A good measure against Rush''s might be negatively affecting the unit''s power based on their distance from the nearest friendly base. For example, lets call this distance "Morale," for the Unit''s general attitude. The Morale will suck when the unit knows its being used as an expendible part of a rush. Therefor, a Rush would only work if the base were nearby, I.E. a strategic growth into the enemy''s frontline. Now, to defend from a rush, having the unit near the base makes him more powerful. Being placed out on the frontline, miles from the base, makes him feel a little worthless. Double edged sword, defense only works around bases, and doesn''t work at arbitrary locations.

I''d have to agree with the warhammer point system suggestion. In fact I think giving the ability to produce unlimited units and buildings lends itself to this sort of play style. Why not start with x number of units that you purchased and modified to begin with and you select a drop point on some map where all you have to do is lead your force(s) around and destroy any hostiles? The ultimate in resource management as you''d be very evenly matched unit-wise and it would rely entirely upon your own resourcefulness as units wouldn''t be thrown about as much.

I like the idea where moral decreases as the unit gets further from the base. The only problem is that in my game, i was planning on having all unit be robots of one kind or another, which don''t really have moral... I guess they could in my ''world'', but robots with moral seem kind of odd...

One solution might be for robots, or people who don''t moral... Make it so that units must be constantly supplied by supply lines so they don''t run out of /electricity/ammo/food/repair parts/etc... If this proccess is made to be fairly expensive...

I think though that it is very hard to find that happy medium which doesn''t force too much micromanagment/buildup and doesn''t allow for rushes or makes them very impractical...

Dwiel

It is native of RTS games. THere is always some cheap fighting unit. The only way to stop rushes is to jack up unit costs or make a trigger.

This is purple.
This is green.
This is black.

It is native of RTS games. THere is always some cheap fighting unit. The only way to stop rushes is to jack up unit costs or make a trigger.

This is purple.
This is green.
This is black.

quote:

---

Original post by Tazzel3D
I like the idea where moral decreases as the unit gets further from the base. The only problem is that in my game, i was planning on having all unit be robots of one kind or another, which don''t really have moral... I guess they could in my ''world'', but robots with moral seem kind of odd...

---

Hrm, robots eh? Well, robots would have to receive commands from base, and the commands would need to be encrypted and such, and being too far from base could subject the robots to have broadcast encrypted orders that have some kind of interference. Or for those orders encrypted digitally, requiring a lower frequency to transmit further, taking longer to receive and decode.

I suppose you just have to play with stuff to get it to make sense, but as long as you get the underlying idea, it''s all good.

Balancing the game play does not need any input from you because:

If your oponent can build a rushing army, you should be able to build one as well. So, when he/she attacks, you have a defense already built (and will possibly have a slightly larger army than the attacker because you can still build units while he/she is traversing the map). If you choose not to attack, then you have effectively stale-mated the rush. If you choose to attack, then you may have stale-mated the entire game and will have to restart, having learned from your experience.

Only entry-level players fear a rush attack, because anyone who has been rushed quickly learns how to defend against it. For this reason, a rush attack is usually only effective against lower-skilled players, and this is all fine, good and harmonious in the world of online competition. As soon as you start breaking the possible use of strategies, you are forcing players to adopt the strategy that YOU are most comfortable with, and that''s never a good idea.

Last thing to go through a tortoise''s mind before it hits the ground at 40mph? "D3DXVec3Add (Tortoise.Pos, Tortoise.Delta, Tortoise.OldPos"

Just to add to the above:

To develop a rush attack/rush defense, you are going to be building relatively low-value units. For the deep player this is seen as a waste of resources (you are spending money just fend off an annoying rush). You should be trying to mitigate this loss. Perhaps you could allow units to be permanently upgraded at some future point. I quite liked Homeworld where you could link two smaller units together to make a stronger unit, or like War3 where you can combine hippogryphs and archers.

Last thing to go through a tortoise''s mind before it hits the ground at 40mph? "D3DXVec3Add (Tortoise.Pos, Tortoise.Delta, Tortoise.OldPos"

@SoaringTortoise

I agree with your theory that if one player can make a rush so can the other so skills will evolve from that.

About only new players being rushed succesfully: This may be true but it doesn''t make your game very popular if new players
to the game keep getting killed in exactly the same way over an over.

Also you''ve missed one variable in your thinking and that is the type of rush, land, sea, air etc... You might build a land force and over comes an enemy air strike and you get obliterated.

It''s true again that if one side can do it so can another. But I don''t find this sort of play fun at all. It can degenerate into a kind of formula.

Build base
Build Barracks
Build 20 jet pack men
attack.

A lot of games have overcome these problems already. I think starcraft is brilliantly balanced, I love the bunkers you can put men in, there great.

Also units that can deploy are very good. Since they can defend better than they can attack.

quote:

---

Original post by SoaringTortoise
Balancing the game play does not need any input from you because:

If your opponent can build a rushing army, you should be able to build one as well.

---

Which means that the existence of a single strategy forces you to play a certain way. That''s boring.

quote:

---

Only entry-level players fear a rush attack, because anyone who has been rushed quickly learns how to defend against it.

---

Not always. If you simply don''t know how to churn out the units as quickly as other people manage it, then you''ve not much chance.

quote:

---

For this reason, a rush attack is usually only effective against lower-skilled players, and this is all fine, good and harmonious in the world of online competition.

---

I couldn''t disagree more. A lower-skilled person should be able to beat a higher-skilled person if the higher-skilled person is using a predictable strategy.

quote:

---

As soon as you start breaking the possible use of strategies, you are forcing players to adopt the strategy that YOU are most comfortable with, and that''s never a good idea.

---

Er, no. The idea is that by taking away one imbalanced strategy, you allow for a more diverse range of strategies to prosper.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL Docs | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost
Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff | Tiny XML | STLPort]