Hey all, Just thought I'd post about a topic that I've often thought about. It came to mind especially due to having now purchased and played (a lot of) Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War. Now one of the unique selling points of the game IIRC was supposed to be it's lack of resource management, yet when playing the game, although the resource management is greatly reduced, it is most definitely still there in the form of power and requisition points. Call me a purist.... but what if we stayed true to the 40k game and made a game that had nothing in the way of traditional resources. I still think that in DOW you spend a fair amount of time micro-managing your resources and troops, having to select abilities of troops manually, and set multiple AI options to make the troops take up varying stances while also having to manually reinforce units who somehow magically get reinforcements despite being a mile away from the base. The problem as far as I see it is that victory does not go to those that are tactical genius', but rather to those who are best at micromanagement and developing the best "rush" strategy. What if, as in the tabletop games, the strategy is on choosing your army at the beginning, perhaps with set or random reinforcements at certain times in the game. This (IMO) would force people to utilise their troops in the best manner, use the terrain to their advantage, and put the focus firmly back on strategy where the player might actually get enough time out from micromanagement to actually give proper consideration to their tactical situation. I think it would also help remove the see-saw effect in most RTS games where a battle goes on for hours as neither can get the upper hand, or the situation where a player knows they are going to lose, but the end is hours away because they are on a slippery slope to failing. With pre-defined armies, you can roughly predict how long a game will take, you can accommodate for long or short games as you wish and you need never wory about setting a unit building cap because you specify how many units are available at the beginning of the game! I can't remember as it's been a while, but did the Total War series work like this, or was that a different system again, I can't remember if you got to pick your armies or not? Either way, half the fun of the Games Workshop tabletop games for me was picking and equipping the army. I do suppose this has been done before, but in my opinion, not often enough. I can't help but wonder if there is more potential in the idea as it seems more natural to me, it's almost like these resource systems are tagged on as an afterthought to help alleviate otherwise dull combat mechanics. Having said that I really have enjoyed DOW, don't get me wrong, it's a definite step in the right direction, but it would be nice to see some more leaps in the direction it was heading in :P What do you think? Cheers, Steve

First off, I like the idea of your army's makeup and your ability to use it being the deciding factor and not how fast you can pump out guys. As far as the Total War series, it had resources (sort of). In those games its just sort of money that is given to you each year (assuming your doing the campaign and not a battle) which you then spent on either upgrades or units. No gathering is done. In straight battles your just given a bunch of cash and told to go and build an army. I love their system a lot more than most RTS games (whatever you start with is all your getting, no unit building during battle). I end up having to think during battle (although in the early Total War series the AI was terrible) instead of just the normal build a lot of guys and throw them at the enemy tactic in most games.

Although I will say that there is a lot of micro management in the series. It's just a very different type (like moving the cavalry into a flanking position, making sure your lines hold, moving your archers so they're on the high ground, etc). But I will say that I love that type of strategy.

I'm not trying to be a bitch or anything, but the "I'm smarter than him and I should have won, he beat me because he knows how to rush and multitask" attitude is getting so old. Doing those things requires at least as much intelligence as slowly thinking and carrying out a strategy. I don't care whether you find one kind of game more fun than another, but just don't act like the people who beat you are stupid and don't deserve it.

I'm not being a cry-baby about people being better than me, I really couldn't care less to be honest because I'm years out of my teens and I have a life past having to be mr uber l33t, I just think winning on a tactical victory is much more interesting.

The attitude is not getting old, it's just me wanting a certain experience out of my game, and if you don't like it because you think I'm not giving credit where credits due to those who can beat the system, then frankly it doesn't matter to me, you take your rushes, and I'll take my system.

Sure designing a good rush tactic takes cunning and intellect, but it's about beating the program, it's about finding what the designer didn't expect would happen and it is artificial. I don't play a wargame because I want to know how to best an A.I. system, or how to abuse a glitch or imbalance in the game design, I play because I want to take control of an (imaginary) army and beat them just as I would if the situation were real. I want to be that general for the time I'm playing.

My thinking is applied just as much to games againt AI as people, in fact I have yet to play a game of DOW online because I'm quite happy playing skirmishes or campaigns against the computer.

Perhaps you are upset that the idea might actually put people on an even footing?

Anyhoo, I'm going off on a tangent because that was one out of several reasons for looking at removing resource, and not the focus of my suggestions.

I've got a lot of thoughts swirling around my head now...

