I'd like to tack on a concept that I'm implementing in my game that is not present in most RTS games and that is the absence of Global Improvements.

What I mean is that you have the following skills:
- medic = cost +25 credits, +10 training time
- stealth = cost +50 credits, +13 training time
- digital clone = +100 credits
- traps = cost +25 credits, +10 training time

Rather then having it so that you pay once and all units gain that ability. I'm making that you have to train a unit it either a build time or later. In this way I want to make unit choice in its self more of a strategy.

TechnoGoth: The problem with doing that is that it means even more micromanagement unless you have a good interface. Sure, for pro players it doesn't matter, but for pro players nothing does really (many games entirely unbalanced at lower levels are even at higher levels because the experts can have 60 clicks a second to overcome them). For lower and middle players, it will be difficult to make sure every unit is upgraded to the one they want while also managing resources and armies. If you give it a good interface, it might be ok, but you need some way to make it obvious when a unit isn't upgraded and an easy way to upgrade it without having to stop in the middle of a battle when you realize some of your 'infantry' are really just 'civilians'(not upgraded).

Other than that, yeah it could be a good idea, and I planned on having something like that in the active-time strategy game I'm going to make 'some day'.

Anyways, I'd disagree that RTS have money+time while TBS have only money. Most of the best RTS I've played (mainly Chess, but also Military Madness) don't have any resources beyond units themselves. The challenge is working with what you have and overcoming situations, which is quite a bit more than just memorizing patterns. It takes a lot of work to evaluate a chess board, for example.

[Edited by - Extrarius on August 17, 2005 8:32:24 AM]

Quote:

Original post by TechnoGoth I'd like to tack on a concept that I'm implementing in my game that is not present in most RTS games and that is the absence of Global Improvements. What I mean is that you have the following skills: - medic = cost +25 credits, +10 training time - stealth = cost +50 credits, +13 training time - digital clone = +100 credits - traps = cost +25 credits, +10 training time Rather then having it so that you pay once and all units gain that ability. I'm making that you have to train a unit it either a build time or later. In this way I want to make unit choice in its self more of a strategy.

I just got done playing Dawn of War [a warhammer RTS], which allowed you to purchase upgrades [read: weapons] like this for your squads. Each unit essentially had its own upgrade queue, and with only ~20 mobile units per side it was still rather managable.

Personally, I think that if you make it a 'at creation only' thing where you can kind of piece the unit together, that would be pretty managable too.

Quote:

Original post by TechnoGoth What I mean is that you have the following skills: - medic = cost +25 credits, +10 training time - stealth = cost +50 credits, +13 training time - digital clone = +100 credits - traps = cost +25 credits, +10 training time

WarWinds 1&2 and Metal Fatigue use similar systems. I intend to implement something similar as well. I tend to enjoy strategy games that put more of an emphasis on units than the buildings they create.

"Forget the women, the children, and the troops! Safe the buildings!". :p

Quote:

... which is quite a bit more than just memorizing patterns. It takes a lot of work to evaluate a chess board, for example.

Not really - a grandmaster can evaluate the vast majority of chess boards extremely quickly. The only way they can do this is by having access to a large number of stored patterns for which they know the outcome.

In terms of resources, an RTS just adds the 'time' constraint. Whether or not that adds strategy is probably dependent on the game.

Quote:

Original post by Argus2 [...]Not really - a grandmaster can evaluate the vast majority of chess boards extremely quickly. The only way they can do this is by having access to a large number of stored patterns for which they know the outcome.[...]

A grandmaster has internalized the evaluation heuristic in the same way a guru RTS player can do the standard things like manage resources and micromanage without consciously thinking about every single click/hotkey press. Also, as I've said, time is a constraint in chess also. The main difference is that in RTS the time constraint is more frantic and in chess it only gets that way if you don't manage your time well.

I am a beyond average player of StarCraft and Warcraft III. I like Heroes III (expecting Heroes V). I know gosu (masters) players of War3 (I lost contact with good players from SC).

Why I never been a gosu? Lack of time to practice SPEED. Speed in battles makes the difference. A battle officer who gives an order before the enemy does (let's say take the flank) will be rewarded with a short term advantage. It's natural.

Both games have two "chapters of rules" which has to be mastered:

- production: building proper units (scout enemy to know what to do)
- combat: use proper abilities on proper targets (attack is an ability)

Because production can be learnt very fast (is a matter of days to months depending on your IQ - for some of people out there years!!) you cannot bet all your money on that. The game would only become boring after a period.

Combat can be made dependent only to "local map settings" = a tree or higher ground can offer cover (less damage taken). Otherwise because of factions (races) differences some maps will offer advantage.

War3 added some features to make active abilities easier to use - giving an order to a group will result that only one unit will execute that order (active ability). Also, most of mass active abilities have auto-cast. Since mana resource which is needed for abilities is limited manual cast will always reward you (gosu player).

There are many features to be revealed here but, a short answer is (it has been given) "active abilities keeps players focused and add complexity to gameplay). Otherwise you would only cut the "field seargent" level of gameplay (which can make a difference in a real combat). Playing general would be very boring... don't you think?

Quote:

Playing general would be very boring... don't you think?

Given the number of panzer/fantasy/* general games.... I don't think so.

Gameplay is making interesting choices. Manually selecting and executing 'proper abilities' isn't a choice, it's tedium.

Playing as "a general moving an army on the FRONT not battlefield" would not fit a RTS. That would be real time tactics. This is what I wanted to explain with that line.

Quote:

Original post by Telastyn Quote: Playing general would be very boring... don't you think? Given the number of panzer/fantasy/* general games.... I don't think so. Gameplay is making interesting choices. Manually selecting and executing 'proper abilities' isn't a choice, it's tedium.

You are in the minoritry by hating fast-paced RTS.

[Edited by - Daniel Miller on August 18, 2005 4:13:19 PM]