i agree Wav, it isn''t complicated, just more options. the fighting game is a good analogy, all the combos u must use on-the-fly. same stuff. i''d like 2 know ur opinion on adding RP elements to make unit growth.



--I don''t judge, I just observe
Stuck in the Bush''s, Florida

quote: Original post by NightWraith

As a minimum of this sort of thing, I would like to be able to tell my units to retreat

How about being able to set a fallback point outside the enemy base to retreat to. Easy to click and easy to remember, I''d think.

quote:
* What to attack first, second, last.

With a little flag that shows you what order. TA almost go this perfect, they just needed the flags.

quote:
* How to attack (Note: intellegent units like Marines should automatically seek cover if possible and so simple commands like this shouldnt be needed here) [choosing attack''s like Wav''s torp run]

Thanks for the endorsement. Something like this becomes more necessary the more choices you have for a group of units.

quote:
* When to retreat (to stop things like one marine trying to attack a battalion of tanks)

I think this will be solved if we can simply treat units as groups. Then we can tell Group 1 to retreat at a given point, or to cover group 2, or to execute manuever A, etc.

quote:
* When to AVOID the enemy (see above)

I''d like to see a flag you can place on enemies and structures: Either AVOID for those that are too lethal (overridable, of course) or DISABLE for the things you want to capture. Everything else by default is DESTROY.

When you start a mission, targets could all even be labeled by default for your convenience.

quote:
* When to engage the enemy

Sort of like a rules of engagement rating? Attack when odds are 2:1? Is that what you mean?

quote:
* When to stop attacking (Namely for units with area damage weapons so I can stop them doing stupid things like attacking an enemy that''s totally surronded by my units [otherwise the result is 1 enemy dead 8 of mine dead.. which is V.annoying])

Yeah, Siege Tanks are great for this in Starcraft. Oops! Thought I had a defense!

This one is actually a bit trickier. Area effect units would need to constantly check the fire area. But the problem is that sometimes you want them to attack anyway. For instance, if your base is overrun and you have 2 weak defenders in the way, but you can kill off many attackers in one shot, you likely take it.

Maybe an easier solution would be Total Annihilation again? Hold Fire, Return Fire, Fire Freely were the 3 AI options. Not exactly what you mean, I know, but it''s hard to for the AI to anticipate what you want.



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote: Original post by Dynamite

i''d like 2 know ur opinion on adding RP elements to make unit growth.

Sure!

I''ve been thinking about this a bit because I''d like something similar for the crews of ships. A couple of areas where experience could apply: I think no matter what you do, you should find ways to make certain units and experienced units extremely valuable

Specialities - If you''ve played Starcraft, you know that certain units like the Terran Ghost or Zerg Queen get special abilities after you research them. This might instead be a function of experience. As a unit grows more experienced, these abilities become unlocked. You''d have to limit this to only a few units, though, or somehow make really clear who has what.

Hit Effect - Either via damage or accuracy, experienced units do better than raw recruits. I''d make damage a function of accuracy, or if damage is fixed you could simply make some shots miss.

Response Time - Units have a random response delay (to look realistic), but the more elite the unit is, the lower this tends to be.

Morale - Unit effectiveness is based on morale. If morale drops below a certain point, troops have a random chance to break and run. This is based on number of nearby frightened troops. Elites have less of a chance to run no matter what.

Target Specialties - Units that go up against certain other units may develop proficiencies

Target Fears - Units that haven''t faced certain other units might not do well against them, sort of like the Romans supposedly acted when they met Hannibal''s elephants.

This is a start, more maybe later?

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote: Original post by Wavinator
Sure!

I''ve been thinking about this a bit because I''d like something similar for the crews of ships. A couple of areas where experience could apply: I think no matter what you do, you should find ways to make certain units and experienced units extremely valuable

Specialities - If you''ve played Starcraft, you know that certain units like the Terran Ghost or Zerg Queen get special abilities after you research them. This might instead be a function of experience. As a unit grows more experienced, these abilities become unlocked. You''d have to limit this to only a few units, though, or somehow make really clear who has what.

Hit Effect - Either via damage or accuracy, experienced units do better than raw recruits. I''d make damage a function of accuracy, or if damage is fixed you could simply make some shots miss.

Response Time - Units have a random response delay (to look realistic), but the more elite the unit is, the lower this tends to be.

Morale - Unit effectiveness is based on morale. If morale drops below a certain point, troops have a random chance to break and run. This is based on number of nearby frightened troops. Elites have less of a chance to run no matter what.

Target Specialties - Units that go up against certain other units may develop proficiencies

Target Fears - Units that haven''t faced certain other units might not do well against them, sort of like the Romans supposedly acted when they met Hannibal''s elephants.

This is a start, more maybe later?

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

exactly. the only thing i didn''t think of was the fear thing, that is good! but like u said, a problem i could c was that i would like every unit to have xp, but that might get real klunky. (!idea!) or maybe they all could get xp and at a certain level, they gain rank(ie. sergeant, captain...) and they have troops under them. the units would still get xp, but they would be in a "group" or "platoon". the UI would probably need 2 be geared to sort out and select units of certain levels and skills to make things easier. maybe it wouldn''t be as klunky as i think 2 manage all those guys. i don''t know...


--I don''t judge, I just observe
Stuck in the Bush''s, Florida

(Excuse the shortness of this reply, but this is the only bit I stumbled over)

Dynamite : So you''re saying lower units would have collective XP, rather than individial?

Just to clarify some of my points.. (after Wavs comments)

Firstly I''m thinking more along the lines of leaving the units to get on with it whilst the player is concentrating on some other part of the battle. (although I''d expect to be notified if they changed what they were doing.. e.g. retreating)

2nd, (this is not a clarification just an idea I just had sort of) We should think about different levels of this control, setting defaults for general behaviour (i.e. pull back if the enemy is too strong) as one level (which is set before the game starts for those who want to.. I mean a game should behave as the player expects, right, and what better way for the player to know how it will behave if he tells it), and giving commands to individual groups of units (i.e. cover group A, attack these buildings first, etc...) as the next, and as a final level specifying exactly the attack to use (although I dont think many people will use this) like the Torp run. [Personally I think this should be left upto the unit''s AI based upon a higher level specification, e.g. "Try to maximise the damage done to the enemy", user defined stratergies could be assigned to an attack mode (i.e. if the attack mode is X then pick an attack A B or D)]

as to the point on when to engage the enemy (I must really learn how to quote, lol).. yeah something like that Wav, things like attack the enemy if you can knock them out without too many casulties, or if they''re approaching this point, etc.. but also for setting up things like ambushes if u have a bunch of marines hidden in the bushes to ambush a convoy, you dont want them opening fire as soon as they see it, (cuz those at the front will fire first and give the game away) you want to wait unit it reaches the middle, that kind of thing..

Avoiding the enemy is along those sort of TA lines.. but with, move here without being seen by the enemy if possible as an option (i.e. to sneak units past sentries or patroling units...)

NOTE: all of these points are Ideal rather than Feasable.


NightWraith

Ah, some who appreciates a order queuing system over a way-point system
I would love to play Homeworld with a order queuing system instead of a way-point system.
After having a go at creating a simplistic order queuing system, I think I can appreciates the amount of effort to get the TA one working
It would be very cool to allow the various queued orders to react to condition but this would introduce some serious headaches for the implementation. The next step from order queuing is scripting of the style that is being discussed here. One important note is you MUST be able to easily apply commands to multipul units and allow copying of the scripts. To automate the setup of the orders, the factory could be set to imprint the orders onto all unit produced there, kind of like Total Annihilation
The factory deturmined the default group number and default behaviour and could dictate so move options.

StarCraft was a MAJOR step backwards in unit management compared to Total Annihilation & Dark Reign. Since it had massive corprate backing from a well known company it had massive sales,thus unit management was set back a lest 2 years or so
I , personally, see starcraft as a BAD rip off of Red Alert, the only thing it really had going for it was flexible map scripting and RedAlert had some complex scipting in it too ...

quote: Original post by morfe

(Excuse the shortness of this reply, but this is the only bit I stumbled over)

Dynamite : So you''re saying lower units would have collective XP, rather than individial?

not really. what i meant(i 4got to elaborate above) was instead of looking at each unit as an individual(from the user''s view), you would look at a group to cut down on the actual cycling of units etc. like i have groups A through G. A has 5 soldiers and the rest have 8. by groups, i can look at all 5 units in A and compare them. it''s more of an idea geared towards the UI and how the player would see/compare units. i was thinkin about how 2 make each unit gain xp and still be managable. i hope that clears it up!


--I don''t judge, I just observe
Stuck in the Bush''s, Florida

Check out www.moo3.com.

Its the developement site for Masters of Orion 3. The game itself is turn based but the combat is going to be realtime. The control system they''re desinging for combat follows this idea almost exactly. You select an overall strategy for each of your various task forces in the battle, then leave it to your AI Commanders to fight the battle for you. You can make adjustments to your strategy as the battle progresses.

Check out www.moo3.com.

Its the developement site for Masters of Orion 3. The game itself is turn based but the combat is going to be realtime. The control system they''re desinging for combat follows this idea almost exactly. You select an overall strategy for each of your various task forces in the battle, then leave it to your AI Commanders to fight the battle for you. You can make adjustments to your strategy as the battle progresses.