Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
slicer4ever

A diffrent type of rts.

This topic is 1626 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

So, I have been thinking of working on an rts lately, and thought up something i thought would be a nifty type of rts. The overal concept is the same, amass army, destroy opponents. But the way you amass armies would be radically diffrent.

What i was thinking is that instead of buying units, you breed them. Basically you build homes for units, based on who lives at that home, and if they are focusing on breeding rather than working, attributes what type of child you'd get. So basically, if you put two strong units together, you are likely to get an equally stronger unit, or chances are you get a unit slightly stronger/weaker. Basically this gives generally a more personal attachment to your units.

I was also considering giving units an equipable inventory, further personalizing each unit. For example, i could stock pile a small pool of armor at a blacksmith, to be used before sending my units off to battle. However this level of detail might be overkill?

I'd suspect these types of games would last much longer than regular rts games, sure a player could try to amass numerous weak units, but supporting the food for that population without workers to compensate could end with most of the army dieing pretty quickly.

I think this game could be fun, particularly if i use fantasy creatures, rather than humans, but i'm really not sure, opinions on the idea, has it been done already?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement


So basically, if you put two strong units together, you are likely to get an equally stronger unit, or chances are you get a unit slightly stronger/weaker. Basically this gives generally a more personal attachment to your units.

 

I don't understand the part about personal attachment here. It doesn't seem like it'd work the way you've described it. Is this literal combining or animal husbandry?

 


I was also considering giving units an equippable inventory, further personalizing each unit. For example, i could stock pile a small pool of armor at a blacksmith, to be used before sending my units off to battle. However this level of detail might be overkill?

 

You'll need at least one thing like this, otherwise what you have is Populace instead of "The Guild."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a geart idea and it could certainly work. However, I believe the pacing and scope of your RTS should be radically downsized for people to be able to manage it.

 

For instance, in Age of Empires 2, you just keep clicking on units to "buy" them. You can get yourself big armies in no time. If you wanted to take into consideration how each unit would be "bred" and how it should be "equipped" it would take a much longer time.

 

To be able to manage them you would have to make sure the player won't end up with too many units he can't manage. If done correctly it could be something like a multiplayer rpg game with small "parties" rather than "armies"

 

Otherwise you would have to automate the process. That way this concept would add some strategic depth but I don't see any "personal attachments" with armies bred automatically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This type of system sounds to me like it would work more in a strategy rpg rather than an rts.  If you are micromanaging the creation of individual units so heavily, you'll want to get more out of them than one typically gets with an rts unit. 

 

Some other questions:  Is there a growth period for newly born units, or are they popped out in fighting condition?  How vulnerable are units to being killed?  How big of scale are the armys and battles?

 

I'm not saying it's not do-able, but I expect the actual rts battle mechanics would need to be different than the norm.  You would need something that's more Warcraft 3 and less Empire Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just be careful about the races you choose, even fantasy races.  I could see it being interpreted very badly if mishandled.

 

You might almost want to move to having the culture training war animals or war monsters.  So the people in the RTS are doing the breeding of their animals under the players commands. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.  I like breeding games, and I like RTSes.  But, the more individual the units are, the more reluctant I would be to send them off to get killed.  If you have enough peace to do selective breeding, why are you at war?

 

Also, if workers can be converted to fighters, an obvious strategy would be to all at once turn everyone into fighters and try to overwhelm your opponent who is still building up.

Edited by sunandshadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the feedback so far. =-)
 

So basically, if you put two strong units together, you are likely to get an equally stronger unit, or chances are you get a unit slightly stronger/weaker. Basically this gives generally a more personal attachment to your units.

 
I don't understand the part about personal attachment here. It doesn't seem like it'd work the way you've described it. Is this literal combining or animal husbandry?

i think personal attachment was the wrong word to use, it's more like you've put more investment into creating the unit, than in a normal rts game. it'd still be relatively easy to create units, it's just you can select breeding partners to attempt to focus on certain aspects(rather that be fighting, woodworking, farming, etc.)


 

I think it's a geart idea and it could certainly work. However, I believe the pacing and scope of your RTS should be radically downsized for people to be able to manage it.
 
For instance, in Age of Empires 2, you just keep clicking on units to "buy" them. You can get yourself big armies in no time. If you wanted to take into consideration how each unit would be "bred" and how it should be "equipped" it would take a much longer time.

