Jump to content
  • Advertisement


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


research(strategy game kind)

This topic is 5968 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

My strategy game is coming along nicely. I was looking at the units and the thought occured to me that I could easily integrate research and upgrades into my design (in fact I've already written down how to do so) even though I didn't intend to include it when I began the project. Also, research and upgrades would be easy, but no amount of tweaking could implement tech trees. I thought it might add to the depth of strategy of the game. It's campaign-based rather than mission-based and will likely take a long time to complete, so it's not like by the end of the game anything will be left unresearched, which seems to defeat the purpose since if the time is constrained you have to carefully choose what research which adds to the strategy while if enough time is given to research everything then it merely becomes a tedious exercise to wait until an upgrade becomes available. However, it is thrilling to discover a new unit and it's possibilities and it's really fun to swamp an enemy with a flashy new unit if they're still using old stuff. The theme, if there is one, is WWII + modern warfare + sci-fi so research kinda fits in with it since weapon development went through a couple of generations in just the few years of WWII. So, is it worth it and why? EDIT: removed line breaks from first paragraph Edited by - RolandofGilead on March 18, 2002 12:42:40 AM

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a reason you insert linebreaks into your posts and therefore only use half the screen width (at my resolution)? or is it just force of habit? It''s quite ugly.

Here''s my take on research, covered a while back in a similar thread:
The player is in control of a given number of units, receives ssupplies every so often and orders/directives now and then. In combat, the player is left to implement his/her own tactics as necessary to complete the objectives. The player is represented by an avatar and never directly takes control of subordinates but rather delegates responsibilities/relays orders to them. This bit of background is necessary for the next paragraph to make sense.

The player has a "standing" with the higher-ups, which improves as missions are successfully accomplished at low-to-zero cost in terms of soldiers first and resources next. As the player''s standing improves, [s]he may eventually become the Chiefs of Staff''s "Golden Boy/Girl", which will greatly expedite requests for resources. Get high enough and your platoon will be outfitted with hi-tech prototype weapons and so forth.

Research is carried out independently of the player, and "findings" are randomly distributed (and the war may be totally lopsided; I have little use for "balance"). The technology is developed and deployed, and the player eventually gets some depending on his/her performance record. Mess up and kill a lot of soldiers needlessly and you''ll never see any of this stuff. You might even lose your commission. Be outstanding and you might be consulted for input on technology development based on you "battle-wisened experience".

It''s kinda like a "role-playing tactics" game, but as you advance you move more into strategy, so it covers the spectrum.

[brainwave - offtopic]
I suppose the player could choose whether to start out an officer (Lieutenant straight out of Officer''s School or whatever) or a risen-through the ranks sort of guy. Both approaches may affect your initial reception by the soldiers positively or negativey, depending on your character''s personality (which will be randomly allocated; as before, I have no use for balance). Your character could be a literal battleground legend (Purple Cross, etc), but let him become too acquainted with the fact (always referring to it) and the men will start to grumble. The Officer''s School graduate, OTOH, would be regarded as wet behind the ears and may not command the respect of the men until he proves himself... The possibilities....

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Google! ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate having to scroll over to read a post as it slows down my reading. It's very annoying. That's why.

Thanks for the reply and those were good ideas and realistic I think but I can't use them because the player is the one in charge. The player's role is not one of a field officer.

Edit: I tried to make it go past the edge of my screen but it didn't work. I wish I could figure out why it the forums only do it some of the time.

Edit2: reply to on-topic

[edited by - RolandofGilead on March 18, 2002 12:25:13 AM]

[edited by - RolandofGilead on March 18, 2002 12:38:58 AM]

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
My take on unit design and research is much more akin to table top wargames than computer strategy games. Like Battletech, Heavy Gear, or heck....even Car Wars, I intend to include an "engineering bluebook" that will enable the player to design his own units. It will be similar to what Alpha Centauri offered though different in others.

The capabilities of weapons, armor and technologies itself will be dependent on a rating system. The more advanced technology becomes, the more cheaply weapons can be made as well as more powerfully.

The trick of course is introducing new kinds of weapons or equipment. I''ve thought that a country should have more than physical resources, they should also have skill resources. This includes skilled workers as well as science. It''s not enough to make war material, you also have to have the right training to operate them.

I always admired the paper and pen game Champions for its ability to create powers and be able to mold them in so many ways to create virtually any type of effect. In a crude sort of way, it was almost a programming language. It had base powers which did not describe how they worked, but merely what the end result was. Then there were limitations and modifiers which further explained how the power worked. You could then create something like this:

Ranged Killing Attack 6d6
modifier, no normal defense (effect; depleted uranium round)
limitation, charges 32 rounds

In effect, you just state what capabilities something should have, but make no description of HOW it works. The modifiers and limitations do that. It''s an amazingly adaptable system and one I will use as a reference for.

While having this can''t account for every possibility, I think its more interesting than having a static tech tree that a player is forced to go along with rather than having a player decide that he wants to create for example...a new kind of telecommunications system that is 100%encryption safe (using quantum technology).

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!