I don't like the way most RTS handle training units right now either. It makes every microsecond count and it's unrealistic. In my RTS, I plan on making it so you queue up units that you want, and then at the next X minute interval all the units are delivered (or maybe not - I might make a limit per unit type, so you can only get say 10 of each unit type per 3 intervals to help slow down massing).

Also, I don't think I'll have many structures to be built. There will be a 'commander' unit that does the request of units, and killing it will be the goal. The units you requested will probably be shown parachuting in by your commander when the interval for them to come passes.

Instead of the common structures that can be built in the same time as units, I'll probably only have `structures` that could be built quickly on the field like trenches. If I have any 'real' structures, I'll probably make them take 4 or 5 intervals to complete.

Instead of the normal gathering of resources with peons on a mine, I'll make it so each interval you get X resources. It won't be a very large number, but it will be enough to make 1-2 units. In addition to that, there will be various 'refineries' around the map that you can 'capture' by either being the first person to get to it (they start out as the typical 'neutral rescuable') or if its already 'captured', you can damage it down to say 3/4 health and it becomes yours. Or maybe I'll make it so that in order to take over a refinery, you have to kill all enemy units around it and have at least 1 unit sit with it for an interval.

Anyway, each refinery you own will give you a little more resources per interval (again, enough for 1-2 units). In addition to refineries, there will be factories, which will make certain upgrades/abilities/etc not cost so much on a unit (thus making units with those upgrades cheaper). Factories will probably specialize in one group of skills, and it will be the luck of the draw ('offical' multiplayer will mostly be done on randomly generated maps, but there will also be custom games)

[edited by - Extrarius on January 25, 2003 12:44:49 PM]

A couple of comments... In response to the statement that it is unrealistic to train units for an army one at a time. This is true however, in many games, they get around this by calling each unit a troop, squadron, or whatever. This way you really arn''t training one pilot, you are training one squadron which will be symbolized by the one pilot that you see. you know what I mean?

Also, the idea where units parashoot in, you can''t really build to many structures, and you get an allocated amount of rescources at a time, kinda sounds like you are a general for a larger army fighting but a small portion of a war. You request rescources, you never really build anything but temporary structures for battle, every unit you get falls from the sky.

Is this kinda like what you''re talking about?

Again, I really like some of the ideas that are coming out of this thread.

Oh, one more thing. How are all of you guys handeling the GUI? I know how most RTS games handel it by putting a ''toolbar'' at the bottom, top and sometimes left/right side of the screen. One thign I though of that might be a little better would be to use kind of like a popup menu. Instead of having a box with all of your commands popup when you select units, a box with all of the commands popup right where your mouse is when you right click a unit or a group of units. What do you guys think about this?

Just looking for some opinions.

Tazzel3d ~ Dwiel

*grumbles about browser crashing*
My RTS will probbably end up like an army general controlling small battles, but I think it might achieve the feel I want that way. I want each player to control a small special ops-type team, so my game will probably end up with generally large games (for an rts, like 8 players average per game instead of the normal 2-4). Since I haven''t coded anything yet and I haven''t even written anything down outside these forums, it will be easy to make changes at this point =-)

About your idea for the GUI: I really don''t think I would like it. NWN did something simmilar and I __HATED__ the interface in NWN. I think a much better solution would be to make each part be a toolbar the player can move around to suite his needs and allow any toolbar to be hidden if the player wants it that way.

For my own game, I''d probably make the interface simmilar to that of WC3 right now, beause its the only RTS I''ve played in a while and I like its interface. I would of course change a few things. One of the changes would be that instead of showing 5 icons when you have 5 of the same unit selected, it would show 1 icon with a 5 in the corner. I would probably also make it display 3 health bars for each group like that, showing the average health of all units in that group with >2/3 HP, <2/3 HP and >1/3 HP, and <1/3HP so you could get a feel for the general level of health of all the units in the group.

Yeah, I guess it would make sence for me to make the GUI as customizable as possible. It would be very easy to make it so that if you wanted the menu to popup near the mouse you could. If you''d rather have it popup over in a corner somewhere... good for you. I figure the more happy people the better. Especially when all the difference is in one call telling your renderer where you want the upper left corner to be. Not to much code into the fixes.

Oh does anybody see any problems with the story that I have made? Is it horrible? is it decent? What do you like about it? What don''t you like about it? If you don''t wanna go find it or would like a possibly bit more detailed version, here it is:

Your government finds a planet loaded with usefull metals and gasses, but other enemy government are eying it also. You must take control of the planet so that you have full control of the rescorces. You must use robots to fight the war though because the planet is radioactive. (previous statement might be interchanged with: "In this age and day, war is not fought by human lives, they have too much worth; War is fought by machines.").You mine your own rescorces from the planet as you need them, but the less you use the happier your bosses will be (higher score). You can build whatever kind of units you want. They can be massive with all of the bells and whistles, you can build an army of thousands of little droids that swarm the opponent. Whatever you want.