First, I think immediate rush tactics aren't good for anyone other than a few power users who don't care about a satisfying gameplay experience, only how win with the minimal amount of work and time. And people who rush don't have to have any intelligence or even cunning. They can look up how to rush on some website, and do the exact same thing every game. If someone kills their rush, they may have no idea how to proceed. Rushing (like they do in games) isn't even close to being feasible in reality anyway. Civilizations, colonies, armies, and all the other real-life counterparts to beginning game setups didn't begin by building 100 of the crappiest unit and storming the other base. They either couldn't produce people that quickly, wouldn't risk losing so many men, wouldn't have the infrastructure to support them, or wouldn't be focusing on killing the other guy so much. The way to fix this is by adding in more real factors that keep rushing down. But that's for another thread.

As far as resource management, it depends on the scope of the game. Simulating one battle, where no explanation of where the units appeared from, would be very conducive to picking an Army. However, once you get to a campaign, a war, or longer, you can't have troops just appear without it feeling hokey. The Total War system is, in my opinion, just about the best, and most realistic, you can get. It separated the elements very well. You could be a great general when you needed to, without worrying about resources. And that is really the essence of a wargame, being the best general, not just the best quartermaster. Just my opinion.

Quote:

Original post by Mephs Call me a purist.... but what if we stayed true to the 40k game and made a game that had nothing in the way of traditional resources.

Yes, then we'd have... The tabletop game on a computer... [grin]
Wouldn't it be more interesting to have the tabletop on, uh, tables, and something *different* on a computer? [wink]

Quote:

I still think that in DOW you spend a fair amount of time micro-managing your resources and troops, having to select abilities of troops manually, and set multiple AI options to make the troops take up varying stances while also having to manually reinforce units who somehow magically get reinforcements despite being a mile away from the base.

What, unlike the tabletop game where you also have to "select" your troops manually during the game, where you have even more options for selecting their abilities, and where you don't even *have* an AI who can help you if you set its stances? [wink]
There's quite a lot of micromanagement in the tabletop game. Much more than in DoW, in my opinion.

Quote:

The problem as far as I see it is that victory does not go to those that are tactical genius', but rather to those who are best at micromanagement and developing the best "rush" strategy.

Have you tried playing the game? Against other humans? Especially in a larger game, like 2v2 or 3v3?
I thought not. It's one game that *doesn't* rely on rushing. It relies on quite a lot of tactical skill. One reason is, you guessed it, the resource management. It's not *just* resource management, it's also one of the victory conditions. It requires tactics to know when to try to win by capturing critical locations, and when to do it by smashing your enemy's base... And when to just hold on and try to defend as best you can.
You also have to use the terrain to your advantage, as much as you do in the tabletop game. At least, if you hope to win.

Quote:

What if, as in the tabletop games, the strategy is on choosing your army at the beginning, perhaps with set or random reinforcements at certain times in the game. This (IMO) would force people to utilise their troops in the best manner, use the terrain to their advantage, and put the focus firmly back on strategy where the player might actually get enough time out from micromanagement to actually give proper consideration to their tactical situation.

Not quite. I think you're mixing resource management with micromanagement. As I said, the tabletop game has plenty of micromanagement. DoW has less so, in return for some resource management (Basically, see your time as another resource to be managed. You can try to keep your economy under control (resource management), or you can focus on controlling your units (micromanagement). Both can lead to victory, but you don't have time to do both to the full extent.
In comparison, the tabletop is *all* micromanagement. You have nothing to distract you from it, you have nothing else you could possibly be focusing on.

Apart from this, I dont think the game would become more strategic by moving all the army building to before the game starts. In DoW, you can build your army based on what you know about your enemy, try to counter his tactics and unit compositions.
In the tabletop game, you just have to build your army and hope the best. That's not tactical or strategic.
Once you get *into* the game, I agree, there's plenty of tactics, but the whole "pick your army before the match starts" doesn't in itself contribute directly to it.
(As you say, it contributes indirectly by forcing you to be more careful with your units. That is, it forces you to micromanage more)

Quote:

I think it would also help remove the see-saw effect in most RTS games where a battle goes on for hours as neither can get the upper hand

Has this happened to you in DoW?

Quote:

or the situation where a player knows they are going to lose, but the end is hours away because they are on a slippery slope to failing.

Has this happened to you in DoW?

Quote:

With pre-defined armies, you can roughly predict how long a game will take, you can accommodate for long or short games as you wish and you need never wory about setting a unit building cap because you specify how many units are available at the beginning of the game!

Or you can play a game that has a unit building cap, like, say, DoW... [grin]
I don't see how pre-defined armies help you predict the length of the game though. There are just as many unknowns as in "normal" RTS games. With the exception that both players are much more cautious and take fewer risks. Which doesn't help shorten the games.
Or to put it another way. The longest DoW game I've played lasted 40 minutes. It was an awesome match, 3v3, where both teams held the advantage several times
How many tabletop games have you seen that could be concluded within 40 minutes? [wink]
Or 20? Or 10?

