quote: Original post by Doolwind
What is the difference between "capturing" a flag, and having units in the area to defend the resource gatherers going to a mine? It just seems to be stating the obvious, that you "control" that area. And in doing so limits the strategies of "controlling" a resource (your only option is by having more troops in the area so you can fend off any attack).

Good question. What is the difference?

From a strategy point of view, not a lot, depending on the details of the implementation. From a gameplay point of view, it means you have fewer units to control and therefore less micromanagement.

I don't see how it substantially limits your strategic options - how many extra strategic options do peons actually give you? Why not just abstract them away? I'm genuinely curious, I don't feel that peon pumping really adds that much to the game.

Also, are there any decent zone maps for SC? e.g maps with more interesting terrain than the chess board maps I've seen so far?

Ganryu: You need to consider possible exploits as well - for example, could a player with lots of cheap units flood his opponent's terrain periodically, contesting all his flags just long enough to deny him his cash?

[edited by - Sandman on December 2, 2002 8:06:18 PM]

quote: Original post by Sandman
I don''t see how it substantially limits your strategic options - how many extra strategic options do peons actually give you? Why not just abstract them away? I''m genuinely curious, I don''t feel that peon pumping really adds that much to the game.

I agree that abstracting peons away could save on micromanagement, but I still believe there are a couple of strategies that would be lost....

1. As I said before, attacking an enemies unguarded peons, rather than the heavily defended resource themselves.

2. The whole idea of exactly how much money to spend on building new peons at the expense of building military units (to defend them and your base).

It is really whether loosing strategies such as these would be outwayed by the reduced micromanagement. Personally I think the number of strategies in current RTS games are so limited that loosing two would leave players with too few strategies.

However if other, NEW, strategies could be introduced (from other areas of the game) then the benefits of the reduced micromanagement would definately be a good thing.

Doolwind

Thanks for all the replies!

Anyway... Sandmans suggestion was really interesting as it would allow for blocking out territory for your opponent.

TO CAPTURE A FLAG v1.6
Refined rules: To GAIN RESOURCES from a territory that territory needs to be connected to the main territy through a consistent chain of flags. If anyone of those flags are CAPTURED the other flags will not gain you resources.

I still like the idea of zone control more, but different zones should be worth different values depending on location, and difficulty to aquire.

-----------
I MADE ALL OF YOU WAIT 3 DAYS FOR A MEXICAN WRESTLER!

I still like the idea of zone control more, but different zones should be worth different values depending on location, and difficulty to aquire.

-----------
I MADE ALL OF YOU WAIT 3 DAYS FOR A MEXICAN WRESTLER!

Holy double post Batman!

Anyway, I find that this is more suited to a FPS like Battlefield 1942 than an RTS because people expect the same ol'', same ol'' for an RTS.

Some interesting ideas and some interesting additions to the ideas about cutting off resources.

Here''s my two cents thrown in (of course with length of my posts...more like a quarter as usual ). First, I''m not sure it''s a good idea to add captured territories to your own. When you do this it''s a double bonus for the winning player (he adds 1, the opponent loses for a net effect of +2 for the winner). And more to the point realistically this isn''t how war is waged. When territories are captured it is to deny the facilities to the enemy, not to add to the conquering countries resources. When a conquering country starts doing that, the partisan and guerrila activity sky rockets and the act of sabotage and guerrila warfare isn''t worth the added materials. And consider the logistics of retooling the machines or of sending all the food to the invading troops? Some things don''t need retooling like oil, mineral deposits, but when it comes to food...the subjugated people are very attached to their food So raw materials might be a viable "capture", but it shouldn''t be at the same rate it provided for the original owner. I think that once you capture a flag it should not add so much to the capturing player as deny the resources to the original owner.

