For those working on an rts design....I'm finishing a design doc for a military based RTS that only uses footmen in small squads. I'm debating about unit selection rules and what people have found to be the best road to travel with this issue. As I see it, there are 3 possibilities: 1.) The player may select any unit at any time and move them as they see fit. In spite of breaking them into specialized teams of 4 man squads....it would be possible for a player to grab a single unit and ignore the rest of a squad (this is a tactic I'd like to avoid). 2.) The four man squads that I envision to be the core of a fighting force may only be selected as a group: meaning that individual units may not be selected by themselves (unless the other 3 units in a given squad are killed). My fear with a design such as this is that it would detach the player too much from the experience without being able to control everything going on, down to the last man.A lot of rts fans tend to want to control each and every unit by hand....and forced groups might kill the experience for those players. 3.) A hybrid of 1 and 2 where the player may select individual units....but each unit is still attached to his/her respective squad. Additionally, if one member of a squad moved "too far" from the center of the squad, the rest of the units would begin to follow and re-group on the stray unit. I'd like to use squads as a positive re-enforcer for using team tactics...but I don't want to jam the idea down the player's throat. Is this feasible and if so, which of these control scenarios seems the most logical?

Relic have used your second possiblity in Warhammer40k:Dawn of War. Infantry (except Heroes) can only be selected as squads. They start out with four men and can be reinforced to a certain degree. Vehicles and such can be selected one by one. I personally like this approach very much because it takes away some microing and allows me to concentrate more on the strategy aspect of the game.

I had toyed around with the idea of commanding units in groups using commanders, but didn't work it out that much.

You could give bonus's to the troops if they work together (such as one member covering another, thus giving an added defense and awareness bonus because they can focus on one area, secure in the fact that their freind is covering another). You could also place special units into the group such as a medic or mortar launcher, hacker, etc, which on their own wouldn't last very long against enemy fire, but bring alot to the group in terms of abilities. In other games, such as A Bridge To Far, small groups of 4-5 people have Commanders, who if killed cause the other units in the group to loose moral, possibly panicing and dispersing in the process. Perhalps if the commander is killed, the units don't always follow your orders, or are more prone to acting alone.

I generally prefer the squad based behaviour in games like DoW where you select the entire squad at a time (your option 2), although sometimes I can't help thinking the player might sometimes want a bit more flexibility.

My thought was to use option 2, but to add a 'detail' command, which enables you to temporarily split off one or more squad members to do something slightly different. It might be a bit more of a pain to use, but I see it as something that shouldn't really need to be used that often.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster Relic have used your second possiblity in Warhammer40k:Dawn of War. Infantry (except Heroes) can only be selected as squads. They start out with four men and can be reinforced to a certain degree. Vehicles and such can be selected one by one. I personally like this approach very much because it takes away some microing and allows me to concentrate more on the strategy aspect of the game.

I would like to also suggest looking at a game like Empire Earth II, I hate the engine, but the war engine, and the units, also have heros' and they seem to sumpliment the squad. I got the single player demo from Fileplanet.

Another thing that seems much more what your thinking is that their are a ton of features where you can select one unit, and the others around that unit follow the one unit selected.

While I find your correct in saying 'some' people would love to have more control over the micro of the game, I find it gets in the overall strategy and enjoyment of the game.

I think a game like Starcraft with it's Marine's and Medics is one of the best tatics, but the game handles it all wrong. In our design of a rts, we talked extensively about unit behavior and control. For instance if you have a group like the previous poster suggested and add medics in them, I would love to see a strategy game, with more strategy, but more fun like starcraft, with units facing offensive points, and medics staying behind the line of fire.

I find everytime I have a group of units selected in Starcraft the medics always run forward ahead of the marines to 'attack' the units. Which is really what you want to avoid.

It's hard though to think of 'how' they will help your units, medics are easy, but awareness and accuracy and assurance your back was covered would be great elements that could be better protrayed in an rts. -props to the poster who suggested it.

MikHaven

p.s. You could do a cross between the two, if you highlight a group of units, the units would organize themselves into a squad, with medics running towards the center, if you face them with the click, and scouts can span out and see more, leaders would either fight from the center of the mass or hog the front lines, depending on the leader. You could do much more then the old lame roman tatics, but with a modern edge, and a rts twist. Like instead of 9 random soldiers lining up with a block. Do something like this.

m - Marine
x - Medic

m m m
m x m -
m m m

Or something along the lines of this

m m m m /m x x m

And add line of sight firing rules this would be an insanely detailed game, with but a few more ai details.