Quote:

I can't remember as it's been a while, but did the Total War series work like this, or was that a different system again, I can't remember if you got to pick your armies or not?

You didn't so much pick your armies, you trained them on the campaign map. But during the battle, they were fixed, yes.

Quote:

Either way, half the fun of the Games Workshop tabletop games for me was picking and equipping the army.

Now that's a third issue entirely.
So far, we've skirted between "Micromanagement", "Resource management" and "I just think it's fun to pick my army before the match".
These three don't really have anything to do with each others. Let's try to keep them separate. [smile]

DoW has *some* micromanagement (but allows you to avoid it, either by picking certain races, or just by adapting your strategy). The AI can be told how a unit should act, so that you don't have to micromanage it.
The tabletop game is all micromanagement. Your individual units have individual equipment and take individual orders (ok, not quite, but you get the idea. You have to control everything your units do, with no AI to assist you)

DoW has *some* resource management, but tries to make it work as an extension of the combat mechanics. The player's attention is one of the scarcest resources. There are always a dozen things that need your attention, and part of the strategic overview you need, is to simply decide which areas of the game you don't have to manage *right now*.
The tabletop game avoids resource management entirely. Even the player's time and attention is unlimited.

As far as "I just think it's fun to pick my army before the match" goes, DoW has none of that (although I've been thinking about whether it'd be possible to add as a mod), while it's a major feature of the tabletop game.

There, three different "features", and the two games' take on them.
Keep in mind, the 3 features have nothing to do with each other, so let's not mix them together and say "The tabletop is better because it has no micromanagement. For example, I can't pick my units before the match, and I have to gather resources"... [grin]

(Oh yeah, a fourth issue you mentioned was the "magical" reinforcement... So what? Are you after realism as well? That has absolutely nothing to do with either of the three above arguments)

Quote:

I do suppose this has been done before, but in my opinion, not often enough. I can't help but wonder if there is more potential in the idea as it seems more natural to me, it's almost like these resource systems are tagged on as an afterthought to help alleviate otherwise dull combat mechanics.

In many RTS games, yes. It seems they're just part of the genres "cultural heritage" or something. YOu can't have a RTS game without base-building and resource-gathering.
But in DoW I think it actually *works* The resource gathering actually combines with the combat mechanics, and forces you to utilize tactics, take risks, and play offensively.
The base management is still a bit tacky, I agree, but eh...

Quote:

Having said that I really have enjoyed DOW, don't get me wrong, it's a definite step in the right direction, but it would be nice to see some more leaps in the direction it was heading in :P What do you think?

Try it multiplayer... If you don't know anyone else who has it, I'm always up for a match... [lol]

No, seriously, the singleplayer campaign is horrible... Dull dull dull, and suffers from extreme resource management *and* micromanagement *and* too slow pacing.

Skirmish is ok, but the AI isn't exactly reliable. Sometimes it slaughters you in one big insane rush, other times it's barely capable of building a base.
Where the game really shines, and all the design elements come together, is in the multiplayer part.

I know it converted me. I used to pine for basically a straight port of the tabletop game. And sure, I'd still love to see that on my PC, but DoW is brilliant as well. Not as a poor copy of the tabletop game, but as a brilliant RTS in its own right. It's not a step in the direction of the tabletop game. It's a step in its own direction.

I haven't played many games that have required so much focus on tactics and still required you to act quickly. (Let's face it, being a brilliant tactician is a bit easy if you have infinite time. Doing it in the middle of a hectic battle where you're going to lose if you hesitate or judge the situation wrong, is a lot harder.

So, interesting discussion, but I think you get your arguments a bit mixed up.
I agree, picking your army before the match was good fun in the tabletop game. But that doesn't mean the actual matches become more fun because of it as well. Building your army on the fly, in response to your opponent's actions is damn good fun as well. When he's coming at you with dreadnoughts, you'd better start churning out anti-vehicle units... Which means you'd better have scouted enough to spot his dreads before they hit your base. And once you start tooling up to fight dreadnoughts, a clever opponent will spot this, and start building infantry instead. Something you can't effectively kill with your anti-vehicle weapons.

It does force both sides to be very very careful, because every lost unit lowers your chance of victory. On the other hand, waiting and biding your time, and camping, and hiding might be well rewarded.
In DoW, you can afford to take risks, because lost units can be replaced. And territorial control might be more important than your unit count. That's part of the deal with resource management. If you hold the right locations, you win. If you hold enough strategic points, you get more resources. And if you dominate the map, you can move about freely, which gives you more ways to attack. A few lost units in return for a critical location can be well worth it. It's a gamble, but doesn't that just add to the tactical possibilities?
So, is DoW neccesarily worse in this respect? Or better? Or just different?

Quote:

Original post by Mephs I just think winning on a tactical victory is much more interesting.

