Think of classic RTS games like Total Annihilation, Command & Conquer, Red Alert, and the like. These games focus on army micromanagement, where player has to give orders to all the units, pretty much. Now imagine that player can combine his units into Squads and Platoons and assign them to AI leaders. So once player assigns a group of units to some AI leader, that leader can decide what to do with those units. The behavior of such Leaders would be governed by a script, which players can edit and manipulate. When players begin the game, they don''t have many units to control, so they can micromanage everything by themselves. But as their armies get larger, it becomes increasingly difficult (and sometimes boring) to assign orders to all the units. So the player can split his tasks among the AI. Here''s an analogy: 2 sides are fighting each other, both sides are AI controlled. The player supervises behavior of one of the AIs, by altering its decisions or adjusting its behavior. Since AI behavior is completely scripted, players will be able to carry the AI scripts from game to game, and even trade them with other players. In some sense, the game acquires a secondary goal: who can make the best AI script. AI leaders create a high level of automation in the game. A game could run without player involvement completely. This makes it possible to increase the scope of the game - have more units, more options. Battles could take much larger scale and still progress smoothly. What do you think guys, is the idea worth pursuing?

I actually posted an RTS game proposal exactly like this over a year ago in the Game Design forum.

And yes, it would be worth pursuing..but I''d assume it''s far out of our league; at least if any of us were to develop it alone. Very impossible.

---

swift URL | browse my bookmarks [server may not always be on]
SotteD | View/download my Song of the Day
Sensimed | Info/download

why is it impossible? what''s so hard about it?

I wanted to post this in Game Design forum but made a mistake. damn

Ive got a game sort of like that, its called warzone 2100 try to by it. Its based primarily around futuristic robot-tanks and you can buy so called "squad leader" tanks that gain experience in battle and as they improve can command more units and command them better. The coolest part is that they can do specialty jobs: you can create ones for squads of artillary units, ones for your flying squadrons. The game is extremely customizeable with a total of about 110+ weapon systems and many types of propultion and body/chasis to choose from. Its a really good game; just really hard. REEEAAALLY hard. And you have to play single player to unlock everything, multiplayer only lets you use a basic set until you unlock things to use from single player.

Edit:
PS- also, the quality of your leader units not only increases variables like damage and range amongst commanded units they also improve pathfinding alot and actually tactics a little (so you still need skill to micro and stuff)

[edited by - Black Phalnyx on January 7, 2003 7:29:15 PM]

Master of Orion 3 is designed along similar principles except in a TBS game.

Just a thought... wouldn''t it be cool if during battles the game could be put into a slow motion mode?

The express purpose of slow motion would be to allow players to micromanage their units... I think that this might be a better solution than AI controlling…

Sorry if this post is a bit off topic, but I do think that it is relevant...


Dave "Dak Lozar" Loeser

Yes, MOO3 works a bit along those principles, as did Warzone 2100 (even though I wasn''t too hapy with the ai of those squad leaders) Never completed it, btw. Lost the cd''s some time... I was only a few levels away from completing it though...

Ever tried Battle Bugs? Pretty old Dos game, which instead of slowing the game down, as someone suggested, just pauses the game to let you give your units orders... Made for the best hotseat multiplayer battles I''ve ever had. Both players had their own pause button, and when you paused, only your units could get new orders. Actually a really clever concept, especially when you compare to other games which either just don''t support hotseat games, or do them in the usual, boring turn-based way...

Berserk-
Since the search function is currently out of order, I thought I''d give links to my threads which pretty much cover everything you said.

This first batch really discusses your same idea of having organized groups:
Unit Control (orders), Leadership, and integration
Leadership vs. Micro management
Hybrid strategy timing and thoughts on orders
A new style of RTS?
Ordering system question

I''ve been trying to stress this for well over a year now. I think from what other people have said that about half seem to like the idea and the other half think it makes the game too diffucult and not in the hands of the player''s control.

Dauntless, are you interested in working on such a game? we could try design one together

berserk-
Inbetween school and work I don''t have much time, and I tend to use a lot of that up posting here What kind of game were you thinking of? My own personal game would be set in the not too near future (ca 2150) but would retain the feel of more modern styles of warfare with a few kickers thrown in. I think too many future style RTS''s basically emulate WWII style strategies even when you factor in units with some rather fantastic powers.

I envision my gameplay strategy to be somewhat different than people are used to. Both the gameplay strategy and gameplay factors (how you actually play the game) will be different than what most folks are used to. Massive armies will not be the order of the for the most part for one simple reason....time.

In my world view, Capital Warships will simply pound the living snot out of ground forces once they achieve orbital supremacy. There are only three ways to avoid this. Not let any side have orbital supremacy, take ground that the otehr side can not afford to have destroyed (for example one of their cities or manufacturing centers), or get your troops in and out faster than the cavalry can arrive. Because of this, "armies" will be much smaller than they are today. They are mainly intended to hold or defend sites rather than conquer them outright (though sometimes this is necessary).

But beyond the actual background of my game, I would like to create the game engine first. For visuals I was looking at OGRE, and I''ll have to cook something up to handle the unit, OU, CG, commander and Ordering system. Unfortunately, I am only a neophyte programmer who can barely write simple Java GUI programs much less something on this order. However, if you know programming, or if you know others that know programming I know enough to at least explain my ideas in pseudo-technical fashion.