FUZZTREK wrote:

quote: As for "point and click" or "memorize all of the hotkeys" that is a very small factor of a real time strategy, and anyone who actually plays any amount of real time strategies will realize that the strategy is not in pointing and clicking, or memorizing the hotkey''s. It''s the choice of units, the skills to use and the battle micromanagement.

Any amount of what are currently considered ''real time strategies'', that is
An ideal setup would be to allow the user to define commands (hotkeys) BEFORE the battle. That way, choosing hotkeys becomes part of post-battle gameplay (like ''choice of units'').

I am a big fan of using flags to relay commands from top to bottom (general to grunt). Basically, the player would be like a football coach, telling his units how to act on the field. But long before the battle/game ever starts, the player is able to teach new commands to his players, in the form of hotkeys. For example, pressing CTRL + R might give a ''full retreat'' command, where each unit turns his back and runs back to safety as fast as possible. A player might want to design a different type of retreat. He creates a macro that tells certain units to retreat one way, and other units to retreat another way. ''You archers, retreat by moving backwards, while giving the swordsmen cover fire. You swordsmen, retreat by moving backwards fast.'' Specific locations might be set to retreat to.

Now, the player should also be allowed to manually adjust the settings for the AI which controls individual units during combat.

Let players micromanage BEFORE battle, and macromanage DURING battle in real-time (perhaps by using turn-based command system).

I think that pre-mapping hotkey''s is one thing, but creating macros with "retreat" and "defend" functions is a totally different feature. I think that some games have specific support or cover fire units, whereas others can become rather technical by creating all these macro''s. I think that by being able to create macros, you are adding a new level of depth to the strategy of the game. I''m not sure if I would like that aspect of it or not, but it is an interesting concept.

I''d just like to repeat (not talking at all about your post silvermyst) that it really annoys me when people say that RTS''s are for people with almost no attention span and for people that are to dumb to play a ''real'' strategy game. That is not the truth at all. I mean, I really shake my head and roll my eyes when someone says that. I don''t even know HOW someone can say that. It makes absolutly no sense at all and is very rude.

It reminds me of the Mac vs Microsoft wars or the DirectX vs OpenGL wars. They''re are biased views towards both sides, and most of those biased views have no point other than "I like it, and since I''m the best and I''m the smartest, everyone else should like it too." It''s not even child-like, it''s below that. Why not just accept that they are two different things, and that they each have their pro''s and con''s?

Boggles my mind.

Fuzztrek

¬_¬

why not have both turn based and real time...
dont sell yourself short of a whole audience.. just work
both into the design, have a turn based mode and realtime mode
players can choose.

-eldee
;another space monkey;
[ Forced Evolution Studios ]

''In C we had to code our own bugs. In C++ we can inherit them.''

I like them both actually. I believe turn-based combat systems require more of an intellectual battle strategy often before, during, and after combat. Real-time on the other hand usually just needs a battle plan before combat, reflex action and skills during combat and good critical thinking and analysis afterward.

Bleu Shift - www.bleushift.tk

A turn based game will make it strategy oriented. RTS is more action oriented. What you should do depends on what you want.

Important thing is that RTS will need fast code, but is better for multi-play.

Turn based can have an excellent ai, because he can have more time to "think".

And one more thing... what often pisses me off about RTS games, is that the computer Ai can move all his 500 units on the 400-square kilometer map at once, while the player has to focus his attention. You have to try and make this fair.

Well, once you beat the AI, you wish he could do WAY more than he already can.

¬_¬

FUZZTREK wrote:

quote: Well, once you beat the AI, you wish he could do WAY more than he already can.

Which is why I think we should try to think about doing without AI.

My personal preference goes out to designing AI only to function FOR the player, not against.

Don''t think of how you can pit AI units against player controlled units, but instead think of ways to let AI handle the player controller units better (in fights against other player controlled units).

Oh my god.. too me i see lazyness. What about path finding! what about formatting!? what about auto attacking and line of sight?!!??! the AI already does tons for you and you don''t even know it.

¬_¬

fuzztrek-
it''s not that a short attention span is bad per se, it just means a person with a shorter attention span probably won''t find turn based games as fun. To be honest, I have a short attention for some things, but I''m very focused in others. To me, short attention span just means constantly wanting something new.

Also, I recommend you go back to some old posts about how many people hate what Sandman earlier referred to as "peon pumping". You''re right, strategy should not be about having to click fast, it should be about knowing which units (as a group) to use for a specific task and being able to control that unit as best as possible. But the problem is...all that mouse clicking takes away from your time to think about what will be needed in battle.

I think that what you think is strategy is in truth tactics. The Blizzard and Westwood formula of "RTS" is actually a tactical simulation, not a strategic one. What''s the difference? Strategy is about the plan of action that you come up with to achieve an objective. Tactics are the means by which you use to enact your strategic plans.

If you are on the level of thinking of: "a zorg beats a waddle, but a waddle can beat two kiths on high grounds on flat terrain..." then you are at a tactical level of thinking.
If you are on the level of thinking of: "John''s forces seems comprised mostly of wombats and he has lots of quargs to buy more fedaykins with....I should tie up his wombats long enough to destroy his quarg manufacturing centers" then that''s strategic level of thinking.

Strategy implies some tactics, and tactics implies some strategy, but strategy games obviously should have more strategic thinking involved.

Well, I really think that your so-called "tactic" style strategy games have much more strategy than you credit them to have. The difference is that you must create your strategy BEFORE you play the game. This adds a new level of depth because if you begin the first stage of your strategy, say, going all melee ground units, and all of a sudden you find out that your opponent is going heavy air units, you have to change your strategy to counter those units. I think that it is not so much a matter of remembering what units are good against what units, but thinking a lot in a short amount of time. You need to play through in your mind what is going to take place if you follow through with your strategy. Of course, you need to think about it fast, but it''s really not that different than your so-called "strategy" game. Imagine it as taking a bunch of decisions in a strategy game that took 10 minutes each to think about and squishing it into a minute or less. It can be done, it has been done and while it does not gaurentee as much quality as thinking for 10 minutes does, it still incorporates that aspect.

I think that "tactic" style strategy games were, or are, or is really just taking that old-school "strategy" game to the next level. I really think that this "tactic" style of strategy games is more realistic, but that is just my opinion and to avoid another five pages of discussion i''ll kindly ask you to forget about that comment. Our opinions are certainly biased, and I really don''t see your point in all of this. It''s futile to continue arguing over another''s point. Why not just accept that they are two differnt genre''s? Why do you want to compare them to death? What do you want out of it?

¬_¬