Quote:

Original post by Jotaf I love this idea, but you can't simply make your game a standard RTS without any buildings.

Sure, but only because the definition of a "standard RTS" includes buildings.

Quote:

The supply lines intrigue me. It's much better than the omni-present resources in most RTSs -- I always found it hard to believe that resources gathered in a distant base can be instantly used to build something in my main base.

I always found it hard to believe that my workers could build a tank factory in seven minutes, even with resources. (Except in TA, where the nanolathe kinda makes sensible (but why aren't they using grey-goo instead of clunky robots?).)

Quote:

Another flaw with this simplistic method is that it eliminates the strategy of surrounding the enemies until their resources are so limited that you can crush them easily (the exact word eludes me right now) -- a very useful strategy in real war, but not in RTSs.

Seige? Attrition?

Quote:

Slowing down the rate of fire when low on ammo seems like an excellent option to me. You could explain it like they're not out of ammo, but rather using their emergency reserves of ammo.

The thing about emergency reserves is that there aren't many of them. Real soldiers would run out of ammo eventually.

This might be a difficulty scale thing: at easy difficulty, all units have infinite ammo. At medium difficulty, smaller units (e.g. infantry, light vehicles) get weaker as they lose ammo, and large units (e.g. tanks, helicopters) have finite ammo. At hard difficulty, all units have finite ammo.

Quote:

But you can't just throw in supply units. Micro-managing supply lines could be very annoying. You need to streamline this feature. There could be a system of waypoints that the suppliers use to go to the battlefronts. They should also start moving around without you ordering them, and there could be the option to escort them, and do things like choosing a faster but more dangerous route, and stuff like that.

This is really an AI issue. All units should be able to have their own smarts: combat units should be able to decide to take on targets of opportunity and then return to where you placed them.

And of course some people might like micromanaging their supply units.

I rather like the idea of thoroughly autonomous units. Suppose that if you give instructions to units when they're in the enemy's base, the enemy will be able to intercept your instructions and will know what you're telling them to do.

To keep your plans more secret, you'll need to instruct your units when they're out of the enemy's radio range. Plus, the enemy might employ jamming devices to make it impossible for you to give units instructions in certain places. Then they'd have to fall back on your standing orders (be stealth/return to base if the mission cannot be completed/attack targets of opportunity if the mission cannot be completed/team up with another unit if the mission cannot be completed/etc) to decide what do to next.

I was disapointed when I found out that W40K:Dawn of War actually had base-building just like others RTS. It would have been MUCH better without it, getting new troops only through space drops and squad reinforcing. Its the "first of the genre" syndrome. Because base building existed in the excellent Dune 2, everyone feels obligated to do it too.

Im totally for RTS without any base building. Let me command the troops and let other people build shacks.

Thanks for all the feedback people.

Right now, I've formulated my idea's as following after changing several things as a result of the input I got here. If you don't want to read it all, skip to the end for the summary. :)
I think this idea should provide fast combat, with several stress-factors like selecting the right units or calling them in later on, finding the right positions for your units on the battlefield and keeping the ammunition supplylines up. Not to mention the combat going on at multiple places.

Oh, and I thought a table of content wouldn't be a bad idea for such a long post:

1. Unit selection, reinforcements and fire support
2. Low-level gameplay mechanics
3. Battlefield constructions
4. Ammunition supplies
5. Multiplayer modes

Summary


1. Unit selection, reinforcements and fire support
Units are built back home - not on the battlefield...

You select your units before the mission starts, with a limited amount of points to spend. A part of these points is 'locked', e.g. the units chosen for them can only enter the battlefield later on, serving as your reinforcements. During the mission, you can change the configuration of these reinforcements in case something unexpected happens. These locked points can also be spent on other things than units. Think of artillery- or air-support, or specific ways to insert your reinforcements into the region (like by helicopter or parachute). These points would be spent on setting up artillery behind your lines, or requesting some aircraft to your region.
Note that ammunition can be called in just as if it were a form of units - their transport can be changed just like with units and they are a one-time thing, unlike artillery support or aircrafts which can be called in every now and then.
In singleplayer, the rules are extended a bit: additional points can be rewarded in special cases, reinforcements can be delayed for storyline purposes or artillery can be taken down making it unavailable for the rest of the mission.

Currently, I think having a certain delay for reinforcements is enough - you can call them in all at once, or call them in group for group so you can still choose other units, should the situation require it.


