RTS, How to slow the combat and increase the tactics?

Started by
36 comments, last by Kyle Howard 11 years, 3 months ago

(Sorry for hogging the boards, to those who have noticed my RTS questions, thanks for everyone's help so far. :D )

In some RTS's, the battles were slower, one squad against another could take a minute or more. in starcraft, that would be more like 10 seconds.

It seems more like a battle of math and speed to finish the equations.

So my question is how to get back the tactics? I don't want people wasting time on spread sheets of strengths and speeds. I want them thinking through real tactics. like taking advantage of scenery, bottle necks, long distance weapons, lower damage from weapons.

What ideas do you have to improve tactics and strategy over excel sheets of numbers for winning.

Moltar - "Do you even know how to use that?"

Space Ghost - “Moltar, I have a giant brain that is able to reduce any complex machine into a simple yes or no answer."

Dan - "Best Description of AI ever."

Advertisement

Well one thing is for sure all the combat is just a mathematical formula in one way or the other, so you will use equations. The variables on those equation are what you need to define.

So here are some ideas, Attack direction, Flanking and ambushing.

Flanking is obvious, give advantage to the troops that flanks the others.

Ambush is great way to use terrain and other features, if the enemie ambushs you, you could make the defender troop panick spread and lose morale.

Terrain height is great to give advantage to ranged attackers, the higher the terrain the better to certain limit or something.

Traps though the terrain is great, making you able to create murdor holes, landslides and other dynamic features are also good points.

Squad positioning also could take relevant input, if you go straight on with your melee warriors vs a group of ranged, while on range the melee would have advantage, maybe breaking the ranged units formation, no one would stand there to die In a field where you have a bow and knight is right next to you. So you could make units behave more human like, fleeing and etc.

This gives chance to another aspect, make the player be able to set up unit tactics. Like attak while the melee are not on range, once they get near, fallback and move the infantary forward.

Simple commands like that could create a great combat experience. You could have each squad be lead by a General, an depending on the experience of the general be able to setup a larger queue of tactics.

This way, all battles would be defined by tactics, and the sheer number of units won't be enought to take a good player that knows how to use the terrain and their generals.

Another idea that could be implemented is in the range wepon department, make the units go out of ammo, and need to reload (a few time without attacking, or going to get ammo), this would make players that know how to play to make the enemy use their ammo first, and attack while a opening is done. Or maybe the attacker could wait till the right time to call their ranged reinforcements and caught a player out of position.

Check out my new blog: Morphexe

you make some strategic equation, and then you DOUBLE ALL HITPOINTS
also movement-speed adjustments work too.
i quess if you re looking for ways to not just send everything in area-damage might help

Company of Heroes did it with some visual cues. Like green dots meaning good cover, etc. You can take it to the next level, maybe a way to show the advantages player's units are enjoying vs opponents. Though moderation should be taken into account too many visual cues may end up cluttering the screen and a major turn off for players.

Missing, the veterancy of units should give an idea of how effective a shot they are or how useful they are with their weapons in general. If the progression of unit veterancy is done right then the player's mouse speed and hotkey use should increase inversely to the time it takes for a battle to happen tactically. Cover and missed shots fired are the key to this. Better player, less missed shots fired.

The only way to reduce the effects of apm is to make micro irrelevant. If the player only has the power to set up hierarchies and send units to locations with generic orders and maybe some settings they only have a limited amount of clicking to do.

If you want to avoid Starcraft-style engagements that end in a few seconds with a lot of casualties and you'd like the fight between the "same" units to be much longer and deeper, it isn't an "increase" in tactical complexity. If your units live longer than Starcraft ones and take more orders, you must have proportionally fewer units; then you are simply condensing into a few units and a few long battles the same tactical complexity that Starcraft spreads over large armies and many small attacks.

The real question, then, is what kinds of interesting actions you can include in your game and how can the player fight meaningfully without "boring" actions; as powerneg explains above, merely slowing down combat is trivially easy. In particular:

  • Where is the micromanagement? Slow combat by itself opens new micromanagement opportunities, as what used to be automated and too quick to act upon takes much longer and allows the player to interact with more orders; there must be qualitatively different opportunities to give orders.
  • Do you understand the consequences of reducing the number of units? Is it a good fit for the rest of the game?

Omae Wa Mou Shindeiru

to improve tactics and strategy
You should not put tactics and strategy words in the same sentence, these are very different things.

There are 3 levels of detail:
- tactical (which unit shot at whom and when)
- operational (moving around groups of units)
- strategic (mostly economy, decision what kind of units to build, generally supporting your war machine)

RTS do not have tactics :) It's operational + a bit of strategy. If you want tactics, it's in hex map turn based wargames (Panzer General), note that these basicly never have any strategy involved. If you want strategy, it's best portrayed by the so called grand strategy games (simulations of whole nations).

Note that a combination like tactical + strategic is extremely rare (it basicly does not work, the only exception I can think of is Civ5). Generally, in one game you can have only levels that are near each other (like tactical+operational or operational+strategic), tactical+strategic is too far away.

