 3, I really identified with the hero. I think a great way to do RTS would be to merge a game like modern warfare 2 with some RTS features...
basically each player in a 1v1 player vs. player match would have one personal character, maybe with some mw2 like features. In addition to their personal character, each player would have a matching personal squad of AI soldiers at their command, possibly based on the player or map or some combianation. Winning could be done via completeting an objective, like bombing the other guy's flag, killing the other player's character (may look similar to the AI), or killing all the units on the other team including the player. With reasonably competitive AI that is equal on both players, the emphasis would be on giving orders in first person view to your AI in order to outmaneuver and win against the other player who is also ordering his AI around in first person.
Some HUD elements might help, including many of those from MW2. Command giving would be done differently than in traditional RTS, with commands being given locally with a menu, maybe on x or c, with squad divisions and movement directions, as well as potentially highlighting popular premarked map destinations, like certain large buildings or other key visibile markers.
Command tools such as radios, HUDs, iPhones, predators, scouts in humvees, satellite communications, maps, and whatever may also be realisticly or otherwise modeled in the game in a variety of practicable and technologically feasable and fun ways.
I think it would also be neat to do more to-scale RTS games, such as ones with buildings and humans of appropriate relative size, and in other wise max-realitiy-capable RTS. One key factor in this is civil resources and manufacturing, which is not typically done on the battlefield, and is more at home in a civilization style game. However a civil RTS (also possibly as a paired package with a war RTS) might model a city realisticly, as a few games have tried such as sim city, etc, however making a realistic one that is to scale and in first person might be impressive, sort of like GTA except with an emphasis on production and mining and resource harvesting all modeled in gloriously educational realsitic detail, from earth to computer, along with possibly giving the player control over a large number of AI units and timespeed to make building a pyramid more time efficient.
basically each player in a 1v1 player vs. player match would have one personal character, maybe with some mw2 like features. In addition to their personal character, each player would have a matching personal squad of AI soldiers at their command, possibly based on the player or map or some combianation. Winning could be done via completeting an objective, like bombing the other guy's flag, killing the other player's character (may look similar to the AI), or killing all the units on the other team including the player. With reasonably competitive AI that is equal on both players, the emphasis would be on giving orders in first person view to your AI in order to outmaneuver and win against the other player who is also ordering his AI around in first person.
Some HUD elements might help, including many of those from MW2. Command giving would be done differently than in traditional RTS, with commands being given locally with a menu, maybe on x or c, with squad divisions and movement directions, as well as potentially highlighting popular premarked map destinations, like certain large buildings or other key visibile markers.
Command tools such as radios, HUDs, iPhones, predators, scouts in humvees, satellite communications, maps, and whatever may also be realisticly or otherwise modeled in the game in a variety of practicable and technologically feasable and fun ways.
I think it would also be neat to do more to-scale RTS games, such as ones with buildings and humans of appropriate relative size, and in other wise max-realitiy-capable RTS. One key factor in this is civil resources and manufacturing, which is not typically done on the battlefield, and is more at home in a civilization style game. However a civil RTS (also possibly as a paired package with a war RTS) might model a city realisticly, as a few games have tried such as sim city, etc, however making a realistic one that is to scale and in first person might be impressive, sort of like GTA except with an emphasis on production and mining and resource harvesting all modeled in gloriously educational realsitic detail, from earth to computer, along with possibly giving the player control over a large number of AI units and timespeed to make building a pyramid more time efficient.
Quote:Original post by Talroth
What I have always been looking for in an RTS is a game where I play a commander, not a baby sitter.
I want the tools to command officers to take actions, defend this location, scout this region, coordinate attack here with units X, Y, and Z. And then my officers commanding given units are smart enough to have their soldiers fire anti-tank rockets at armour, and send infantry to screen the flanks of their own tanks. Have them call in and request reinforcements, and be able to click on another officer's icon and drag it over the first's icon, and they automatically pick up and rush to their aid.
Sounds like Majesty is right up your alley!
Thuogh, I would say their AI is smart enough to ... well perform awesomely.
Upgrades and Small group missions.
Ill start with small group missions, now rts is generally known for its large armies, but i really enjoy when you have a small specialized team to take out a goal..
Aoe using a monk to convert an army onto your side, sc using a solo ghost or similar cloaking unit to wreck havoc
This is prob cause im not good at managing 20+ units with different strengths and weaknesses
Also why i suck against real players, they wipe out my small force tactic with a giant army T_T
Upgrades, I like to feel that im building up my small team, not as numerous but each better trained..games where you can customize the units are even more fun, like sc2 upgrades you can make during storyline.