I do agree that i'd be focusing alot on micro management, while still expecting similar levels of macro managment seen in traditional rts's. 

 

To be able to manage them you would have to make sure the player won't end up with too many units he can't manage. If done correctly it could be something like a multiplayer rpg game with small "parties" rather than "armies"
 
Otherwise you would have to automate the process. That way this concept would add some strategic depth but I don't see any "personal attachments" with armies bred automatically.

i do agree it's likely to see a different scope of how combat would occur, rather than massing armies, it'd likely be small/medium sized offensive units, perhaps by enforcing players to activly select to breed units would ensure players only create the amount of units that they feel they can handle, at the same time, that mechanic would likely be frustrating to players.

depending on how i do equipment, it could very well be worth it to have a small well-equipped army, vs a large under-equipped army.
 

This type of system sounds to me like it would work more in a strategy rpg rather than an rts.  If you are micromanaging the creation of individual units so heavily, you'll want to get more out of them than one typically gets with an rts unit.

I do agree it's be more like a strategic rpg, rather than a regular rts. I think getting more out of a unit is where the equipment/breeding components come in. you can craft equipment for that unit to make them strong/more capable, or use them to attempt to better breed stronger base units.

 

Some other questions:  Is there a growth period for newly born units, or are they popped out in fighting condition?  How vulnerable are units to being killed?  How big of scale are the armys and battles?

i'm not going to bother tacking growth/aging as another mechanic, so they will pop out ready to go. as for vulnerability/army size, that's still up in the air until i can get a working demo, and i can start playtesting the concept.

 

Just be careful about the races you choose, even fantasy races.  I could see it being interpreted very badly if mishandled.

in what way do you mean? i was thinking by adding different mythical creatures, it could be interesting in selecting breeding partners to attempt to create unique, or special units, or amass an army of a certain race.
 
 

Hmm.  I like breeding games, and I like RTSes.  But, the more individual the units are, the more reluctant I would be to send them off to get killed.  If you have enough peace to do selective breeding, why are you at war?
 
Also, if workers can be converted to fighters, an obvious strategy would be to all at once turn everyone into fighters and try to overwhelm your opponent who is still building up.

it's not that workers can be converted to fighters, every creature would have some base stats in all trades, so you'd likely have to amass alot of equipment to give to your weaker units if you wanted to go that route.

as it stands, i'm not really sure i want to even attempt this, and might just decide to try my hand at creating a regular rts. Edited by slicer4ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just be careful about the races you choose, even fantasy races.  I could see it being interpreted very badly if mishandled.

in what way do you mean? i was thinking by adding different mythical creatures, it could be interesting in selecting breeding partners to attempt to create unique, or special units, or amass an army of a certain race.
 

 

I agree, but you have to be careful, what if you tie color to your physical traits?  Black orcs are stronger and darker skinned but stupider than the typical ork.  Yeah, that's not open to be misinterpreted in anyway.  Or even just having, female elves are always weaker physically than their male counterparts.  You may find people taking umbrage with your choices.

 

That said, if you're moving away from humanoid creatures, you sidestep a lot of that.  Mixing and breeding Chimerae and Wyverns and Hippogriffs, not going to be a big issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just be careful about the races you choose, even fantasy races.  I could see it being interpreted very badly if mishandled.

in what way do you mean? i was thinking by adding different mythical creatures, it could be interesting in selecting breeding partners to attempt to create unique, or special units, or amass an army of a certain race.

That said, if you're moving away from humanoid creatures, you sidestep a lot of that.  Mixing and breeding Chimerae and Wyverns and Hippogriffs, not going to be a big issue.

this is pretty much what i was thinking of doing, i probably woudn't bother discerning gender(perhaps a certain race might be all female or all male(so they can't breed with each other)), but that'd probably be the furthest extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could have traditionally large armies with more breeding population (i.e. more objectives and more houses on a larger map) and a level of indirect control.

For example, you could ask for gifted wizards with the effect of making all suitable parents (off-duty wizards or just intelligent characters) automatically breed with each other.

After you get enough wizards, you can ask your promiscuous swingers to pair up differently and give you strong and quick warriors for a while, and so on.

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.

Participate in the game development conversation and more when you create an account on GameDev.net!

Sign me up!