RT v. Turn based.

[F_Smith]

Again, I disagree.

Preplanning an attack against a well-entrenched opponent will almost always be disasterous, unless you watch the battle and make changes according to changing circumstances. All plans go to hell in the face of the enemy!

RTS's have completely left out most standard *required* wargame rules, almost all of which benefit the defender. A unit on the move should have half the attack value. Supply. Entrenchment. Fortifications, leadership, training, experience, etc, etc, all will make attacking a fixed position very difficult indeed.

By building a good 'strategic' scale wargame, it is an absolute necessity to have better command and control of your armies, plus they *must* have the ability to at least act *competently* without your direct supervision.

[Glak]

In RTS games both defenders and attackers have advantages. One notable attacking advantage is the ability to focus the whole attack at one base. Defenders generally need to have some defense at each base. Defenders do have combat advantages though. You can generally afford a few towers at each base. Also spellcasters are considerably better on defense. Two templar and three cannons can hold off a lot of hydras.

Halving attack values would quite simply ruin RTS games. This would make the build up time before the first attacks enormous. In Starcraft for example attacking and defending are well balanced. You can lauch a successful attack at any time in the game, also any attack can be countered. To destroy this part of the game would ruin it. Also this rule would remove rushing. While rushing isn't particularly fun it is neccessay to maintain strategy in the game, otherwise it would just become a poweringfest devoid of strategy. If someone does a risky build (like expands very early with minimal defense) he should be killable. Likewise it should be easy to execute bad players early. Sometimes I get in a game with a total newbie so I just give him a few tips and move on, it would be boring to play himfor too long. Also in the late game when the map is out of money a defensive advantage could cause a stalemate.

Also the rule would be impossible to implement without territorial rules. If you look at Starcraft there is no territory, well the creep for zerg maybe. RTS games aren't war games, they are something very different. Oh and I did play a game where the atttacker was weaker. The game was no fun (but there were other reasons too, the 50% rule was the final straw)

If you want to read more about RTS theory I recommend reading this article by Zileas, a top SC player:

http://web.mit.edu/tcadwell/www/foundation.html

He's added to it a little but I don't know what site the final version is at.

[Glak]

No a rush is specifically used to counter powering or teching. Slow builds (powering, teching) beat medium builds (generic playing style), medium builds beat fast builds (rushing, cheese rushing), and fast builds beat slow builds. It works just like rock-paper-scissors. If you take out scissors then no one wants to play rock anymore. So now everyone plays scissors. This removes strategy from the game and leaves it up to player's tactical implementation. So you see rushing is used to punish people who bite off more than they can chew.

It does break down in 2v2 and 3v3 games though. 3v1 rushes in particular are hard to hold off. However if goes the other way in ffa games, rushers never have a chance in them. So in a way that makes protoss stronger because it seems as if they were made for ffa. I guess we can excuse blizzard though, in a game as amazingly complex as SC it is hard to get these things right.

Of course the game is lost upon most people, they play $$$HUNTERZZ$$$$, blood bath and other corrupt maps.

If any of you guys are Starcraft players drop by channel "nohunters" sometime. Generally from 6-9 bnet time we have 10-20 people in the channel, plus more in games. Generally most people are nice but sometimes lamers come by so don't be annoyed if you see an idiot or two.

[JimC]

Whereas RTS games are mainly a series of limited tactical engagements, Clash is supposed to be an epic tale of the length and breadth of human history.

What a let down it would be to get crushed in the tribal days by a rush....

I agree that rushing balances gameplay, in that if someone pursues a strategy which is so long-ranged in nature that he neglects the present, he deserves to die. Also, players should be capable of quickly eliminating newbies.

Of course, the nature of a rush will be very different in this kind of game - in Civ a 'rushing' strategy can take several thousand years of game time to complete.

I think that the 50% rule is good in principle, but a little harsh. I think that a defender should take EXTRA damage if he isn't prepared for the attack in some way, to reflect initiative and surprise.

Some form of entrenchment should be possible and should yield a defensive advantage, but should come at increasing cost in terms of time and resources for larger units. Infantry can dig their own trenches quickly, but a regiment of tanks needs SERIOUS engineering support to set up a decent defensive position.

Multiple entrenchment levels could also be simulated - from sandbag bunkers to concrete layered interconnecting defensive networks akin to the Maginot Line....

Just some thoughts.

Jim

[F Smith]

I disagree -- a rush doesn't "balance" a game (unless you mean it balances a long game against a short one).

It rewards a fast mouse clicker over person that is inexperienced at quickly laying fixed defenses with a mouse. A rush is only possible because current RTS scenarios start players off nearly defenseless. In real-life, the habits learned in an RTS game would make for a lousy general. You never rush your entire army off into a blind attack, that would be suicide.

The actual game is the development of the techs, and the choices made there-in. A rush is an accidental option that only arises from poor scenario design. They can't start you out with a few lousy bunkers? Bizzare. It's like every game of AoE starts with everyone dropped on a tiny planet all alone at *exactly the same time*! AoK is suppose to fix this, with a 'Castles' start option, but that remains to be seen.

