Strategic RTS. Everyone's viewpoints all bottle down to this simple label I slapped on.
A Real Time Shooter,
RTS means Real Time Strategy. An FPS, First person shooter, is always real time. Real Time was added to Strategy when it was no longer turn based because of computers.
Star Craft is an example of this.
You probably shouldn't talk for everyone Shiftycakes, but you do make a strong point for the shortcomings of past RTS, its time to show off the worth of the individual surviving unit in an RTS. Black Ops 2 took RTS elements and used them in a FPS (fairly successfully from how I hear it) but this couldn't have happened without standing on the shoulders of successful RTS games.
One of the issues with advancing the powers of units is that it may be hard to tell how good a unit is. Total War games and WarlordsBattleCry3 do have regular units gaining stat bonuses, and WBC3 has RPG style hero units with health and morale and spells and such getting better.
I do have a plan in place for my engine to make one of my 8 planned games using extensive veteran bonuses. This applies to generals mainly and then mages and heroes. Generals get new formations or order or options to modify the AI plus stat bonuses to units under their command and so forth. I only have some of the work done and I always get distracted by engine upgrades or other games, but in a year or two I'll get enough slow growth to release it.
(babbling edit) Veterans just need to be visually noticeably different, new units don't need to look weak, just basic, while veterans would appear customized and clearly able to achieve specific skills (like the archetypal heroes of League of Legends). But most importantly they should have basic units able to be linked to them and instead of giving micro tactical commands to a squad worth of basic soldiers the player can link basic soldiers to a veteran and give a macro tactical objectives to a veteran soldier and be pretty sure it will be achieved given the veterans ability to survive.
The player still needs to achieve the veteran soldiers by playing the same micro command game first, it just means they are rewarded with a veteran for keeping at least one unit alive at the end of a fight.
The more of these veteran units a player can collect the more rewarded they are with less need to focus on micro (although they still can use it) but the ability to focus on higher level strategy by stacking veteran units in proper military hierarchy, rewarded with larger army sizes and the excitement of the natural escalation of combat unresolved if it hasn't been resolved yet.
One of the issues with advancing the powers of units is that it may be hard to tell how good a unit is.
indeed, and that gives me a thought, involving this response as well...
When it comes to military structure, its easy to spot the units that are "stronger" they have a few more bars on the uniform and that's usually the guy dumb enough to be leading the mess onto the field. The only other way to spot the skilled soldier on the battlefield is to be probing the same flank as he is, scouting for targets of opportunity. That's how you spot real combat veterans. But to spot the real threat, look for the guy with the map. New soldiers figit, veterans are calm, even under fire. New soldiers have new uniforms, veterans know the dirt as intimately they know their enemy. New soldiers miss step, you don't survive the battlefield by stepping in the wrong place at the wrong time. New soldiers miss the mark, you don't survive long when you attack an enemy that hits the mark better then you. This is how you differentiate a veteran.
So the general idea is that 1, it is hard to understand the skill level of a squad, if upgrades can happen without visual cues. and 2, a method is brought up about making a squad appear more sloppy/less cohesive. Honestly, I think the less cohesive part certainly should be part of the visual queues, but I have an idea that can bring it out further.
Its normal in RTS's, to be able to mouse over for details on enemies, or select them for additional details. In Dark Reign, enemy troops (and yours) even had health bars over their heads. But perhaps their general damage can also be listed. As a Color bar. Perhaps there can be a valid side bar with scrolling data about what is visible on the screen. giving constant updates about ONLY what you can see, with warnings about areas out of your visibility with more intensity. (resolutions are better these days)
- what if this information side bar delivered threat information about visible forces. based on what is known. perhaps you don't really know all he details about an enemy force. Once you see them in action, it becomes more obvious about what is available. An AI determines which pieces of information are most valuable to you at the time, and is constantly updated with newly gained knowledge about the enemy troops and force movement.
Of course, then you can pay for more information, by
1) hiring spies to bring back information.
2) training troops to spot hints about enemy capabilities.
3) installing look out towers and upgrading detection capabilities.
4) capturing enemies, to learn more about general troop/squad setups at the time of the capture.