So what do you think?

thanx for everything guys.... comments on the other previous posts are also very welcome If you don''t think I should be changing the subject... just don''t let me

Tazzel3d ~ Dwiel

Sounds good to me. Better than my story, which is "well, I wanted an RTS with a tactical feel where micromanaging the peons and clicking the buttons fast isnt what makes you win or lose" =-P

Another interesting idea for GUI that I don''t remeber seeing anywhere is to make all action buttons ''floating'' along an edge of the screen (and don''t have any panel-type thingy behind them to block the view). You might use a small panel to show what units you have selected, or maybe just show the icons for those on the opposite side of the screen. Could be interesting =-) Of course, with a solid GUI along one side of the screen, you can have the game only draw the 3d stuff to the part that wouldn''t be covered, possibly raising FPS some =-)

quote: Original post by Extrarius

Another interesting idea for GUI that I don''t remeber seeing anywhere is to make all action buttons ''floating'' along an edge of the screen (and don''t have any panel-type thingy behind them to block the view). You might use a small panel to show what units you have selected, or maybe just show the icons for those on the opposite side of the screen. Could be interesting =-) Of course, with a solid GUI along one side of the screen, you can have the game only draw the 3d stuff to the part that wouldn''t be covered, possibly raising FPS some =-)

The problem is, would your users consider the panel "blocking the view" or would they consider the floating action buttons blocking the view.
For instance, if you had a mini map on the top left of the display, some people would consider it blocking a big portion of the screen. If you had a panel directly under it, they would be framing the screen instead. Less frustration that way.
Still, take a look at Wizardy 8''s interface. Customizable so that you can have more info on screen or more play area on screen and everything in between. Beautiful job!

Extrarius-
Are you going to have AI Commander objects in control of units directly or indirectly? By directly I mean that they are autonomous, but due to rank hierarchy, concede to orders given by the player himself. By indirectly I mean he is only a liason for passing orders from the player to the unit itself?

In my game, the player controls units directly through the Commander object. In fact, a player can not click on a unit icon and get it to do something. In my game, the playable (controllable) elements are called Clusters, which are composed of atomic units called Units. A unit is one vehicle, one building or one squead/team of infantry. Clusters are built by adding them into Cluster data structures. These data structures read all of the component''s Module interfaces to build a master list of functions.

So, in the game, on the right hand side will be a menu listing the hierarchical structure of his army (in my game, since not only are units customizable but the organization as well, I do not name them myself, but let the player chose his naming scheme...perhaps maniple, cohort, legion). So, using the tree menu, or selecting the Cluster on the map (which then highlights the chain of command), the player can directly issues orders to that Cluster''s Commander. The Commander then takes this Order object (which holds parameter data) and turns it into function calls to the appropriate units.

However, the Commander can act on his own and issue orders without the player''s direct manipulation. The orders that are carried out will be based partially on FSM rules (which will mostly be coded through the Rules of Engagement scripting interface). Also, I''d like to implement some sort of Autonomous Agent AI for each Commander so that they can make decisions based on certain stimuli and information that they have.

A comment on training. I''ve been debating this issue as well. A part of me would like to do the "release all queued units at once, rather than as they are produced", but another part argues that it is okay to do this. On one hand, many new vehicles and infantry units are sent out as casualty replacements, in which case, the new units don''t actually "arrive" at the training facility. Instead, they are shipped off automatically to the frontline where they then replenish damaged units. Note, that is an important concept in my game. Units are not simply alive or dead....they lose functionality as they take damage. This also means that it is important for the player to keep good supply lines (logistics) running smoothly to transport not just food and ammo, but replacements as well.

But this kind of ordering system is totally different than the "pizza style" ordering (as I call it). Normally, battlefield replacements have the ultimate priority of a nation''s manufacturing resources, then any surplus is used to either create new BattleGroups (another data structure in my game that is really just another type of Cluster that itself holds other Clusters instead of individual units). The side of me that argues for "release all queued units at once" says that the reason this seems more logical is because of the way militaries are organized. In "pizza order" systems, there is no logical organization to armies....you just create them as you go. In a real military, they are organized along fairly standard lines so that control is easy for the military command. So, in pizza systems, when you have all your units queued up, and you let them go one at a time, it''d be like saying a single platoon of infantry is going to be sent out all on its lonesome. If you wait till they are all finished building then release, it feels more like you are waiting for an entire regiment to be formed until it is ready for battle.

I think that since my system has built in organizational units rather than haphazard creation of armies, I''m leaning away from the idea of only letting them be released until all are finished. However, I do believe that you can''t order units whenever you want, and instead have to wait after several turns to do this. Perhaps this could be an advantage for a nation to have this capability to order units at any time (for example perhaps they have excellent "just in time" inventory systems and no political red tape to cut through)

Tazzel3d-
What are the governments like in your story? Is one good and one sinister or are they both basically okay but just trying to grab all the resources for themselves? Also, how are the different sides different other than that they can build their own designs? For example, is one side more fond of all out attack, the other side more fond of sneaky attacks, etc. The reason I ask is that because even though each side can build their own units, maybe you can have one side be better at making a certain kind of vehicle or better at certain tactics than the other side.

