I''ve been thinking, that it would be cool if somebody made a realistic RTS. Not the whole game being realistic, still keep the fictional building aspect of RTS games, but make the combat more realistic. What I''m talking about is games like Tiberian Sun where 5 machine gunners standing infront of a tank will kill it, and the tank that''s shelling a soldier won''t damage it at all. Or the unrealistic ranges of all the guns. Soldiers should be able to shoot much further. I''m not complaining about the lack of realism in RTSes or anything so stupid, I''m just wondering if a realistic RTS would be fun?

I''m not sure how many fans of realism we have in this forum. I think the main problem with realistic combat in an RTS is balance. We all know that tanks are a lot stronger than troops but if you make a game that way nobody will ever use troops, unless you give troops advantages. In real life, the advantages of troops are mobility and cost. In most RTS, players prefer open terrain, due to ease of gameplay and poor pathfinding. (I don''t care what kind of AI you use, it is hard to maneuver closed type terrain.) Therefore most RTS have open fields for maps. As for cost, it would be hard to use realistic prices in an RTS. I mean, the US spends billions of dollars on defense every year. Can you give the players multimillion dollar budgets to buy tanks and submarines?

But, if you did include a lot of closed terrain, (i.e. swamps, jungle, villages . . .) and hiked the price of heavy artillery a bit, then maybe you could afford to weaken infantry.

Think outside the dodecahedron

Well, look in the real world, there''s a lot more tanks then soldiers. Soldiers can use rockets etc to kill tanks. Well, whatever just a thought

I think Ground Control is about as far as you can go with realism to still keep it damn fun.

I have yet to find a more fun RTS.

- JQ, PWC Software
"programming is all about wasting time" -me

Edited by - JonnyQuest on October 28, 2000 7:00:21 PM