I see the problem with current RTS game balancing and strategy as being the strength of technologies and units. I used to be a big fan of the Warcraft series. Your foot soldiers were basically useless and your mages, griffons, etc. were ultra powerful. Why not create a game where all units and technologies have a major advantage. If unit has a weak attack, allow him to move fast. If another has poor mobility in regular conditions, it can move relatively well in hard terrain (think all-terrain/Humvee). If you have a nuke, make it nearly impossible to move into the enemy territory. So, it would be possible to win with just basic units, but complimenting your strategy with some other unit or technology could give you a foothold.

- Jay


[ Here, taste this ]

I think the problem here is one of paradigm considerations.

When people here say RTS, most immediately conjure in their heads an abstract concept which follows something closely to the games most people here have mentioned (namely the Blizzard and Westwood mold of RTS games). And yet why should this style of RTS be the only one considered?

If instead you see the term RTS and think of it in fresh terms, you may be able to avoid many of the design "pitfalls" (I call them such only in that some people...myself included...find them as drawbacks) inherent in the "prototypocal" RTS game. What do I mean by thinking in fresh terms?

Firstly, let''s comment on several design paradigms prevalent in many RTS games:

1) Nation Building- Many RTS games have you build your country as you fight, being something of a nation-building game like Populous, combined with fighting tactical element. But ask yourself, is this design facet necessary for RTS gaming? Of course not.

2) Balancing- Virtually every game I can think of (RTS or not) has as a fundamental design principle that the game must be balanced. Now, balance can have several different connotations and applications depending on the context. Units can be balanced, such that there''s no such thing as an "Uber" unit, or that if there is a very powerful unit, it costs more or is somehow mitigated in usage (perhaps by costing more or only being available at the high end of the tech tree). It can apply to level design, so that a mission is not too hard for a player to defeat. And finally it can apply to the game itself, so that all things considered, there is no undue advantage to any side barring tactical choice on the player''s part.

Is this necessary? I personally think not. Unfortunately, no one really bothered with my earlier topic about types of games and gamers, but the need to balance things is really a Gamist perspective. In a nutshell, Gamists play to win. Winning is the point of gaming. For some, this may seem like stating the obvious...but not all gamers game to win (GASP!!). Some gamers enjoy the experience, whether it is a win or a loss (much like watching a sad movie). Some play according to the old adage, "it''s not whether you win or lose, it''s how you play the game". And finally, some gamers are interested in possibilities...the simulation or modeling of "what-if" scenarios. As an aside, narrative gamers play games to immerse themselves in the game world, experiencing what it must be like vicariously through the game''s protagonist (and again, winning may not be the be-all end-all goal...much like how some people like to play tragic characters in roleplaying games). For many narrativist gamers, winning is subjective is personal, and what one gamer may consider a loss, another may consider a victory.

If the game models real-life as a priority, there should be no such thing as balance. Being able to create your own units as Extrarius said can greatly eliminate unit-balancing. And having the freedom of choice of when and where battles take place can eliminate mission-balance. And depending on how you design other elements of the game, you can make your game balance-adjustable (for example by giving each faction in the game variable abilities). Victory Conditions are another method to purposely imbalance the game (often used ironically and paradoxically to "balance" the game) so as to make it easier or harder for one side to win.

3) The Battle is the War- Most typical RTS games don''t really model real warfare very well, and instead create their own sort of fantasy war. Units, buildings, and even time have been scaled such that it creates the mental illusion that you have created armies, cities, and many of the other entrapments of a nation. And yet the very notion that the map is the world creates a situation in which the battle is the war. Instead of having a dozen or so grand battles, instead you have lots of constant little skirmishes. This tends to make the player focus on tactical elements rather than Grand Tactics or Operational Strategy, and it also makes the player have to learn to micro-manage many events.

Make the game truly Strategic in scale with a far slower flow of time, and I think you''ll see a possible end to stalemate. Being able to chose when and where to fight is of the utmost importance in real warfare, and not being able to do so in the typical RTS takes away many tactical and strategic choices.

4) An Army does not travel on its stomach- At least in most of the traditional RTS games. Without logistical considerations, it is easy to amass static defenses and large hordes of forces. When the player does not have to be bothered with food, maintenance, fuel or ammo....who cares how much you stockpile? And means of transportation of supply and even the forces themselves? You''d think roads would be of little use in most RTS games...so no need to capture railroads, bridges, communication centers (the "supply" of information) or other vital military infrastructure targets. This is a huge reason for stalemates.

5) Send in the redshirt Ensigns!- Since many traditional RTS don''t have the ability to track unit morale or unit experience, it''s okay to throw units away like cannon fodder (the newer games are a bit better at this though). And since very few RTS games have a population resource to man your armies, it''s alright to just throw away your military resources (as long as you have the material resources to keep it up). In other words, only material resources count...not "people" or education resources.

The North almost lost the Civil War because many northerners thought Grant was simply killing too many soldiers....Union ones...while fighting Lee''s Army of Northern Virginia. In other words, the north was so sick of Ulysses "The Butcher" Grant, that the south almost won through a war of attrition. But Lincoln won the election, and Lincoln was smart enough to realize that Grant WAS winning the war. But how many games have a population morale based not off of how heavily they are being taxed, but rather by how the population perceives the war?