The idea of strategically blockading a region is very good. In the Pacific campaign of WWII, the American forces would "leapfrog" islands letting the Japanese garrison forces "whither on the vine". Once they blockaded the Japanese ships to resupply them, the Japanese troops starved to death and were unable to use the islands as invasion staging points. The same principle can be used in land warfare. The failed Operation Market Garden was essentially an attempt to outmanuever German forces, cut off the Germans behind their back while simultaneously taking the back road to Berlin. If the plan succeeded, then Holland would have been bypassed, cutting off all the German forces. And look at how Germany defeated France....just slipping through Belgium to outflank the Maginot line.

The whole issue of maps is actually a very important one. I was always impressed with Shogun (and I prseume Medieval: Total War) how there was a grand strategical map, and once you decided to fight it zoomed in to a tactical map. Choosing when and where you fight is paramount to a commander''s survial and victory. From the way you describe your game, I''m assuming you''re looking at the game from a more grand strategic outlook (think Risk or Axis and Allies). If you want this at a more tactical scale ala Westwood style games, it can still be done, but I think the pacing of the game will have to be slowed down compared to that style.

This sound like Sudden Strike, this is much like the multiplayer game style in this game, maybe you want to see it.

Here''s my own take on the resource issue:

Each territory has in it a combination of raw materials, manufacturing capacity and "people power". Raw Materials are the things you need to make the instruments of war and to keep them running. This includes oil, food, minerals, etc. Manufacturing capacity is the ability of the territory to turn those raw goods into something useful...with one caveat. That caveat depends on "people power". People power is what runs the factories and "fuels" the military service including the raw bodies to fill shoes, and the education for training the laborers and skilled warriors. You may have excellent factories but not enough skilled laborers to run them. Ditto in that you may have a great army before attrition takes its toll...then you''ll need training academies for those pilots, tankers, warship captains, etc etc.

There will be no "archer buildings", or "tank plants" to be built during the game. The above three factors will essentially determine what you can build along with a tech level. Tech increases basically allow you to build upgraded units or possibly to make them cheaper. There will be different areas in which you can focus your research area. Education to make more skilled workers, processing to make raw materials easier to gather, and production to make producing units easier, and then science to make more effective weapons/ships/etc.

When you capture a territory you will only get a fraction of the territories resources. As time goes by then you get more if you treat the populace well.

Now just because you don''t build actual "tank plants" or "infantry barracks" doesn''t mean they don''t exist. The player has to chose where these centers are, dividing the output between these centers. Ditto goes for manufacturing centers as well as certain resources. The player does not build them as time goes on, instead they are placed at the beginning of the game. It''s up to the enemy to find out where his most vital industrial complexes and resource centers are to try to knock them out. It''s very similar to today''s RTS games with the major difference being that you don''t build them as the game plays...but they are still prime targets. The other difference is that from the scale of my game,

Land in and of itself is usually only good to use as a staging area for further attacks. The real objectives are the heart that pumps the blood (the raw materials and manufacturing facilities), the muscles (the armed forces) and the mind (the government or in some cases the people). War has taught that it is very hard to fight the mind (the horrible civilian bombing campaigns did very little to demoralize the German people, and Sherman''s campaign of total war only pissed the southerners off more in the Civil War), and fighting the muscles is difficult as well obviously. Therefore the best target is the heart. Only problem there is that they tend to be the best guarded. But that''s what the fun of battle is all about

Dauntless-

What timeframe is your game going to span?? As in would the average game (in game time) be a few weeks, months or years? If it was years (and perhaps even months) shouldn''t the ability to build new factories be available to the user? Also the ability to move workers around or trian them up in building a certain weapon. Or are you taking care of this in a different way??

It seems that if you build them all at the beginning it is limiting your ability to change your tactics during the conflict. If you loose a territory with major tank building abilities wouldn''t you want to build up another territories tank building abilities with a degree in tank building (at the local university) and a tank factory?

I do like the idea though of territory having those three factors instead of just a "tank factory" though. However, I think if you abstract it out too far the player will loose too much control. Or is this what you were planning so that when they loose a territory with a tank building abilities (factory, men and resources) they either have to take it back or take another territory with tank building abilities??

Doolwind