2. Low-level gameplay mechanics
Cover, unit behaviour and unit selection

Cover is highly important: infantery are killed after one or two gunshots usually. Their armour lowers the chance of a fatal hit, but won't hold too much fire. Cover significantly lowers the chance of being hit. Therefor, units will automatically run towards the nearest cover when under fire. Objects that provide cover are for example bushes, low walls, vehicles and sandbag walls.
Units will have a basic AI, that makes them search for cover when under fire, search for nearby ammunition crates when running out of ammo, riding together with their assigned APC when traveling (to make APC's easier to handle and more usefull for fast troop transport) and so.
Units are grouped together and selection goes on a per-group basis. These groups resemble the military structure and are divided before the mission starts. Each group appears as a numbered icon on the hud (groups 0 - 9). Clicking the icon shows the content of the group, their status and maybe other important information.

For larger scale battles, I'm thinking about dividing these groups into subgroups (1a, 1b?), showing the subgroups (that are the actual selectable groups) of the selected supergroup on the hud.


3. Battlefield constructions
Sandbags, tank traps, barbed wire...

In the field, fortifications can be constructed, like sandbag walls (providing cover bonus for units), cammo nettings (providing stealth bonus for units), tank traps, barbed wires and others.
Existing buildings can be used as cover, or be given specific functions like headquarters, medical quarters or ammunition depots. These functions are quite 'free' - they don't require an exact pre-shaped building or space, you can use whatever is at hand that fits, or set up tents or others. Basically, it evolves around the equipment and their function rather than the buildings shape.
A machinegun nest, for example, would consist of a sandbag wall, a cammo net and some units carrying a machinegun. These units are free to move, but the nest provides physical and visual cover for them. An ammunition depot, as another example, is just a place where ammunition crates are stocked up, but you may want to store them inside a building for protection, or behind a large pile of sandbags.
Then again, bunkers and guard-towers can be found on the battlefield as well, but they can't be built in real-time and only serve their purpose once you put troops inside them. Buildings themselves are just dead crete and steel.

About 'building' functions, namely the headquarters, I'm thinking about giving the player access to maps of the battlefield, and icon indications on them to represent the combat groups as long as a HQ is setup, allowing mobile HQ's in offensive, traveling missions (staff car or communications truck?).


4. Ammunition supplies
Infantery rifles, tank cannons

Every unit eventually runs out of ammunition. On easier skill-settings, they can switch to a low-powered weapon, like troopers would use their pistols and melee weapons and tanks would be limited to their machineguns only, where these would fire much less as fully-stocked ones. On harder skill settings, the rule 'you can't use what you don't have' would simply apply.
Ammunition crates can be dropped anywhere. Preferrably, you want to stock them up where they're in demand: close to a machinegun nest or dot them behind your frontline. Just make sure they aren't set on fire by a loose grenade, while still keeping them easy to reach for your troops.
As for an offensive mission, ammunition can be loaded directly from the truck that transports it, preventing the - in that case - needless stocking of ammo crates on the ground. However, units need to stop moving before loading up. This ensures an attack wave has to halt at some point, stocking up on ammo, which gives the enemy some time to rethink the situation, possible launching a counter-attack. I think this balances the situation somewhat and in longer, larger-scale battles, becomes an important factor.

For now, I think keeping ammunition a simple resource rather than dividing it up into ammo types is best. This means a tank uses the same ammunition crates as infantery, but uses much more ammo points per shell. This also means enemy forces can capture ammunition stocks.


5. Multiplayer modes
Bases, frontal attacks and breakthroughs

Base assault
The base idea Talroth suggested sounds good. The way I would implement it, is by giving a limited amount of points for the buildings and a limited time to place them at the start of the match. This would be an instant placement method, so it is as if these buildings were built in the region a while ago. Then the same rules would apply: select your army limited by your army points, and eventually select reinforcements limited by your reinforcement points. Reinforcements arrive in your base by default. The battle is ended once an enemy base is occupied or destroyed, so players have to strike a balance between defense and offense.
Frontal attack
Basic rules: select your army, select your reinforcements. Armies start at the edge of the map and have to fight each other to death. Keeping a route to the edge open might be usefull should you need ammunition, or reinforcement points might be spent to drop them directly - costing you points.
Breakthrough
Armies fight frontline to frontline, close to each other. Force a breakthrough and get behind the enemy lines for a certain time to win. Reinforcements should be used wisely to seal up weak points in your line or to stop units that already have broken through. Similar to the base assault mode, but the battle is more stretched, the occupyable area is much larger and there's a little time buffer before an occupying group means victory, or defeat.