But you're the one failing to adapt to rushes. Doesn't that show you *failed* tactically? [wink]
If you expected the rush, you could probably beat it. And then you'd be in a stronger position than your enemy, who crippled his economy to rush you.
(Not that I'm in favor of games that allow/rely on rushing. I find it boring as hell, but just figured I'd play the devil's advocate... [grin])

Quote:

The attitude is not getting old, it's just me wanting a certain experience out of my game

Again, playing devil's advocate here. If you want a certain experience, and the game doesn't give it to you, does that mean there's something wrong with the game? Or just that you bought the wrong game?

Quote:

Sure designing a good rush tactic takes cunning and intellect, but it's about beating the program, it's about finding what the designer didn't expect would happen and it is artificial.

The system? Aren't you playing against another human? How is it artificial?
How is it a glitch or imbalance?

Quote:

My thinking is applied just as much to games againt AI as people, in fact I have yet to play a game of DOW online because I'm quite happy playing skirmishes or campaigns against the computer.

aaah, I thought so. Give it up and try a multiplayer match. It makes a huge difference...

Quote:

Perhaps you are upset that the idea might actually put people on an even footing?

Doesn't rushes do that? Everyone can rush, and everyone can counter a rush if they expect it. How is that not an even footing?
What you might say is that it's just not a fun tactic, that the game should try to encourage other strategies.
But you can't say rushing isn't "fair" or that it's "uneven", "artificial" or "glitchy". It isn't. It's just people playing in a way you hadn't anticipated, and/or didn't want to counter.

Quote:

Original post by Texas Brigade First, I think immediate rush tactics aren't good for anyone other than a few power users who don't care about a satisfying gameplay experience

You mean they don't have a satisfying gameplay experience? Then why do they play it?

Quote:

And people who rush don't have to have any intelligence or even cunning. They can look up how to rush on some website, and do the exact same thing every game. If someone kills their rush, they may have no idea how to proceed.

You could use the same argument for any tactic. "It doesn't need intelligence or cunning, but if you don't have those, you have no idea what to do if your tactic is countered by your opponent". Very true, but hardly specific for rushing.

Quote:

Rushing (like they do in games) isn't even close to being feasible in reality anyway.

But since when did we have to play "Reality"?
I thought we were discussing games?

Quote:

The way to fix this is by adding in more real factors that keep rushing down. But that's for another thread.

"Fix"? Fix what? The lack of realism? The ability to employ *one* specific strategy? Or the ability to defeat you?
You haven't stated what exactly the problem is. It's clear you dislike rushing, but you haven't so far explained why.

Yes, that is an interesting point, campaigns do require a certain amount of necessary resource management. I suppose an option is to make the game based around one-off battles, but there is something to be said for the ability to tell a larger story from a series of battles.

I guess my whole point is that I liked the tabletop games because the focus of any given game was 100% on the fighting. I don't care about how much gold the army has, or how much energy it is able to gain control of. Reinforcements should come from other troops in the vicinity, it's not like people give birth 20 seconds after sex, or you can build a mech in 50 seconds.

Granted, reality shouldn't be too big a focus as these games are based on fantasy, but I want the game to be as fun as possible... fighting is fun, resource management is like book-keeping... it's filler material for the time between fights (IMO).

Sure, there is tactical value of controlling resources.... but I want my tactical value to come from deciding whether to take the heavily defended high ground or the undefended low ground. Whether I should send in a melee only force or supply it with some ranged backup. I want to be able to infiltrate my scouts and be able to take the time to get them safely past the enemy so that they can sabotage them from behind the lines. Sure I can do all this anyway in a game with resources, but I can't dedicate the time I would like, the time I could when playing 40k. I just think it would be nice to shift the focus a little.

It's a personal choice, some want the micromanagement and see it as a benefit, but I think that the fighting aspect would have just as big, if not a bigger audience than those who do like to micromanage, which I suspect is purely the hardcore gamer element of the market.

Removing the resources does not have to alienate those players though because their micromanagement skills could simply go towards making them more effective fighters in a resourceless system. I think it's win-win really.

Cheers,

Steve

eek, spoonbender, far far too much for me to reply to there! Some itneresting stuff but I can certainly say I wouldn't begin to have the time left to defend all those points. trust me though when I say *your opinion is wrong*! (joking :P)

Ahem.. no sorry, just kidding. Basically yes, I want to play the tabletop game on my computer, why is that bad? The tabletop game was only full of micromanagement because you did everything manually.

DOW is not perfect IMO not because of any individual thing you have to micromanage, but because the combined total leaves you unable to ever optimally control your force. In 40k you always knew 100% (bar the very occasional forgetfulness!) that you would always have time to make sure everything was used as effectively as possible. