Quote:

Original post by GBGames 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.

Exactly. My ideas focus on tactics rather than overall strategy. The amount of individual units under your control would range from about 50 (platoon command) to about 1000 (batallion command), selectable in groups from about a 10 units or so. I'm not going to deal with larger groups, like divisions, because I think then a tabletop approach would fit better for such a large-scale army deployment.
In other words, I want the low-level combat, not the high-level maneuvring and deployment. Politics may play some role in the story perhaps, but not as an active gameplay element. Bases are just buildings that often have a long-term function. Restoring a badly damaged vehicle to '100%' won't happen in the time-scale this idea adapts. The idea is not to use bases as they're used in most RTS, as unit-producin, vital elements, but as a selection of buildings with a strategical, long-term value.

Quote:

Original post by Bezben 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.

I've covered that as one of the multiplayer game modes in a previous post on the previous page. It would be a mode, the game and the singleplayer idea especially focus on combat in the field, the tactics. Anyway, how a player would conquer an enemies base in this mode is free to him, every player is left to his own tactics.
The idea to reward capturing a base with more 'construction points' for the start of a next round is nice, but then you're playing a sort of campaign mode or round-based mode against an opponent, something I haven't thought about yet. Somehow I don't feel it will work really, since you make the strongest player stronger in the next battle, and I think this impacts the balance in a negative way.


All in all, you could say this idea is more a Real Time Tactics than a RTS... :)

Quote:

Original post by Bezben 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.

If you are allowed to build throughout the game, you can adapt to what your opponent is doing and act accordingly. If you have to "gamble", as you put it, the game becomes more like a single round of rock-paper-scissors.

If you are dealing with just units, it'd be a good idea to have some really advanced controls for them. Typical rts games have maybe a guard mode, the units shoot anything that comes in range, occasionally you get way points and formations. You'd need a finer control over them I think. Maybe the ability to coordinate squads together, giving the command to wait over that hill there till squad 1 is attacked for example. I suppose that's just remote guarding really. Or being able to prioritise targets, normally you'll get units attacking the first thing in site, so you get infantry shooting hand guns at tanks. The trick I suppose would be in doing it with a simple interface, without needing to script your commands :)

As for the resources, how about some kind of system in which you have a limited number of reinforcements to begin with that you can call up at will which will arrive on the game world in 5 minutes. Each time you call the reinforcements in the time to arrive doubles. You'd need to have some way of limiting the frequency you could call them I suppose, otherwise players would end up racing to call them. This post is becoming a bit of a ramble now, so one last idea. How about you can have in game 3 call them battilians under your control, consisting of tanks with infanty well, whatever you like. As battle wears on, they get more damaged, so you can call your reinforcments to replace a battilian you have. But the time for replacements to arrive increases each replacement you make.

Quote:

Original post by Daniel Miller If you are allowed to build throughout the game, you can adapt to what your opponent is doing and act accordingly. If you have to "gamble", as you put it, the game becomes more like a single round of rock-paper-scissors.

I want to avoid the gambling by using the 'reinforcement points' system, where they can be selected and equipped before a mission starts, but during the mission the selection can be changed before they're called in, to give the player the ability to react to unforeseen enemy actions. It will take some time for reinforcements to arrive so you need to be alert for such happenings. By forcing the player to keep units available throughout the mission (e.g. not allowing reinforcements to be called in immediatly along with the regular troops) you ensure everyone has some extra cards to play.
Intelligence will play an important role here as well. In singleplayer, you could give maps and known details about enemy troop placement, in multiplayer it should probably work in a different way. Maybe something like where a player can see the selection of his enemy, but well-camouflaged units would not be known, and information about reinforcements would be less clear (saying armored vehicles rather than naming their type and exact count, for example). Maybe 'buying' intelligence by spending unit points on intelligence flights or sattelite photo's. Either way, I believe intelligence should play a role here as well as actual units.

Quote:

Original post by Captain P Intelligence will play an important role here as well. In singleplayer, you could give maps and known details about enemy troop placement, in multiplayer it should probably work in a different way. Maybe something like where a player can see the selection of his enemy, but well-camouflaged units would not be known, and information about reinforcements would be less clear (saying armored vehicles rather than naming their type and exact count, for example). Maybe 'buying' intelligence by spending unit points on intelligence flights or sattelite photo's. Either way, I believe intelligence should play a role here as well as actual units.

How about an intelligence unit, equiped with a radio to coordinate spy planes and stuff...

Quote:

Original post by Captain P Intelligence will play an important role here as well. In singleplayer, you could give maps and known details about enemy troop placement, in multiplayer it should probably work in a different way. Maybe something like where a player can see the selection of his enemy, but well-camouflaged units would not be known, and information about reinforcements would be less clear (saying armored vehicles rather than naming their type and exact count, for example). Maybe 'buying' intelligence by spending unit points on intelligence flights or sattelite photo's. Either way, I believe intelligence should play a role here as well as actual units.

Yes that's a good idea, it will add a lot of depth to the gameplay! Plus it's closer to the real thing, adding to the "coolness factor" ;)

Sattelite photos could be a fuzzy overview of the whole terrain, spotting relatively big bases and armies, and missing small things as well as well-camouflaged ones.
Spy planes, on the other hand, would give you much better intel, but you'd have to set a course for them (they cover a smaller area) and they can be shot down by ground-to-air missiles.
These two would complement each other and offer a wide array of strategies and ways to play. But of course I'm not saying you should be limited to them :)

In real life, intel is usually either over-view photos or verbal descriptions that might be useful (sightings and probable locations of hostiles). Maybe you could find a way to make this a bit more visual and user-friendly? Mark the places where enemies were seen and stuff. I have an idea that would prevent screen cluttering, but it's not 100% thought out.