These are just a few things that popped into my head and there are many more. I think game designers really need to take a step back and ask themselves what kind of a game gamers really want. And then from that, think about how to break out of the mold. Unfortunately, game design is often by committee rather than by a visionary, and the publisher often steers the game into waters that the designers don''t really want. Afterall, untried is untested and therefore risky.

you stole the words from my mouth! fortunately those games on the horizon i mentioned look differant, especially City States, and thats due to the fact that the devs are self funded(that is till the game is published.)

I think you hit almost every issue.

1 micromanageing
2 game plot
3 balencing
...many more

your especially right about preconceived ideas of just what an RTS is. its almost an insult to the more revolutionary games in real time to be put with games that are so mechanical and linear in gameplay. However RTS is still the best word for the genre.

The RPS (rocks/paper/scissor) method of balancing is a huge reason for the stalemate occurrence too. If a game ever implements its combat resolution by simply comparing unit types and deciding the result based solely on that...it is a pure RPS based system.

Some games however, implement other factors into the fighting equation. A good game will include factors like the terrain type, elevation, unit experience, morale, fatigue, leadership, unit formation, and cover. The more these kinds of external and internal considerations are given to the resolution of combat, the less and less it becomes RPS.

I often talk about real life examples, and invariably there''s usually someone who feels that it''s not necessary to model things based on real life because it''s "too realistic" or too complex for gaming concerns. The thing is, I''m not so much interested in Earth''s "reality" as I am in a logically consistent and plausible set of world rules which form the framework and skeleton for all the rest of the game''s pieces to fit in to.

In real life, most units can be taken out by most other units under certain conditions. It is the player''s responsibility to maneuver his "inferior" unit types into a position to capitalize on its strengths while maximizing his opponents weaknesses. For example, infantry out in the open are dead meat against cavalry or tanks. But in the woods or city, the infantry now have the upper hand. All advantages are context bound. If a game does not consider all the myriad contexts then it will suffer from more RPS-like playing style.

But RPS is really a tactical concern, not a strategic one. Strategy would deal more with unit composition, and the priority of goals the player sets. Strategic choice is more about knowing when and where to fight (and even why you have to fight), tactical choices more about knowing what to fight with and how to fight.

> It is the player''s responsibility to maneuver his "inferior"
> unit types into a position to capitalize on its strengths
> while maximizing his opponents weaknesses.

This IS the rock/paper/scissors game...

quote: Original post by fenghus

> It is the player''s responsibility to maneuver his "inferior"
> unit types into a position to capitalize on its strengths
> while maximizing his opponents weaknesses.

This IS the rock/paper/scissors game...

I was under the impression that the RPS game in ''RTS'' titles usually referred to the situation where a particular type of unit beat another under all circumstances - for example, a unit with no air attack (big tank, say) will always lose to a flying unit, while the flying unit will tend to lose to AA batteries which in turn get trashed by the original tank...

Getting your opponent to send his air units against your AA batteries by sending out a fast moving unit with no air attack is still only tactical play. Sending your LAW equipped infantry into the woods to try and ambush enemy tank convoys is still tactical, but is no longer RPS because the same infantry against the same convoy would get squished on an open plain.

rock/paper/scissor just means that different units are good against different units.. quite simple..

ya, rock paper sissors approach to RTS games is simply Unit A is strong Against Unit B and Weak against unit C.

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

Have been considering a system where effectiveness of unit is based more on variables set within both the unit and its weapon. The system involves 2 aspects. Firstly the units skill level. Which is developed over time. Second is factors relating to the weapon.

As we know in real life a weapon, take a gun for example, will do the exact same damage to a person if its fired and the bullet hits regardless of who uses it. The factors, which effect the damage done, are A. Accuracy of the person shooting and B. Armour/Protective clothing worn by the person being hit. The bullet is still going to do the same damage to person A is it will to person B if it connects with the target. This is what I think RTS games should start to simulate more.

So the gun has a value that is set as its hit points. The amount of damage can be calculated on the unit hit by taking into account these hit points less an armour bonus.
I think this way the games can move away from RPS concept.

I'm not sure if this has been implemented before or tried or whatever. It's just my two cents worth.


[edited by - shand994 on September 23, 2003 12:04:24 AM]

Of course then other variables could be added to the unit. Such as Stamina, Moral, Speed, Armour can restrict movement(eg make slower) more expensive. The more armour the more training required to be effective. Add all these together and there is any number of unit types that can be created, if you use a system similar to the one mentioned in City States.

You could have a unit with high armour thats a bit slower, the more training it has the more stamina it has, therfore gets tired less, therefore doesnt need to rest as often, therefore is likely to keep a higher level of Moral. The more weapon training it has the more effective it has.

The same unit with less armour would need less training to keep the same levels of Stamina, Morale, Speed, etc


[edited by - shand994 on September 23, 2003 12:14:45 AM]