Hi again guys thanks for replying to my last post. I was supprised at how many replies i got, you guys sure know what your taking about and you were vary helpful. Now for part 2 of my RTS posts, Is it Better to make an RTS 3D rather than 2D, we will disscuss the pros and cons of each. First 2D. Pros. Easy to program, infinite detail level, allows for huge amount of units on the screen at one time. Cons. The current trend is 3D, Not as good special effects, no camra zooming, rotating or tilting. Now 3D. Pros. The current trend is 3D, Allows for great special effects, Camra zooming, rotating and tilting. Cons. Hard and lengthy to make a good 3D Engine, Detail Limit, Limited amout of units on the screen at a time. if i have missed any pros or cons please tell me. IMHO 2D would be the best. What do you think? Sir Darkan Fireblade -"I Feel like im playing Poker i dont know who''s bluffing!"-

it really depends on what you want your game to look like. if it''s more important to have massive amounts of units, go 2d, but if you want the detail, like the upcoming Command and Conquer: Generals, use 3d.

a2k

I''m working on ideas for a game that allows control of units on a 2D radar screen, but you can hop into a vehicle and play 3D for a while if you like (and still have access to commands).

So, I think it really depends on how you plan to implement the game and design the dynamics of the arena, action and controllability.

I have no idea if my experiment will pan out to become a playable game, but I''m curious to see how well it works. It''ll be a while before I have something that everyone can play with, but I''ll be sure to post a link here at GameDev. It will at least be a good lesson in game design.

It''s been a while since I posted on here but I''ll give my two cents
For real time I think you have to go 3d. Counter shaped units grinding across a landscape just doesn''t cut it in my opinion.
the problem with unit stacking is really a problem with the number of items a 3d unit is intended to represent in conjunction with the scale of the playing field. In English -
if a unit represents only one person then there is no problem with scale but if a single soldier is supposed to represent a whole regiment or army then you have to adjust the scale of your map accordingly(i have hardly ever seen any RTS that even takes scale (such as 1 inch = 50 km ) into account like a board game has to. I think this is a very important fundamental for any game.

my theory anyhow

NUmber of units is a HUGE factor. There is a great 3D RTS called Sacrifice. It is a 3rd person camera that follows your general. Wonderful game - but you probly will never have more than 30-40 units AT MOST on the screen... If you need massive numbers of unit on screen - go 2D.


God was my co-pilot but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him...
Landsknecht

3D RTSes can actually have more detail than 2D; you just need judicious memory management and level of detail control. The same extends to potentially allow for huge numbers of units on screen in 3D.

However, where I think a 3D data model (not necessarily visual/presentation model) really shines is with respect to the strategic effects of elevation, use of terrain for advantage, etc.

Put all the tecnical details aside. 3D adds reality to game play. In 2D mountains are just obstacles. But in 3D they are really mountains. Its just an example of what 3D adss a RTS game.

-------------------------
Hakan Yuksel
3TE Games

if by special effects your talking explosions, etc. (as opposed to kewl 3d terrain) then why not a combo of the two?

you could do your landscape, army, etc in 2D and use particle systems or some other technique for special effects. admittadly it would probably take a lot of fiddling so the they didn''t look out of place together, but it''s certainly do-able

I''m not really sure if I would call Camera zooming, rotating and tilting actually a pro. To me, C&C 2, Starcraft and Co. had better gameplay than the 3D RTS games of today.

And don''t forget that it''s actually possible to merge the two different paradigms. Need great special effects in a 2D tile-based RTS game? Well, use a 3D particle engine... the work will be a picnic compared to a full-blown 3D game engine. Need old-school 2D feeling in a 3D-based RTS game? Restrict the camera movement and include the good old scrolling functionality (may as well be an option so that camera tilting can be supported, too).

Personally, I think that the RTS genre is only going for the worse. (*thinking of the good old times*)

If your gonna use 3D to emulate a 2D RTS then stick with 2d. If however you are going to use 3D to its fullest extent (ie Homeworld) then go 3D.

BTW going 2D doesn''t mean you don''t use the 3D card, if your going to program with DX8 you have to use the 3D card as Direct Draw has been dropped. The only thing 2D about it will be that it''s sprite characters vs polygon characters. You will have all the alpha effects of a 3D game, there isn''t any loss there.

-ddn