The goal: a game that doesn''t emphasise destruction but the strategic placement of forces. The main design means of achieving this goal: making trading space for time and trading force for space viable strategies. Units are easily defendable if they are allowed to retreat while fighting - determined ''don''t lose any ground'' defenses are a lot more costly. Likewise attacks are quite costly. The first result is that surrounding enemy forces is extremely important - the surrounded units cannot retreat and suffer very bad penalties as a direct result. On the other hand, an attack that fails to surround enemy forces is a losing endeavour: due to the increased casualties of the attacker, its forces are constantly losing more than the defender. Battle lines are a necessity - they prevent encircling. Breaking through or flanking become good strategies - as they threaten with an encirclement. The very threat of encirclement favors the attacker greatly - it forces the defender to retreat without a fight from good defensive positions. An light and automatic form of logistics can work well as well.

I dunno what RTSes you are all playing, but in almost all games i played encircling, flanking and breaking through enemy troups (quite hard to accomplish mostly), were maybe not necessary to win, but greatly increase your enemys losses and thus your chances to win :|

About the same goes for gaining territory / "map-control"

And I should maybe get a regged nick now :/

Yay, its another Doider Production! Let me know how its coming doider, at D_Jild@hotmail.com

A game like that cannot have any resource management.... it''s just way to much. Take a look at close combat which does emphasise a LOT on placement and using the environment. Your units also have a mind of their own and can get scared and run away or get pinned down by enemy fire and won''t move. most RTS''s nowadays get you to control way to much of the game. There is no way you could plan that sort of game in warcraft 3. you''re too busy making sure your production buildings are making units as well as your guys are going to the right spot.

Another option is to slow the game down (*GASP*). Take a look at Kohan - it is an "RTS", but it has a much slower, thinking man''s pace that allows the player to actually formulate and carry out decent strategies, rather than mindlessly cranking out as many units as possible to rush the enemy with (as in most RTS games).

By slowing the gameplay down, the player has more time to devote to diplomacy, trade, research, resource gathering, and intelligent unit placement. In Kohan, I can assign orders to multiple engineer companies, upgrade my cities, and direct multiple battles across a huge map without having to worry too much about being rushed. I wish I could say the same for most other "strategy" games. In the C&C, Warcraft, and Age of *** series, I can only fully devote my attention to one thing at a time (building my base, fighting a single battle, etc.).

Obviously it is important for a game to be exciting, and the feeling of urgency is key for most games. However, this can easily be accomplished without turning the game into a hyperactive clickfest.

-Mike

quote: Original post by Diodor
The goal: a game that doesn''t emphasise destruction but the strategic placement of forces.

How about paintball? If you''ve ever played with lots of bunkers, you''d find that placement and timing are huge factors.

- No amount of paint can take down a bunker. You MUST find a way to advance or flank the enemy.
- You can''t stack a lot of troops behind a single bunker.
- Movement needs cover fire.
- Supply is limited to what each unit brings, but buddies can toss a magazine over in a pinch.
- Interesting variations can be played: capture the flag, capture the fort, elimination, cross the bridge.
- Give each troop a personality... experience, courage, etc. Watch how each troop performs and reposition in-game or during next match accordingly. For instance: moving more newbie units to the center and more aggressive units to flanks. Moving marksmen back from the enemy front.
- How far up do you initially deploy at the starting whistle? Big advantage to gain some forward positions but risky if you move too far.
- Unless opponent has spotters behind enemy lines, he will be unaware of your movement under cover fire (if troops took cover). Usually you can tell enemy placement more by listening than looking .

5010: Sounds like an awsome idea!

Doider: let me know how its coming periodicly at D_Jild@hotmail.com . Thanks :-D


______________________________
Quantum
CEO of Quantum Rebound Software
Website Up Soon