Think about it. How good would Basketball be if a team could win in the first quarter? Or what if it were easy to end a game of chess in 5 turns?

P.S. -- If you include entrenchment, then no 50% rule is really needed. The point is, tho, that it is a *major* combat advantage to dig in and defend ground of your own choosing, yet RTS games do not really reflect this. It should be possible (tho expensive) to create a nearly impregnable fortress. Like Hannibal in Rome, it should be possible for an army to rule the field yet not control a country.

[Glak]

But you don't need defensive structures to prevent a rush. Remember it takes the rusher time to get to you. Also clicking ability has nothing to do with rushing. If two players use the same build but one rushes the other it does not matter who clicks faster, the defender will always win, often by a large margin. Perhaps other RTS games work differently but in SC that is the truth.

Rushing does balance the game, that is undeniable. Say for example two protoss players went against each other. For the sake of argument each player can only choose from three simple strategies: zealot rush, mass dragoons, or carrier rush. Assuming that the mass goon guy and the carrier guy build a little defense (maybe the goon guy gets six zealots and the carrier guy gets four goons) the outcome will be as follows: zealot rush beats carriers (he foolishly didn't build defense early enough), the carrier guy beats the goon guy (he held off the attack long enough to get carriers), and the goon guy beats the rusher.

Also the game is set up so that (in general) each tech level counter the one below it. Thus it is to your advantage to always stay one tech level ahead of your opponent. However if you tech too fast you will get a bad match up and he will overwhelm you.

Similarly the economic model works that way. If you always stay ahead in expansions you will have the advantage. However if you expand too fast you will be spread thin and vulnerable to an attack until you get a return on your investment.

I think JimC has it right, rushing will exist but it will look different. If one civ focuses heavily on economic development it should be attackable by a civ that focuses on military power. Why? Because once the economic civ gets a return on its investment then it is guaranteed victory. Thus there will be no reason to ever do anything but invest in economic development. So you see none of this has anything to do with clicking, maybe in poorly designed games it does. I heard that a lot of the earlier RTS games along with TA (but no one respects TA, I mean only TAers play TA) were rushing games. However I never played them so I won't comment.

Defensive advantages are not needed in general because while the attacker is moving towards the battle field the defender is making more troops. I think in SC it generally takes about a minute to get to the other guy. Marines take 20 seconds to make. So if someone goes barracks on 8 and the other guy goes barracks on 10 the defender will have two more marines than the attacker. He will also have another scv or two. So he will win the battle and come away with an economy 10-20% better. Over time that 10-20% translates into a faster expansion, which doubles scv production, etc..

Also I didn't understand your comment on bunkers. Start with a few bunkers? In general you only need one bunker at any base, any more and you are sacrificing too much mobility in favor of static defense that can easily be torn apart by siege weapony.

Just out of curiosity what SC maps do you regularly play? Also what type do you play? (1v1, 2v2, ffa, etc..) These greatly affect how the game is played so maybe you are playing under very different conditions than I am.

[Hrafnkell]

The system I´d most like to see is the one I think is used in many multiplayer games where the last player gets a set amount of time to finish his turn after all other players have finished their movement. I think this could also be used in single player mode, where the player gets a set amount of time (set by the game speed) after the AI has finished computing for all the computer states. I realize this could pose problems, f.e. the speed of the computer would probably determine how quickly the turns go by, but IMO this could be overcome. Anyway, if the choice was between pure TB and pure RTS I´d choose TB any day, but if this TPS idea can be made to work, that would be fine.
Now on this rushing thing, I´m no expert at Starcraft (I´ve played it once at a friend and it struck me as mindlessly boring), but I still think this could be used in Clash, albeit in a little different form. As the basic goal of the game is racking up VPs by various means one way would be to 'rush' your opponent in order to gain a lot of VPs in the shortrun, even if it means serious repercussions for you later on, it still might pay of. F.e. lets say you´re playing the Mongols you could choose to make an all-out attack all around you by focusing primarily on the military, thus, you may gain a lot of VPs by the conquest you make, but you´ve sacrificed your ability to run a 'normal' society, which will effect f.e. your economy and research, at least until you´ve managed to 'settle down' again. Just a thought :-)

[Mark_Everson]

Hey All:

Glak, within the definition of RTS you're setting out, I think its clear Clash will never be RTS. Perhaps we need to think of another name for what we'd try to do since RTS is already taken. How about Time-Pressure Strategy (TPS)? Now I think it is very worthwhile to try and make a Clash variant into a TPS game after the TBS one is done. It would take very little additional resources, as F Smith says. If the idea is a miserable failure in playtesting we haven't lost much. If it shows promise, we will tweak as needed.

-Mark

[F_Smith]

What Mark said, I second.

Altho, this is one of my favorite discussions. Glak, perhaps you're just use to 'what is', and can't imagine 'what will be'. RTS games (agreed, bad name!) *are* 'arcade' versions of tactical wargames -- just not very good ones. Starcraft is by far the best, and it leaves a lot of uncovered territory. Just wait -- they'll get there, and you'll love it. In the future, you'll be arguing against anyone changing that model, saying it's perfect!

