I recently posted asking for ideas for a new RTS. Here is a key concept that I'm considering right now, and I'd love to hear feed back on it.

The RTS will be split into two key areas.

1) City Building.

- Safe, in your country, as a single settlement. Weak in technology.

- Over time, increase the city size, built up your military base, improve your technologies.

- Develop squads to send in to the battle front.

2) Battle Front.

- An ongoing everlasting war.

- Your squad is dropped off in the heat of battle on some random planet. AI will attempt to place you in an area that you have a balanced chance of survival.

- You don't create buildings here. but you do get far better control of your troops, and they get better tactical AI's than Blizzard RTS's

- Scenery can be altered. (explosions can leave dents. Ditches can be dug, Rock and dirt can be used to create Cover areas. etc...)

What ideas do you have around this? What would be really useful in this environment? What changes would you make to what I suggested?

Thanks for any feed back.

[quote name='DtCarrot' timestamp='1357270025' post='5017343']
This system could also apply for 2v2. One player manages the economy and the other controls the military.
[/quote]

That's an interesting idea. Then players can focus on what they enjoy and stand out for. But of course they can also take on the whole thing.

[quote name='DtCarrot' timestamp='1357270025' post='5017343']
For the everlasting war, supply chains would be a good idea. Troops need food to survive,
[/quote]

I like this idea. This could also be for ammunition. For instance once they get low on arms, they go into a defensive strategy, and not offensive. Players could pay attention and use opportunities like this to put extra effort into striking then. Certainly has potential.

To me, a "single settlement" supporting a "squad" suggests a very specific setting and premise: skirmishes between little city-states (presumably isolated, self-sufficient colonies) which can field a militia of a handful of people with limited-budget equipment.

Your game can follow specific named characters from cradle to grave, involving the player in their military training and their military career or in civilian accomplishments like inventing weapons or earning money for the town.

You could also bridge the city management and the tactical combat sub-games with the obviously implied space travel element: explicitly building and buying ships is an extra challenge, and piloting them around offers many adventure opportunities beyond reaching the battlefield: exploration, boarding attempts, outright spaceship combat, stopping in interesting places along the way in general, diplomacy and special missions, etc.

This sounds kind of similar to a browser based MMORTS like travian and the million others that are out there but maybe in a real time/non browser based form?

Being browser-based doesn't necessarily mean that the game is turn-based, it can also be played real-time using websockets (example : Browser Quest by mozilla).

I agree with Shake92 about answering the question of victory/defeat conditions. I think something like the concept of the world map in Total War series could do the trick : you have cities (or one city in our case) that is safe from harm and where you can build and train troops, but there is a battlefield where troops can fight. When one army defeats the other on the battlefield, it can move to the city and siege it.

A victory on the battlefield doesn't necessarily mean winning the game. One player must successfully siege the other player's city in order to win. So instead of 2 modes of play, I suggest having 3 :

• City Building
• Battle Front
• City Siege : this mode will eventually lead to winning/losing the game.

I think one of the biggest pleasures in RTS games is protecting your weakest points (city, supply convoys like DtCarrot suggested, ... etc) and trying to hit your opponent's. If cities are completely isolated from battle, players' weakest points will not be exposed (at least not completely). But that's just me, I like combat more than management in RTS games, so for me this point is very important.

If the city building side isn't influenced by combat how do you win? What happens when you win the battle that your squad gets sent to? What is the "end game" of it all? Is this all going to be multiplayer or singleplayer against AI? Is your city going to be persistent like an MMO, something that will be built up over extended periods of time, or will the game function like a traditional RTS with new matches beginning and ending in each play session?

Not trying to criticize your idea, it sounds cool, but it would help to answer those questions I think so we can get a better idea of what the concept is.

Good points. I left this area vague, so people could respond in anyway they felt compelled to. I didn't want to limit the creative flow, just reign it in a little more than my previous more generic RTS post.

However, to give an answer, I am planning on this being an MMO. Cities cooperate to help each other out, but the cities are persistant. A person may have the same city for a month or more. The "Everlasting Battlefront" is basically a large open battle field where there could be dozens of other players from both (possible more than 2) sides. The idea being that you are claiming planets. Or large scores of players are battling together to take a planet in their governments name. Its supposed to take the smaller battle feel of starcraft, and expand it, so you can see that these never ending online battles are actually leading to something.

In regards to the battle front action itself, I'm figuring to use squads that go in, or groups of squads, and they must survive for X amount of time, or deal X amount of damage, possible even have specific objectives. If they survive the objectives, they return home, with more experience, and reward pay from the government, allowing for even better enhancements. There will be plenty of AI squads running around, so you'll never know if your facing AI or human.

but keep in mind, that I'm still very flexible. I left this information out, because I'm willing to change my mind if someone posts something in a different direction. For instance, single player comments, or head to head. I want to hear what people have to say, and if I like it better than my current options I'll go with it.

[quote name='LorenzoGatti' timestamp='1357293454' post='5017407']
explicitly building and buying ships is an extra challenge, and piloting them around offers many adventure opportunities beyond reaching the battlefield: exploration, boarding attempts, outright spaceship combat, stopping in interesting places along the way in general, diplomacy and special missions, etc.
[/quote]

Oh I like this.... I was already considering the idea of new planets being discovered and fought over. This idea would suggest that players would be the ones to find these planets. Of course it ads a lot of extra work for a game where this is not really the focus. I'd have to consider this a lot more, and its value to complexity.

[quote name='Shake92' timestamp='1357277963' post='5017372']
This sounds kind of similar to a browser based MMORTS like travian and the million others that are out there but maybe in a real time/non browser based form?
[/quote]

Very much a Real Time Strategy. Potentially browser based. (Unity 3D, so it could be browser or client)