Summary

So, in short, the idea focuses on combat that evolves around a limited amount of units that endure longer. Cover is a strategically important factor that keeps your units alive much longer, ammunition forms a stressing factor that forces players to make their moves fast. Cover and ammunition keep a balance here, I believe.
Buildings exist on the battlefield and serve as cover or a shell for certain functions like ammo depot, headquarters or medical quarters. In real-time, quick barricades can be constructed to provide cover. Usefull for defending area's, too time-consuming on a moving front.
Multiplayer modes focus on efficient unit selection and use. Resources are limited which should prevent battles from becoming long (and possibly boring).

Quote:

Original post by Talroth In multiplayer (and single player even) you could earn more 'points' by killing the opponets troops, giving you access to more stuff from the 'higherups' in your army.

I think awarding reinforcement points for kills would outbalance the game, since the conflict will probably take less time than most base-building RTS, I don't think there's a need for a system like this. I think it's more usefull to break a stalemate situation that is getting long and boring.

Quote:

Also, for reinforcements, when you go to call in reinforcements, on the screen you pick what you want and give orders for where they enter or whatever, you could have access to view the progress of the battles around yours. Calling in reinforcements means while YOUR battle might go well, you could lose many others around yours. You win the battle, and lose the war. That would keep people from just flooding their battle with EVERY unit they can get their hands on. Not only do you have to worry about YOUR fight, but the war in general. The game then becomes, "who can win more effeciently?" If you FORCE your oppenet to call in more reinforcements, you might still lose on that field, but other fronts collapse and then the 'winner' finds he is out of reinfocements, and has enemies entering the field all around them.

The idea to impact the war around you by requesting reinforcements sounds good as well but I think it's hard to fit into a tight story-telling campaign. Fits better in a tabletop RTS like Rome: Total War or the like.

Do you remmember world at war? IIRC it's 400 MB download from somewhere.

Quote:

Original post by Captain P Quote: Also, for reinforcements, when you go to call in reinforcements, on the screen you pick what you want and give orders for where they enter or whatever, you could have access to view the progress of the battles around yours. Calling in reinforcements means while YOUR battle might go well, you could lose many others around yours. You win the battle, and lose the war. That would keep people from just flooding their battle with EVERY unit they can get their hands on. Not only do you have to worry about YOUR fight, but the war in general. The game then becomes, "who can win more effeciently?" If you FORCE your oppenet to call in more reinforcements, you might still lose on that field, but other fronts collapse and then the 'winner' finds he is out of reinfocements, and has enemies entering the field all around them. The idea to impact the war around you by requesting reinforcements sounds good as well but I think it's hard to fit into a tight story-telling campaign. Fits better in a tabletop RTS like Rome: Total War or the like.

Well, in singleplayer, requesting units from front lines beside yours could result in being told off by whoever is above you in the chain of command, or you could get them with little impact on the battle. This could also be used for turning points in the story line. If you let YOUR battle fail, but ones on either side of you win, the story could still go on, because after you 'lost' your allies swarmed in from behind, and you win anyway.
Sometime, if you 'save' a unit, by calling them to your field, rather than going to another, later in the game the promoted commander from that unit could 'remember' what you did for them and help you out somehow. Little random easteregg like things to change things up a bit.


Biggest thing I have disliked about most singleplayer games is that there always seems to be very little random aspects to the war. No green trooper will accidently shoot you in the ass and you lay up in a field hospital for a few months while the emenies totaly destory your side's armies, only to have much of their great weapons wiped out because some computer tech guy accidently caused them to self destruct with a bad programing habit.

Let me just reply to this first :)

Quote:

Quote: The supply lines intrigue me. (...) Original post by Nathan Baum I always found it hard to believe that my workers could build a tank factory in seven minutes, even with resources. (Except in TA, where the nanolathe kinda makes sensible (but why aren't they using grey-goo instead of clunky robots?).)

I was talking in the context of this game, of course. By "supplies" I mean ammunition, and bags to fill with sand and stuff!

Quote:

Seige? Attrition?

Are these existing games? Sorry, I'm not familiar with them.

Quote:

Quote: But you can't just throw in supply units. Micro-managing supply lines could be very annoying. You need to streamline this feature. There could be a system of waypoints that the suppliers use to go to the battlefronts. They should also start moving around without you ordering them, and there could be the option to escort them, and do things like choosing a faster but more dangerous route, and stuff like that. This is really an AI issue. All units should be able to have their own smarts: combat units should be able to decide to take on targets of opportunity and then return to where you placed them. And of course some people might like micromanaging their supply units.

