I''ve been working on an RTS game with my friend, and we recently went over the topic of heroes in multiplayer. My friend, not being a programmer, had some crazy idea about players designing their own units during the game or something (that''s right out). I originally liked the idea of Tiberian Sun-style heroes, like Ghoststalker where you can only have one instance of the unit at any time. I didn''t much like how you could build another Ghoststalker if your first one died though. Now I''m not so sure having heroes in multiplayer is such a good idea, so here''s what I plan on doing: This game is infantry-centric (it has vehicles but they will be much harder to build than infantry) so I plan on only having infantry "heroes". When one military infantry unit does something extraordinary, like takes on 10 guys and kills them all, or is the only survivor of a massive battle, he will become a "hero". There will be some sort of visual indication when you select him that he is a hero. When you send the hero off to fight the enemy, all of your units within a certain radius of him (inspired by his courage and fighting prowess) will charge alongside him. The whole pack of them will only take 50% damage from enemies, and maybe have a slightly increased rate of fire. 50% may seem a little drastic, but in our game, infantry can only take about 4 shots before they die. Of course, it will be a rare event to have one of your units turned into a hero, and the hero will still be as vulnerable as anyone to snipers (unless of course the hero is a sniper, in which case he might shoot first ). So what do you guys think? Sound like a good idea?

Unit experience and veterans seems to be standard among leading RTSs nowadays. Your hero idea sounds like an extension of that. It could work, but the thing I''d like to highlight is the process by which you identify a unit that should become a hero. The "doing something extraordinary" is going to be pretty hard to quantify since "extraordinary" isn''t a concept that computers understand easily.

The only other potential problem I can think of is one of game balance - make sure to play-test "hero-generating" strategies - try and think up ways in which players can try to massively increase the number of heroes they get, and make sure you can cope with them.

If you can do it, go for it. If you find it doesn''t work, be prepared to take it out again.


Oh, and letting players design units on the fly isn''t that crazy an idea in terms of programming difficulty - all you need is to come up with a fairly modular unit design system. Where it becomes potentially disastrous is again in the area of game balance - avoiding allowing players to create a super unit is harder than making sure you haven''t designed one yourself. On the other hand, a reasonably balanced design system offers more potential for discovering "magic bullets" to deal with supposed super units...

sounds reasonable, the idea of "veteran" units isn´t new, usually it´s used as an incentive to heal or repair your units and conserve resources.

there are a number of games with modular unit design systems, Warzone had a pretty interesting one, there are many others around.

as for specific heroes, i guess it wouldn´t be too difficult to add a special status after a certian level of experience... or to determine certain conditions for creating "heroes".

while we´re on the topic of RTS: be sure to make your units directional, or make your groups directional... the C&C method enforces rushes and one-directional attacks because every unit is strong to any side, so if you split your troops you cut your combat strength.
If troops are weaker on the side/rear (or clusters of units) then you give incentive to develop strategies, do pincer movements, surround the enemy etc.

I, personally, think that heros were a great addition to Warcraft 3. I think that if you are going to impliment hero''s into a game, they should be more than just "another unit with higher stats". They should be there for a purpose. Give them special abilities, impliment RPG elements.. *something* to make them worthwhile.

¬_¬

Maybe it would be worthwhile to implement a rank system. Instead of making them "heroes" make them Sargeants or Captains. Let them lead squads of lesser soldiers, who would be encouraged by their leader to fighter harder and complain less. Morale, courage, panic and combat effectiveness could all be modified by being assigned to a tough officer. This could also be used to break up a large force into smaller ones. Instead of click-and-drag to select units, just have Captain Badass take his team to the top of the hill and hold it. Let Sargeant Toughguy and Lieutenant Speedy go support Major Hardcore''s flagging unit. As an added bonus, you could bolster units that have suffered casualties by "assigning" new grunts to them. Build three machinegunners and a medic and have them rendezvous with Commander Blood, who''s lost four guys in firefights, and send along a few explosives experts to deal with the line of armor that just wiped out Corporal Mickey''s Mousketeers.

Rather than rewarding these guys with super powers, build a file for them, and let their career develop on its own. After each battle, evaluate soldiers based on their performance, and give them medals, bars, and promotions as appropriate. If you''re going to include variable equipment, then maybe you could give officers better armament, like the "command suit" in Robert Heinlein''s Starship Troopers (the book).

quote: Original post by Fuzztrek
I, personally, think that heros were a great addition to Warcraft 3.

they are... but the rest of the game is pure massing

Warcraft 3 has overdone the heroes. Heroes can wipe out full armies. All anyone does is build up their heroes. I''m yet to see any brilliant manuever around defenses, or forcing enemies to split their troops, two front battles, decoys, etc. It''s all about heroes.

Don''t drop your friend''s suggestion; it''s perfectly valid. Creating your own units is what RPG character development is all about, so you just need to implement that in an RTS. Your hero gains experience, which gives him stat and skill points you can spend to give him the stats/skills you want. And you can still have hero classes which set the ground rules, just like RPGs.

~CGameProgrammer( );

One thing worth thinking about if you intend to implement any sort of experience system for your troops is some sort of variation between troops notionally of the same type, as well as improvements with experience. If every "sargeant" is the same, then losing one is no big deal. If some are faster, some more accurate, some better leaders, etc then losing one is a lot more personal because they are more of an individual.

quote: Original post by nickwinters
Warcraft 3 has overdone the heroes. Heroes can wipe out full armies. All anyone does is build up their heroes. I''m yet to see any brilliant manuever around defenses, or forcing enemies to split their troops, two front battles, decoys, etc. It''s all about heroes.

Have you watched any pro replays? I haven''t seen anything on the level of boxer''s dropship godliness, but then again BW is 4+ years old. But I have seen some pretty crazy shit. I dont think war3 is the perfect competitive RTS, but I think its a decent step forward (or possibly to the side). Give it some more time and I think you''ll see some _really_ impressive stuff. Right now though there are still some pretty sweet moves being pulled.

Heros play a fundamental role, but thats just part of the game. People always pumped peons (save zileas sometimes) in stacraft/war2, it was just part of the game.

ratman