One of my favorite games would be Spellforce..its rpg/rts hybrid you generally are in a small group, and its only when you face an enemy base you have to build up your own base to get enough units to take it down.
Ill start with small group missions, now rts is generally known for its large armies, but i really enjoy when you have a small specialized team to take out a goal..
Aoe using a monk to convert an army onto your side, sc using a solo ghost or similar cloaking unit to wreck havoc
This is prob cause im not good at managing 20+ units with different strengths and weaknesses
Also why i suck against real players, they wipe out my small force tactic with a giant army T_T
Upgrades, I like to feel that im building up my small team, not as numerous but each better trained..games where you can customize the units are even more fun, like sc2 upgrades you can make during storyline.
One of my favorite games would be Spellforce..its rpg/rts hybrid you generally are in a small group, and its only when you face an enemy base you have to build up your own base to get enough units to take it down.
Quote:Original post by Edtharan
Two things I think would contribute to RTS games are: Asymetric Warfare and getting away from Wars of Attrition.
With Wars of attrition, the games are essentially about who can wear down the opponent fastest. Even in games where there are "Strategic Points", the game is won by wearing down the defenses of the opponent at these points and the game is usually won or lost by attrition long before the strategic points come into play.
The solution to this is to allow players to effectivly fight even if they don't have much resources (therby attrition is not a major factor).
This brings me to the other concept, that of Asymetric warfare.
With AW, it should be possible, for a player to fight and even achieve victory when most (if not all) of their units/basees have been wiped out. This would involve being able to bring in fresh units without having a base to build them from (it could be possible to have an off map base to build from and bring in units by drop ship/teleport/magic/etc).
These units would be designed not to use overwhealming force or firepower to defeat the enemy, but either use their own power against them or use underhanded techniques (infiltration, cloaking, etc).
What you are describing is guerrilla warfare. Being able to recruit soldiers by loyalty to a cause rather than by money. Like the cuban revolution.
You wouldn't have as much shooting, nor unit production. It would be more like an intelligence and espionage war.
Quote:Original post by hiigara
An RTS that almost plays by itself. No micromanagement. I only give high level orders.
You might have liked Command HQ.
By the way, can someone please explain to me this animosity towards micromanagement that I keep hearing? What is it about micro that makes a game less fun? I actually enjoy micro, as it actually takes some skill and strategy and it makes matches more exciting. I love the thrill of pulling off some micro tactic well. But then, I "grew up" with micro to a large extent since I mostly play StarCraft, so maybe I'm biased.
Quote:Original post by Oberon_CommandQuote:Original post by hiigara
An RTS that almost plays by itself. No micromanagement. I only give high level orders.
You might have liked Command HQ.
By the way, can someone please explain to me this animosity towards micromanagement that I keep hearing? What is it about micro that makes a game less fun? I actually enjoy micro, as it actually takes some skill and strategy and it makes matches more exciting. I love the thrill of pulling off some micro tactic well. But then, I "grew up" with micro to a large extent since I mostly play StarCraft, so maybe I'm biased.
When I play a micro RTS against a human I feel so stressed that it doesn't seem entertainment but rather work. For example, I love playing AOE 1 against the computer, because I can do things at my pace. But against a human no way jose.
Quote:Original post by Oberon_CommandQuote:Original post by hiigara
An RTS that almost plays by itself. No micromanagement. I only give high level orders.
You might have liked Command HQ.
By the way, can someone please explain to me this animosity towards micromanagement that I keep hearing? What is it about micro that makes a game less fun? I actually enjoy micro, as it actually takes some skill and strategy and it makes matches more exciting. I love the thrill of pulling off some micro tactic well. But then, I "grew up" with micro to a large extent since I mostly play StarCraft, so maybe I'm biased.
I personally like a bit of micro in game, but too much can spoil it. It is a balance that is hard to get right.
As a person with a physical disability (due to an injury), I have been finding it harder to play games with micro.
IF a game is decided in who micros the best, then players who aren't as good (or arn't as physically capable) don't have as much fun as the effort they put into the game was intended to be strategy, not button clicking.
I agree, though, there is strategy in micro, but the main problem is that in current games, micro is a more powerful gamplay element than pure strategy (as I siad the balance is hard tog et right). I think micro should be balanced that with two players with equally good strategies the winner should go to the better micro, but if player have different levels of micro and strategy, the game should go to the player with the better strategy (after all the games are not RTMs - Real Time Micro).
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