Come on, just because *some* (that's the keyword) min-maxers like to have absolute control over everything, doesn't make it a worthwhile feature! You have a better system, ditch the old one. What about people who *don't* like to control everything? This is a game for them :P

Quote:

I rather like the idea of thoroughly autonomous units. Suppose that if you give instructions to units when they're in the enemy's base, the enemy will be able to intercept your instructions and will know what you're telling them to do. To keep your plans more secret, you'll need to instruct your units when they're out of the enemy's radio range. Plus, the enemy might employ jamming devices to make it impossible for you to give units instructions in certain places. Then they'd have to fall back on your standing orders (be stealth/return to base if the mission cannot be completed/attack targets of opportunity if the mission cannot be completed/team up with another unit if the mission cannot be completed/etc) to decide what do to next.

This is one of those things that is awfully hard to implement in a way that will be a) feasible and b) add to the gameplay. Sounds like fun, but it would make for a very different game.

Quote:

Getting back to you Captain P, reading that document makes me wanna play this game, right now!! A war game that actually has different, interesting resources (and the subsequent gameplay). Wow.

Just a few final remarks. If the reinforcements and supplies arrive only once in a while, then they have the player's full attention and you don't need any kind of waypoints or AI, as opposed to what would happen in a campaign of a larger scale (that's what I had in mind). Problem solved ;)

Hey I just had some inspiration by remembering the Allies' strategy in WW2, they dropped thousands of troops over occupied territory to make chaos and confusion reign amongst the defenders.
I'd like situations like this in your game, it would be insanely cool! Especially in one-on-one multiplayer mode. One thing missing is having multiple defense posts and bases scattered all over the terrain, instead of just one base (unless I misunderstood you).

Good luck, I'd like to hear from you in the future!

Quote:

Quote: Seige? Attrition? Are these existing games? Sorry, I'm not familiar with them.

No, those were the suggested proper names for surrounding your enemy and cutting off supplies.

I apologize if this seems a bit unorganized.

If you kept base building but delegated it to an AI, what would that be like? That is, you control the army, fight the war, but you could still have a base to protect. Maybe you could send your troops and equipment there for health, R&R, or repairs?

If you strike at your enemy's base, now that limits his/her ability to recover. The AI might be made up of non-military engineers and medics among others. Killing these people might affect your rep at home (if you choose to implement something like national morale for instance), but you would reduce the effectiveness of the base. Destroying the base means that the engineers would try to rebuild it, but killing the engineers means that no one can rebuild the base.

So the base can be important strategically since it can change the effectiveness of the army, but you don't need to worry about micromanaging it. That's not your job. You fight the war.


If you remove bases completely, but you still want to deal with strategy instead of exclusively dealing with tactics, you'll probably want to be able to move your army, setup camp, and otherwise make use of structures that you didn't build. Maybe you can steal your opponent's base? Take out all resistance, capture any surviors, and make use of the supplies? Starcraft had some maps with existing structures, but you had to build a structure to make use of one. Maybe preexisting bases or other buildings exist? I know that if the US Army had to work out of Chicago (civil/futuristic war?) that there would probably be a number of locations they could turn into a makeshift headquarters.

Ok, I'm guessing there would be some. Still, removing bases completely would imply that you are not necessarily dealing with strategy so much as tactics. Now you are dealing with individual battles instead of an entire war. I admit, I am not well versed in RTS design, or game design in general, but it seems that these would all be things to take into account.

Quote:

Original post by Captain P Quote: Original post by Daniel Miller How do you build new units? Basically, you don't build any new units. You compose your army before the mission starts based on information about the mission (sattelite maps, intelligence reports, things like that). However, I'm thinking about a reinforcements system for defensive oriented missions that allows you to call in certain units, but haven't decided the exact dynamics of that system yet. The idea right now is to give the player a certain amount of points before the mission starts, which he then can use to request new units, or he can save them to call in reinforcements during the mission. But maybe it's a good thing to separate the two, so a player can always call in some reinforcements and doesn't have to worry about saving some points for during the mission? Or maybe it's a good thing to add a planning aspect into the game?

Sounds like Fallout Tactics to me, a fantastic game.

How about a system in which you build your base before the game proper starts? Instead of credits you normally get, you have a certain amount of man power and time, so you might be able to construct a barracks and a tank factory or you could build a barracks and two aaguns, you have to gamble on whether the enemy will have planes/tanks etc. Then you move onto the game proper in which you have a number of troops that will be automatically supplemented by reinforcements from this base. You have to march to the enemy base and take it over. For added strategy you could have different options for taking it over, you could say be able to blow it up quickly or take it over slowly. Taking it over would give you more buildings for your next pre-game base, but also give the enemy time to send units to bulk up his next base etc.