MikHaven

sorry sorta went crazy posting, I am thinking about an rts game like Starcraft, stealing the Starcraft2 Market heheheh

I would go with a more micro intensive aproach. There is a reason that StarCraft is the most played retail game world wide (if you don't believe me, look it up). People love fast-paced strategy games.

StarCraft's insane popularity (on Battle.Net alone, it has more players than the newer WarCraft III) shows that people like insanely-paced games over their slower counterparts.

I actually had created classes in my design doc....and was going to integrate a facing component so that auto aggro wouldn't happen if an enemy unit was "sneaking" behind the player. Units also take more damage and attack slower when hit from behind; or so the design doc goes.

In using the 2nd scenario, I've found it difficult to envision how I might utilize each class effectively. So there might be times when the medic should just cover his corner and noone's injured....or an instance of a raid when I don't want the grenadier guy to throw grenades.....in that sense I'd like to control each unit and what actions they're taking and when. But I too, absolutely hate micromanagement and so having to select groups to move them is a pain unless you're really good with hotkeys.

Perhaps then I'll have a micro aspect of being able to select each unit and what he/she does at any given time.....but whenever you select one and start to move out, the rest of the group converges on your position....so you have 4 people moving along and have to plan your movements accordingly. Any objections?

[Edited by - d INC on March 6, 2005 3:56:24 PM]

Quote:

Original post by d INC Perhaps then I'll have a micro aspect of being able to select each unit and what he/she does at any given time.....but whenever you select one and start to move out, the rest of the group converges on your position....so you have 4 people moving along and have to plan your movements accordingly. Any objections?

I was just rethinking this over with your last comments, and having played a quick game of blood bath to test my rts ideas/ complaints. I wanted to give you some more feedback. I imagine if you implemented a squad based movement system of any kind. The mircro and even me ( let me explain ), might be a little offed if I click one guy to scout ahead, and the whole squad goes. It all depends on how it's done.

One other thing I wanted to add to this discussion, was more of a reference, which I lack, but I think it was in the Andre' Lamothe's windows programming game book. Under Ai, their is a section called Squad based combat, and it was more aimed at a fps game, but one could easily impliment some of those ideas into a rts. The gernader and medic ideas, come into mind when I think of it in those terms.

Stuff like whoever gets their first, becomes the leader, and waits for backup, backup gets their and lays down cover fire, while a 3rd lobs gernades, just an idea, but would be rather interesting. Test, test, and re-test. Like they say I guess.

I actually had envisioned an individual long range scout unit as well as sniper teams in the whole mix. The more specialized units (like the scouts: who'd be used for quickly lifting the fog of war) would be individuals that would have a very specialized purpose....but die super easy if forced to engage in combat.

[Edited by - d INC on March 7, 2005 12:26:09 AM]

To be fair, it's pretty tough to sneak up on a squad, since there are so many eyes to avoid.

Maybe a smooth way to execute #3 would be to have specific commands which, when issued to a squad, would cause a single unit to respond. For instance, a four-man fire team might have commands like "March", "Bound", "Cover", "or "Fortify", each one setting a behavioral state for the squad. Take a look at Freedom Fighters for a rudimentary example of this. If you tell your guys to "defend" while your'e all standing in an enemy bunker, your guys will man machineguns, cover doorways and generally position themselves in solid defensive formations.

In addition, though, you could give a team the "snipe" command, and then designate a spot on the map and a general facing. The designated marksman would take up a position there and cover the appropriate direction, while the rest of the team took up position nearby in order to spot for him and protect him from enemies. A fire team generally doesn't have a sniper (at least not in the U.S. Army), so you might even have a specialized team, consisting of a sniper and his spotter, armed with an SMG or something.

Other custom commands could include "Scout", which sends a swift unit out on the proper course while the rest of the team hunkers down and waits for him, or "Demolish", or "Set Mine", or "Sabotage", or "Survey" (binoculars), or "Bombard"(mortar), or any other specialized task that they are equipped to do. The interface wouldn't change, so you wouldn't be stuck trying to click on one damn medic in a sea of siege tanks, interceptors and wraiths, but those micro-type actions would be available.