i was thinking about somthing today: RTS game themes. most RTS games are set in the future, and to the best of my knowledge, there are only one or two that are based in the midieval times. warcraft is one of those. it seems that no matter how many diff. structures and units i come up with, 99% of them are already in warcraft. so, my question is, what would you rather see? a futureistic RTS with structures and units unlike any other game...or a fantasy midieval RTS game with castles, farms, camps, sword fighters, archers, dragons, orcs, ect.? even if it did seem like a rip-off of warcraft?

Personally, i''m more likely to buy or play a futuristic RTS for one extra reason over medieval RTS games. The extra reason is (what you''ve said) is that in a futuristic RTS i (the player) are more likely to encounter something new and creative that the game designer has come up with. Such as a new vechial or complex and what not. Whereas in medieval themes i''m less likely as a player to encounter these new and wonderful little suprises.

Although if a strategy game is done well enough i''m bound to find out about one way or another so i guess overall it all comes down to how well the game is done anyhow

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

With warcraft 3 coming your game may pass unseen if it is a Warcraft like.

I think maybe you could mix techno and fantasy, have wizards cast fireballs against tanks. Then an alien rip his head off ...

quote: Original post by eh

i was thinking about somthing today: RTS game themes. most RTS games are set in the future, and to the best of my knowledge, there are only one or two that are based in the midieval times. warcraft is one of those. it seems that no matter how many diff. structures and units i come up with, 99% of them are already in warcraft.

so, my question is, what would you rather see? a futureistic RTS with structures and units unlike any other game...or a fantasy midieval RTS game with castles, farms, camps, sword fighters, archers, dragons, orcs, ect.? even if it did seem like a rip-off of warcraft?

Long ago in a far away place I was working for a startup, on a RTS... at this time C&C was really the only RTS on the market. We decided to create a RTS that had known weaponry. Unfortunately the company went belly-up (The choice of weapons wasn’t the cause Now that this genre of game has “grown-up” and there really aren’t many differences between them in game play, I suggest that you need something that sets your game apart…. All of these games are using 3d now and you have two distinct timelines, fantasy past and fantasy future. Now, with that in mind what can we do as developers that will make our RTS “stand-out” from the rest??

The game play and options.
Options first…
How about, the ability to play RTS or turn based (TB). With the waning support for TB type games you could capture some of the hard-core war gamers that Talonsoft are starting to ignore (granted this isn’t a big market, but every bit helps).
An option to have the computer act as a “government” giving you funding in place of the tedious task of resource gathering. This would probably be tightly coupled with the TB option, but could be fun (in fact our game was going to have this feature).

Those options directly affect game play…

My point? Well, I don’t think that the type of units that you utilize has a huge impact on the success of the game. The game play is the issue as long as you have covered all the bases with the games graphics and overall technology.

Just my .1 credit worth, from a guy who loves RTS’s







Dave "Dak Lozar" Loeser

I''d rather play a fantasy game. Despite, the apparent concern over lack of originality the point being - fantasy. The designer makes it up. Yes you have dragons, orcs, but they can have different characteristics then the usual hack ''n slash. The same argument tha you have levelled at fantasy can also be flipped back towards scfi. Tanks, Artillary. They all, despite their appearance, fire guns. Nothing more technical than that. I imagine that the actually engines, and characteristics of the game remain constant. The difference''s you speak of would be, I feel, fairly cosmetic.

ps. I reckone the fantasy vs scfi RTS mentioned above would rock. That sounds well cool.

I think that nomatter how obscure you name the units, and how weird the graphics for them are, it''ll always come down to "how far can this thing shoot and how much damage does it do".

To have a real "theme" you''ll have to base it on something else, something people will identify with. This can be a fantasy world, using tanks and guns, or anything else you think of. That''s just fluff though, the real meat is in the way you control units and in how smart your units and the enemy units are.


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

In reply to:

quote: From MadkeithV

I think that nomatter how obscure you name the units, and how weird the graphics for them are, it''ll always come down to "how far can this thing shoot and how much damage does it do".

This is a cut and paste from the other thread "Strategy Game Questions" which i think is relevent at this point

quote: From Me
As we''ve disscussed, combat engines could deffinitly do with a major overhaul. Maybe a look at the systems used in rpgs (as mentioned) could be useful. I personally love the thac0 system from 2nd edit D&D.

Although, the system i was planning on using for my java-script strategy game took a few pages out of the Axis and Allies combat engine. What i''m talking about is rather than having the entire combat system revolve around shelling out damage the player also manages how much damage they take. Called a "Damage Control" Managment system. You can already do this in most RTS''s by using canon fodder in front of you expensive firepower but these game don''t supply any "control" help/game-orientation for these senerio''s. This would have to be my main criticism on current RTS''s. They need a better tactical gui/control-system for the game.

But apart from this micro-management issue there''s also the second most important issue [to me] that most RTS games don''t address well enough. This is "Combat Opportunities". Combat Opportunities are what allow one player to "prove" themselves better over another player. It also allows more space for player improvements/skill-growth. Most games rely on the map design to address this issue but i think thats lazy. This can and should be address in the function of units in terms of what they are capable of doing.

To top off, i also believe that every army (tactically speaking) should have a weak spot and a strength. The reason being is that by bringing in weak spots and strengths it allows the player after the battle to be able to pin point where they went wrong. It also allows the better player with a smaller force to win again a larger force because they knew things like how and when to strike at the enemy. Enough for now :p

Please don''t think of me as arrogant for quoting myself




I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

I prefer fantasy.
I love the epic, mysterious atmosphere.And I prefer the kind of buildings you can build.I think a temple is cooler than an airport.
This doesn''t make much sense, huh ?

Error #78FU : No mouse driver installed.Click left mouse button to continue...

There are lots of fantasy RTS games. Off the top of my head, Warcraft, Warlords Battlecry, Warlocked...hmm, all war games...

The reason for using either fantasy or futuristic is simple - what other genres are there? Both fantasy and futuristic have a bunch of established creatures and settings. Sure, the aliens may seem a little different, but they are still aliens from either the "humanoid" or "bug" races.

Why not create a RTS in a different setting? Because it would be really really difficult to basically recreate the wheel. It would be a simple matter to use an existing setting, such as AD&D, Star Wars, or Mad Max. But to create a RTS that takes place during the 1800''s? That would take some effort.

You could claim that Dungeon Keeper was too

-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)