You seem to think that a 'rush' is good and necessary. I'd say any scenario that can be won by speed alone is a poorly designed game -- I *love* the 50% rule. If you want a game that short, that's fine for you, more power to you. But I think we're trying to build a game here that lasts much longer than you're used to from current RTS's.

But taking out a strong defensive position *is* fun to me, albeit time consuming.

[F Smith]

Hraf:

Would you like a MP turn system that gave all players 10 minutes ( or 12 hours or every day at midnight; it can be customizabe ) to issue orders -- then it automatically executed them?

Glak:

Imagine a game in which realistic combat rules are used. Defenders can dig in easily for no cost and gain a huge combat advantage immediately -- perhaps each player is even started as a well-defended kingdom. And there are multitudes of players out there, both human and computer (500?), all fighting over thousands of 'production' centers of various types, each with different benefits to a civ, each providing valuable goods and supplies.

Imagine a game in which there is no way to win with a 'rush'. There would not even be such a thing as a 'rush'. It doesn't exist outside of the peculiar rules sets that are StarCraft/AoE/TA/etc. You could 'rush' to be the first to conquer that neighboring neutral tribe and take over the silver mines, but then what?

You can, like Hraf said, choose economic investment over military training, but conquest will carry it's own economic rewards, and be absolutely necessary to a booming economy. A long series of small victories will be required to finally "win" the game. All civs should be forced to do *both* military and economic investment, before the "Most Important Civ in History" award is handed out!

[Jason K]

Rushes are merely a strategy. The idea being to quickly overwhelm the enemy. They don't balance a game, rather they must be balanced for.

I think CoC would work well as an RTS, but I think the relation to StarCraft and other current RTS games isn't there, so using examples from them is irrelevent. For example, you can win a FFA game in SC with a rush. CoC seems a much different style game, by including 'wargame' rules like those that F Smith mentioned, a rush would only give you little defense and a lot of units far away with low supplies and moral. This isn't to say that a rush wouldn't be effective for some purposes, it just means that the different modelling in CoC gives the strategy new meaning and new things to consider.

As far as RTS games go, I'm a TA fan myself... never did like SC. I don't suppose anyone else likes TA?


------------------
- Jason Kozak
Project Lead of Stellar Civ.
"It's not a new paint job on your battleship... it's diplomacy done right"

[F Smith]

Hi, Jason:

Agreed, as a RTS, CoC would be closer to Caesar 2 or 3 than Starcraft. And you hit it on the head -- a 'rush', as it is called, should have certain dangerous consequences, not least of which is leaving your home undefended before you are fully aware of any possible threats . . .

I'm afraid I haven't played TA. I've heard alot about it, tho. What is the resource model? How do you 'buy' units?

[Jason K]

F Smith (OT):

In TA the resource model is rather simple. You have metal and energy. Metal is used to build and is gathered simply by placing extractor structures on top. Energy is also used to build, but also to power your units weapons, and is gathered by solar / tidal / fusion plants. It works on a constant supply, so you have to balance what you're doing to the current supply, or as many newbies find out, your building grinds to a halt and your units are defenceless. I believe there's a demo over at www.cavedog.com

------------------
- Jason Kozak
Project Lead of Stellar Civ.
"It's not a new paint job on your battleship... it's diplomacy done right"

[F Smith]

Jason:

What's the time scale in TA? Is it purely tactical?

I feel the 'strategy' of a wargame like TA or SC is in the choice and use of military units against other strong forces/defenses.

A 'rush' seeks to end the game by killing undefended towns before any military of any significance is built. This is only possible if a scenario starts everyone off undefended. Does TA follow the same 'scenario' conventions?

[Jason K]

/* What's the time scale in TA? Is it purely tactical? */
Yep, much like SC and other current RTSs.

/*I feel the 'strategy' of a wargame like TA or SC is in the choice and use of military units against other strong forces/defenses.*/
Especially in TA... the game has around 125 units (175 with expansions), so your unit mix is very important.

/* A 'rush' seeks to end the game by killing undefended towns before any military of any significance is built. This is only possible if a scenario starts everyone off undefended. Does TA follow the same 'scenario' conventions? */
Not really. One unique thing about TA is the advent of the Commander unit. You start with it every time, and it's your fastest building unit, as well has having the most powerful gun in the game, the D-Gun (one hit kill). The gun fires in a line, killing anything in its path for a short distance. By careful positioning you can use your commander to turn enemy rushes to rubble. One problem that has occured though is Commander rushing, which is a kamakazie manuver (loss of the commander means loss of game), as well as other tricks using an enemy commander as a bomb (lifting him up and self-destructing the transport), but an experienced player has no problem defending these just by placing a few defences.


------------------
- Jason Kozak
Project Lead of Stellar Civ.
"It's not a new paint job on your battleship... it's diplomacy done right"