Still, Air surpremacy is still a relative thing; you can only bombard what you can see. If the enemy goes into hiding, they still control the ground, and you can''t blast them from above. Hrm. Make a design doc for this, and I''ll help you code it

that should have read "an intuitive system of control in the style of traditional tank-on-tank RTS is not really a good idea for territorial control", sorry.

What I meant is that micromanangement and territorial control don´t go well with each other, because territory should be on a higher/more abstract level than "tank go there".

As for micromanagement in no mans land areas... it could be interesting to have both low level (detailled, single unit scope, tank move to to hilltop) and high level (squad, secure area) commands in one game. It would definitely allow for a great mix of detail and usabilty, but might get a bit too complicated in terms of AI.

About control "replacing" combat - no misunderstanding, I just tried to sum up the relevant areas. The traditional RTS stats would still have their place to determine how the microcosms of each battle play out, but for macro-level player interaction they would not play as important a role (it does not matter whether you lose ten men more if they manage to take that hill).

Air units - not sure I´d use a second control map at all, it might be an interesting feature but it would be very difficult to balance. I´d rather use air units as "specials", for reconnaisance or very specific tasks (so no carpet bombardment). The way this feels right now a WW1 scope of units and technology would probably work well (not in terms of numbers though... I would say no more than a few hundred individual units on each side).

How would you do this though - would it be like a Battlefield1942 system where you rake up points over time at a rate dependent on how much you control? Or would it be based on how much area was controlled after a set period of time?

quote:
Original post by Sandman

So, onto the big question: How do you determine what percentage of the map is controlled by whom, without arbitrary hardcoded objectives or regions?

I understand you want the game program to calculate control. I don''t understand how this result can be useful.

quote: Original post by Argus
How would you do this though - would it be like a Battlefield1942 system where you rake up points over time at a rate dependent on how much you control? Or would it be based on how much area was controlled after a set period of time?

I was originally thinking of something more like the former, although both solutions have their merits. It might even be worth letting the players choose their own victory conditions: First to X score, highest score after Y minutes, first to control Z% of the map, etc. Also, the total number of units used should play a part in the scoring: a player might control a twice as much of the map, but if he has used ten times as many units to do so, he will not score so well.

quote: Original post by Diodor
I understand you want the game program to calculate control. I don''t understand how this result can be useful.

If you make control of territory an objective, you need to know who is controlling the most territory in order to decide who is winning. Ideally, there should be some sort of territory map so that it is possible to see exactly who controls what: or should we force players to figure this out for themselves?

quote: Original post by Hase
that should have read "an intuitive system of control in the style of traditional tank-on-tank RTS is not really a good idea for territorial control", sorry.

What I meant is that micromanangement and territorial control don´t go well with each other, because territory should be on a higher/more abstract level than "tank go there".

I''m really looking at some kind of middle ground here: units are controlled at the squad level, terrain is controlled on a ''relatively'' small scale - hills and valleys, buildings etc, rather than entire regions, cities etc.

quote:
About control "replacing" combat - no misunderstanding, I just tried to sum up the relevant areas. The traditional RTS stats would still have their place to determine how the microcosms of each battle play out, but for macro-level player interaction they would not play as important a role (it does not matter whether you lose ten men more if they manage to take that hill).

Ah, I see what you mean. However, I wouldn''t go as far as to say ''it doesn''t matter'' - there should be a tradeoff between gaining territory and losing units: at some point, taking a certain position might not be worth the cost. Thus, the player needs to pick his objectives carefully, and be careful how he goes about taking them.

quote:
Air units - not sure I´d use a second control map at all, it might be an interesting feature but it would be very difficult to balance. I´d rather use air units as "specials", for reconnaisance or very specific tasks (so no carpet bombardment).

You''re probably right here, there is also the consideration that an aerial control map probably wouldn''t make a great deal of sense on the scale that I''m thinking of. Still need to think about how air units will fit into all of this.

quote:
Original post by Sandman

If you make control of territory an objective, you need to know who is controlling the most territory in order to decide who is winning.

I think it''s hard to make an algorithm that accurately determines control. As an example, if a player starts with a large army and expands his front lines in all directions, ending up with a large area defended on all sides by troops, but with no troops able to fight inside this area, how can the computer know who controls that area? As the complexity of the algorithm grows to cover all possible scenarios, the better players will gain an unfair edge by taking advantage of the algorithm.

The solution should be very simple and straight-forward, so the players have no problem understanding it. Flags on the map controlled by the last player to touch them (as in Z) can work (even in the example above). Depending on the number and placement of flags, it is possible to define the kind of control demanded from the players. It may be natural to place few such flags inside a desert or jungle, as opposed to cities, bridges, airfields. The value of having effective control over teritory that is not marked with flags is not diminished, because this control allows the capture of marked areas.

quote:
Ideally, there should be some sort of territory map so that it is possible to see exactly who controls what: or should we force players to figure this out for themselves?

I guess a real-time god-view of controlled areas available to all players may spoil the fog of war.

The problem at hands is not one of determining the winner, it''s about creating the game mechanics that require terrain control related thinking. If the same destructive mechanics of old RTSs are used, the battle will again be decided by destroying the opponent.

Perhaps control of terrain could "fade-out" over time.

Any control over claimed territory not currently in sight of, or weapon range of, your units would gradually fade out. To re-affirm control it merely has to be seen by one of your units. This would necessitate (sp?) setting up patrols, or building recon-planes, to keep an eye on your territory.
Thus constantly patrolled territory gives more benefit than some seldom visited area of your territory.

Initially capturing territory, however, would require an actual unit to travel that territory. With each unit having a capture radius dependant on it's type.
Thus it is easier to maintain control over land than to initially claim it.

I'm sure with a bit more thought this system could be used to implement many features, eg. structures would have a large view range, allowing them to maintain control over larger areas of territory.

[edited by - Clodhopper on May 13, 2003 8:12:39 AM]

before you go off on some collective tangent I´d address the issue of "what is gained by having territorial control", i.e. why have the terrain feature in the first place? what to do with it? what gains does the player have from securing terrain?

Yeah, I''m a bit confused on that issue myself, just didn''t have time to post on it.

I mean, Sandman doesn''t seem to be talking about a UI enhancement here (although I did get that drift in one post).

But if "The actual advantage of being on higher ground or in a building should arise implicitly from the basic game rules concerning visibility, shooting, movement etc" (my italics), then why add an explicit advantage which equates to : ''you need to do this to win the game'' ?

Wow. I think I finally might have found a use for Voronoi diagrams ^_^ With these, you could determine for any given point on the map, what unit is closest to it. Grab the closest units, get their distances, see who is most effective, that one has the control.