In my design, I actually don''t want the player to focus on the Units themselves. I want the player to focus on how to best control his units. I think too many games are very unit-centric, and the strategies and game revolve around them. In my game, the player who understands how to exploit his army''s strength while capitalizing on his opponent''s weaknesses will be th victor. For example, if battles are solely the outcome of the type and number of units facing each other (rocks/papers/scissors method) then this is unit-centric design. In my game, the player has to think about way more than that. He has to factor in how good of a Commander is leading the units, is the terrain advantageous, is the quality of the unit good, is it fatigued, what is its morale, has it taken damage, can it react faster, etc etc. It is very possible for an elite unit with a good Commander and good morale/spirits defeat an enemy with poorer discipline, morale, or health.

Also, is there more of a background for your two governments? Me personally, I like to know why each side is fighting and the cultural outlook of each faction. Even if both sides want the resources, expand on the history and see what led up to the confrontation. After watching the Lord of the Rings movies with many of my friends who have never read the books, they were even more fascinated and interested as I started to reveal even more of the history and lore of Middle Earth, as well as reveal things that aren''t really mentioned in the movie (like how Aragorn lives longer than men, that Gandalf isn''t a human, and that Elrond was Aragorn''s guardian while growing up). So I think that the more you expand on the background and history of your factions, the more it will capture the attention of the players, as well as make the game feel more alive and immersive. Otherwise, it''s a good start

In my gamne, the commander is basically the avatar of the player and it is just a normal unit with the ''ability'' to ''summon'' units. All units are directly controlled by the player as in most standard RTS. The commander is basically just taking the place of the buildings that make up a base. As for upgrades, they will probably be per-unit instead of affecting every unit of a certain type.

The main reason I''m thinking about making all queued units arrive at once (every X minute interval) is so that you don''t have to worry about clicking the button to build another as soon as one as built. You have X minutes to choose the units you want, and no matter when you click the button during that time, they all arrive at the same time. I don''t want my game to feel like the clickfest of most RTS... It will probably be pretty slow actually, but the number of players in a game will make up for the low number of units per player and what would otherwise be a slow pace.

Also, everything will play a major role in my game. Terrain, unit position, tactics used, etc will all play an important role in deciding who wins and who loses. If one team plays it like a normal RTS, their army can get ripped apart by a single team2 sniper laying on top of the hill under a bush. Stealth will be important. That reminds me of another way I''m going to stray from the standard - If you get hit by a unit you can''t see, you still can''t see him. I might draw some of the bullets as tracers so an observant player will know where the bullets came from, but if you don''t pay attention you won''t have any idea.
Also, most units will die from 1-2 hits by a bullet, but accuracy won''t be very high unless a unit takes time to aim (probably will be a toggle switch on each unit (''fire'', ''aim then fire'', ''brace, aim, then fire'' etc. each more accurate but taking longer to do). I might make some of the ''abilities'' that can be bought for a unit different kinds/levels of body armor like type 4 kevlar etc.

I really want my RTS to be similar in that the gameplay in much slower and requires more stradegy such as hiding behind rocks, sniping from mountains, etc. I am hoping to make my game so that customization of units is also a big part. For example do you want your snipper to have a lot of armor or would you rather him to be a faster unit that would be able to sneak around more? You obviously want a snipping unit to be low profile, but how much ammo do you want it to be able to hold? The more ammo it carries the slower/higher profile it will be. There will hopfully be a lot of stradegy that will go into unit customization based on the tactics that will be employed.

I kinda like the idea where each civilization has special ''bonuses'', but I think it might be cool to handel this similarly to the way Empire Earth was handeled. The way they did it was, they made many different civilizations each with their own advantages, but if you wanted, you could choose from a checklist which bonuses you wanted your customized civ to have. I don''t really care for either method because of how sometimes civ a will beat civ b 75% of the time just because of the way their bonuses. I don''t really like the idea that right when the game starts, one player is already at a disadvantage. I assume that you could balance each civ out, but this would be very hard work. You would need to make sure that each civilization is balanced against every other civilization. if you have n civilizations, this means you have 1 + 2 + ... (n-1) + n combinations. if you have even 8 different civ types, you have to make sure each of the 36 possible combinations are equal.... on second thought, is the whole ideaa to make teams unfair to make a twist to seasoned players or something? I guess I could just have only 2 or 3 civs.... I guess I still need to think about it. I do like though that by giving each civ different bonuses, you push the user to use different tactics.... many ideas here.. what do you guys think?

Also not really sure if I want a ''good'' team and a ''bad'' team or just two different teams.... very many good ideas to think about Dauntless. Thanx you very much!

Tazzel3d ~ Dwiel