Most games seem to rely on visual appearance of the character to relay information, and/or upon selection, a full readout of capabilities. I.e. no surprises. if both sides can see the same unit, both sides know the same things about it, with the exception of its goals. But in this, perhaps you only know the generic information, but you have to study their capabilities to learn about them. This game could make information gathering a very important portion of the game. Camouflaging a caravan doesn't make them invisible while moving cross country, but it does hide the difference between a group of troops being transported, and a Rocket Battery system. In most games, you would know exactly what was approaching the instant you can see it.
I think it would be good for this information side bar to include known details, and hint at possibilities. For instance, a jeep approaches, but we don't know what its payload is. Another thing might be a captured spy. if it is done in a way where the original player doesn't know it was captured, it can be replaced, with one that gives only information the apposing players deems valuable. Once information is found faulty, the spy in question would be caught, so what might happen, is that upon returning, the player is given some troop information about the apposing side. some is correct, particularly about the first wave of weaker foot soldiers. That way the information is trusted. But then the second wave includes carrier vehicles, half with powerful rockets, and half carrying more cheap troops. This wave the information was reversed. So when the defending player (depending on spy info) sees the approaching forces, they believe the rockets are in one flank, and focus their defenses there. But as soon as that information becomes faulty (first rocket fire) the spy is terminated, and the information updates. Also, the defending player's AI bar informs them of the rouse.
I know a lot of games show these interesting graphics, with shifting information that serves no purpose, accept to look like its more cool information, despite it not being anything but a looping animation. This could be a chance to start turning more of that, into real information.
...or turn that useless information into something useful for gameplay, like does anyone know why it shows how many kills a unit has in SC and SCII?
It's the opposite. Individual fights being over in a flash favor the strategically stronger player who
Thats a good point In starcraft, you go through units like their swiss cheese. Increasing the life and decreasing the damage might work well to increase strategies.Also, what I don't like about RTS games is the deathballs and AOE effect. Many a times, I see that the deathball system makes game dull. In Starcraft II, you build up a large army for 10-30 minutes in which the game can twist greatly to the side of one player in a matter of 10 seconds. Psionic Storms, Hunter Seeker Missle, Fungal Growth and Colloseus can wipe out large armies extremely quickly. In comparison, I prefer the Warcraft III style of game play. The fighting takes a rather long time which helps to express a player's combat skill better.
- has seen through the opponent's strategy and unit movements ahead of time
- has successfully concealed their own plans and/or deceived the opponent when there is something to gain from it
- has made good choices in army composition, production capacity, upgrades, etc. in relation to their own strategy and their idea of opponent's strategy
- has correctly judged the outcome of a potential engagement before it happens, and avoided as many unfavorable ones as possible
- has maximized their positional and timing advantages for the fight before it happens
High life and low damage causes pretty much all of those to count less. It favors the player with the ability to make simple optimization decisions as fast as possible, and has the mechanical execution ability to carry them out (whether those actions are going to micro or macro). Suppose you are completely terrible at strategy, and have a habit of getting outplayed positionally and walking your army into an ambush. If you only lose 10% of the strength of your army under fire before you have microed it to regroup on a neutral footing, you can pretty much ignore positioning and still win most fights as long as you have a slight efficiency advantage from mechanical micromanagement during battles.
[quote name='Luckless' timestamp='1357791676' post='5019757']
Having the right assets in the correct position of the map at the right time is still king. If anything long engagement times forces many of those issues to be that much more important as compared to over in a flash combat.
[/quote]
Indeed. And actually, It just occurred to me, how dumb Star Craft is. Why is it that units destroy each other so quickly? Because nobody takes cover.
I like the idea that if your units are not sheltered, bunkered down, or positioned well, then they should be far more susceptible to damage. I.e. Soldier's moving in on an area are far more easy to injure than soldiers waiting in fox holes.
Ruined buildings could provide great cover. trees, ditches. This would be a strong reason why bases would become easier to defend than attack. Also, someone running a base could investigate the surrounding areas, and make sure things are setup strategically so that from the defense points at least a quarter mile out, there are no good cover spots. forcing approaching units to attack in the open. Then, backing into natural defenses, producing semi circles with the rest where each circle is again another stage of good bunkering for the inner circle, and poor to none for the outer.
Ways to do that would include Explosive charges set in buildings at construction. they can be set in different ways. 1) desimates, leaving nothing but flat area. This would be the inner side of a ring. and 2) crumbles, provides excellent cover. Not only does this protect from building capture, but the ruins become valuable staging points for military, where the outer part of every ring has bunkering, and the inner part of every ring has none.