Or to put it shorter, you can't at the same time simulate a whole nation's army (10 million soldiers) and order which one of these individual soldiers shoots at whom :)

Stellar Monarch (4X, turn based, released): GDN forum topic - Twitter - Facebook - YouTube

Another feature you can implement would be terrain bonuses to attacking and defending, possibly differing for different races/units. Also give bonuses for morale from squad commanders - it's a random chance that the commander dies, and then perhaps there'll be a chance for a regular squad member to step up and take command, but it'll be unlikely the unit can be saved.

I'll take on a few things at once here:

Flanking is obvious, give advantage to the troops that flanks the others.

agreed, for open battle. (I.e. its pretty easy to flank a squad in a base, but you shouldn't gain an advantage for it.)

Good idea, in general, this is a good tactic.

Ambush is great way to use terrain and other features, if the enemie ambushs you, you could make the defender troop panick spread and lose morale.

being closer to a blocking item, like a vehicle wreckage, or a tree line that is in between the shooters.

Squad positioning also could take relevant input, if you go straight on with your melee warriors vs a group of ranged, while on range the melee would have advantage, maybe breaking the ranged units formation, no one would stand there to die In a field where you have a bow and knight is right next to you. So you could make units behave more human like, fleeing and etc.

agreed. So in a tree line, bowmen might would have a significant disadvantage over swords men in close combat. But bowmen with good climbing skills might gain an advantage, given a moment of time's head start.

This gives chance to another aspect, make the player be able to set up unit tactics. Like attack while the melee are not on range, once they get near, fallback and move the infantary forward.
Simple commands like that could create a great combat experience. You could have each squad be lead by a General, an depending on the experience of the general be able to setup a larger queue of tactics.

I like this as well. I've been considering the idea of officers, who will run things in your absence and without them, your troops mostly just go after basic goals with no cohesion. But officers can receive training, which is basically just upgrading their AI.

Another idea that could be implemented is in the range wepon department, make the units go out of ammo, and need to reload (a few time without attacking, or going to get ammo), this would make players that know how to play to make the enemy use their ammo first, and attack while a opening is done. Or maybe the attacker could wait till the right time to call their ranged reinforcements and caught a player out of position.

Excellent. Several people in other posts have also brought up the ammo reloading issues. And Supply lines. I want to make sure that requiring reload doesn't remove from the fun, but I think it can be done.

Missing, the veterancy of units should give an idea of how effective a shot they are or how useful they are with their weapons in general. If the progression of unit veterancy is done right then the player's mouse speed and hotkey use should increase inversely to the time it takes for a battle to happen tactically. Cover and missed shots fired are the key to this. Better player, less missed shots fired.

In addition to having increased damage, perhaps also that they now to take immediate cover when a surprise attack starts. And perhaps healing is done by just having some medic in a space suit spray you with stuff.

The only way to reduce the effects of apm is to make micro irrelevant. If the player only has the power to set up hierarchies and send units to locations with generic orders and maybe some settings they only have a limited amount of clicking to do.

This is a concept I've been struggling with. I mean I understand it, and using AI and Officers to take on tasks, however, I feel like it can be done. Oh, here's an idea towards that: In starcraft 1, if you just sent troops to a position, they would walk through anything without taking heed to damage they took. but if you told them to attack a target, they would also stop along the way to attack other things. Perhaps other hotkey attacks could include certain strategies to employ, like sneak up, take cover, attack from cover, provide a distraction first, then attack from the other side. Different command strategies where you still tell them what to do, but they will take some AI liberties. But you as the player define what, as they do it.

You should not put tactics and strategy words in the same sentence, these are very different things.

I am aware they are different, which is why I have 'and', similarly to how you used both words in your sentence, and tied them together with the word 'and'. biggrin.png

Or to put it shorter, you can't at the same time simulate a whole nation's army (10 million soldiers) and order which one of these individual soldiers shoots at whom

I do agree with you here though, and understand the key points you were making. Managing macro and micro is hard to make work. But lets say it could, what would it take? I'm thinking of Clone Wars, where you keep coming back as another robot or clone, into the same battle field. What if every time you died, before coming back in, you could influence where troops were focused? You would employ a 'strategy' that most other AI's would follow, and then actively engage in the same strategy yourself. However, this is not really what I have in mind.

I plan on letting things be handled by AI, but that a player can zoom into any level. if they are focusing on a smaller (yet important or fun) battle, other AI's will handle larger scale strategy and vice versa. The player can get away without knowing all the keyboard shortcuts to employ strategy, but if they learn them, they can get their troops to do better than the AI, perhaps.

Another feature you can implement would be terrain bonuses to attacking and defending, possibly differing for different races/units. Also give bonuses for morale from squad commanders - it's a random chance that the commander dies, and then perhaps there'll be a chance for a regular squad member to step up and take command, but it'll be unlikely the unit can be saved.

I definitely agree with the use of the terrain, and a few other posts have mentioned this as well. What I like though is someone lower in rank stepping up to become the officer. perhaps you could spend money give additional troops officer training, and that they can change roles to an officer if needed. An interesting feature. It would cost more for the extra training, but if needed, could be invaluable for uninterrupted strategy.

Moltar - "Do you even know how to use that?"

Space Ghost - “Moltar, I have a giant brain that is able to reduce any complex machine into a simple yes or no answer."

Dan - "Best Description of AI ever."

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement