puting strategy into rts...

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Maybe some of us are slow thinkers...

[death_head]

I wouldn't say that...the stereotypical RTS player is a 14-year-old kid whose conversations go something like this:

haha gay faggit ur so ****ing stupid u sux0r bad

and so on and so forth...the Civ community tends to be a little more intelligent and mature...but if they can analyze these situations, then we should be able to also.

Note: To any 14-year-olds posting on this board, I am not discriminating against you. I appreciate the way you manage to act normal and not make anybody hate you.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by death_head
I wouldn't say that...the stereotypical RTS player is a 14-year-old kid whose conversations go something like this:

haha gay faggit ur so ****ing stupid u sux0r bad

Unfortunetly, you're right. At least on battle.net, they're just a bunch of bullys.

[death_head]

Which is why I am trying to reverse the stereotype...

*acts noble*

[J Bytheway]

There's plenty of strategy in RTS, I am also a fan of Starcraft, and agree with death_head, but I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that Starcraft is a game which was written insanely well.

There are three races which are as utterly different as possible, and yet they are almost perfectly balanced. The game must have been playtested to exhaustion, because the bugs present in the release were few, minor and all fixed very quickly in a patch. The map/scenario editor is the best I have ever used, and the AI (most notably in the Brood War expansion) is extremely good, using all the units available in some really cunning and obscure tactics. There is no tactic that is unstoppable or 'best', and no defense that can stop everything thrown against it. These are all features I would look for in any RTS, and they all contribute to strategy. The 12-unit selection limit is deemed ridiculous by some, but I think it represents the problems of command fairly well, and forces you to let your units use their initiative somewhat. Of course there are also things I dislike and would change like the lack of order queueing, but that will always be the case.

While I'm on the subject of AI, it's interesting to note that the one of the biggest differences in RTS vs TBS (IMO) is the inherent advantage an AI has in RTS because of its ability to be 'everywhere at once', and recent improvements in the user interface (try playing Warcraft (that's the original) after playing Starcraft or another more recent RTS and you'll scream - trust me, I did) have attenuated the problem, and you can also help by playing in teams, it will never go away. And - in a way - I wouldn't want it to, because it's better than giving the AI some other more 'artificial' advantage like faster units or more damage.

Perhaps all these points have been made before, but I was just passing by this forum, and I thought I'd give my penny's worth.

John

[The diplomat]

I would say that the best way to put strategy into RTS is to reduce the micromanagement. So many RTS games lose the strategic element simply because the player has to focus too much on clicking real fast on units/buildings etc...
For example, AoK has some great strategy but a lot of it is lost because you have to constantly worry about those idle villagers, rush tons of units against an enemy, build new units just in time to ward off an enemy attack etc... You don't have time to think because you are so busy clicking!

Here are few ideas that I had to reduce uneccessary micromanagement in a game like AoK:

1) Automatic population growth.
Instead of forcing the player to create new villagers manually, have the new villagers be created automatically.
You could have the game automatically create new villagers if certain conditions are met.

2) No more idle villagers.
There could be an option that if a villager is idle for X number of seconds, that the game would automatically give the villager something to do, like go collect ressources or build houses.

3) Action shortcuts
The game would create little icons in the corner of the screen that the player could click on to jump directly to something happening on the screen. For example, let's say that I am busy creating new buildings or a wonder. I am making sure that my workers are collecting ressouces and I am monitoring the progress of my wonder. Suddenly the AI attacks a part of my city that is
off-screen. There would be a small popup icon that I could click on to jump directly to where the fighting is happening. Also there would be a small pop up icon that I could click on to jump back to my wonder production. I could click on either icon to jump between the battle and the wonder. This would save scrolling time as well as help the player avoid missing important events.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by yin26
But to make the start too long in an RTS would kill the experience in that case. So where can things be made more complex?

Eliminate building altogether. Make the game purely tactical: Gettysburg++.

Say you have all the colourful units of AoE or AoK, and more, BUT with realistic formations, tactics, command control, morale, facing, ammunition, line-of-sight, terrain, weather,... everything a tabletop game would have.

You use one of, say, 30 historical army lists to buy your troops, then slug it out. Mmmmm.

[Velociryx]

I would respectfully disagree with the notion that there's plenty of strategy in RTS-type games.

There's plenty of tactical decision making in the RTS genre, but in the end, it amounts to He-Who-Is-The-Fastest-Clicker-With-The-Mouse, wins.

That has little to do with strategy, IMO.

Of course, one could argue that the inclusion of a tech tree/upgrades and so forth fosters strategic choice....and it could.....it could. But, as Yin pointed out in AoK, without certain upgrades (ranged attack), your goose is pretty much cooked, so there's no real strategy there....it's race for the key upgrades with breakneck speed....whoever can click their way to that the fastest gains the upper hand for a while.

I suppose then, I would be firmly in the camp of those who long for a pausable RTS. This would allow for much greater micromanagement a la turn-based games (which could be done during the paused times), and more intelligent AI routines built into the units when in real time (such that I can set a groups formation and orders and not necessarily have to worry about them....they *should* be smart enough to at least defend themselves intelligently if I"m off tending to some other hotspot.....one of the biggest failings of the RTS genre is that automated units, if left to their own devices, are utterly helpless when confronted by hostiles. This, more than anything, is what turns RTS games into nothing more than frantic clickfests.

I have high hopes tho....and I'm very curious to see what sorts of games come from this group....

-=Vel=-

[moi]

Originally posted by J Bytheway
...Of course there are also things I dislike and would change like the lack of order queueing...

John

um, dood, RTFM, you can queue orders in starcraft

[Comrade Tribune]

Vel, I think we cross-posted.

What about my great idea of a purely tactical RTS without building, covering in detail single-battle events such as Zama, Gaugamela, Trasimenus, Agincourt,...?

[Velociryx]

Hail Comrade! You're prolly right....lol...I have a tendency to compose my replies in an open reply window sometimes, rather than in word/notepad, and if work gets busy, I can sit here with an open window for upwards of an hour (more sometimes).

Speaking of Agincourt and tactical simulations, you may be interested in checking this site out....a largely undiscovered gem, but a fine game! (when you get to the site, check out Medieval2)

ISI

True, it's tbs and not rts, but I think you'll enjoy....

-=Vel=-

[Comrade Tribune]

Yes, that looks good, and will be definitely considered.

Just now I am pondering EU2; my store has got the US version; not sure I can resist much longer.