Also, setting charges anywhere sounds like a good idea. That you can set off on request only. Streets, etc... Again with different levels of presets. 1, destroy street alone (removes speed bonus), 2, create obstruction (Designed to block up the path), 3, Area damage(desimates the road and damages everything with in x radius) Just because a force takes the city, doesn't mean they get to keep it, and abandoned bases might just be decoys.
Then another feature is cheaper construction of buildings that don't do anything, but look like something on the outside. Make a fake base, guard lightly and rig the whole thing to blow.
Now this feels more like strategy and tactics. Of course the enemy should have ways of detecting/dismantling this stuff, but not too easily, for instance a skill that increases the chances of spotting charges, and another skill at improving their concealment.
anyway, thanks for the excellent tangent.
If the engagement is over in one second, then there's no time for the player's (generally non-strategic) micromanagement ability to affect the outcome, and the result is only dependent on those pre-fight factors which I'd call strategic in nature (although execution barriers may be involved with accomplishing some of them).I'm going to have to disagree strongly that long living (that extend engagement time) negatively impact any of those points.Individual fights being over in a flash favor the strategically stronger player who
- has seen through the opponent's strategy and unit movements ahead of time
- has successfully concealed their own plans and/or deceived the opponent when there is something to gain from it
- has made good choices in army composition, production capacity, upgrades, etc. in relation to their own strategy and their idea of opponent's strategy
- has correctly judged the outcome of a potential engagement before it happens, and avoided as many unfavorable ones as possible
- has maximized their positional and timing advantages for the fight before it happens
High life and low damage causes pretty much all of those to count less. It favors the player with the ability to make simple optimization decisions as fast as possible, and has the mechanical execution ability to carry them out (whether those actions are going to micro or macro). Suppose you are completely terrible at strategy, and have a habit of getting outplayed positionally and walking your army into an ambush. If you only lose 10% of the strength of your army under fire before you have microed it to regroup on a neutral footing, you can pretty much ignore positioning and still win most fights as long as you have a slight efficiency advantage from mechanical micromanagement during battles.
whether an action is over in 1 second or 1 minute doesn't change any of those things. Having the right assets in the correct position of the map at the right time is still king. If anything long engagement times forces many of those issues to be that much more important as compared to over in a flash combat.
Having the right elements in the right positions at the correct time is still important. Being able to move a squad of riflemen into a part of the map and know that they're not going to simply disappear the second the first 'counter' unit happens to randomly wander by means they become an important aspect of the battlefield, and that unit has to actually be considered. A long lasting unit won't be annihilated simply by random chance.A "counter unit" does not randomly wander anywhere; it has been sent by the other player for whatever reason. Depending on the game, various strategic skills can be involved in producing the outcome. Did the players scout properly? How were the players' decisions to send the riflemen, and to send the "counter unit", informed by the players' understanding of the game's probability space in general, and their ability to read the specific opponent? In the end, there's always some randomness of outcome in a game of hidden information (= practically all RTS games) even with mechanics being fully deterministic, but there may be surprisingly little of actual randomness left if you consider and eliminate all other factors. Even then, the randomness tends to very much average out over the course of a match.
Personally, I don't care much for levelling units, particularly the rank and file. If the effect is small enough to ignore then it's pointless, and if it's not, then it just adds micro - I now have to care about where my vet units are and what they are doing.
Supcom had a simple veterancy system, which - for the most part - was irrelevant. However, it did make quite a big difference to some of the better units in the game, particularly the Experimentals which could become dramatically harder to kill once they attain veterancy. This in turn meant that players adopted specific strategies such as withdrawing T1 and T2 hordes from the path of an incoming Experimental as they would do nothing but grant it easy veterancy.
The more effective mechanic for making me care about my losses was the reclaim system. If I send a load of units on an attack which fails entirely, then I've basically gifted their mass to the opponent. If I can withdraw it when I see it's not going to work, then I can limit the the economic windfall the opponent gets - even if my forces still get wiped out, it's better that they are wiped out outside his base where it's going to be harder for him to safely reclaim it.
Similarly, DoW(1) made me care about my units using simple economics and convenience. Reinforcing a squad is cheaper and vastly more convenient than building a new one from scratch. Therefore, in order to avoid paying the 'squad tax' you have to keep your squads alive - even if there is only one man left. You don't care so much about the individual men, but you do care about the squad as a whole.
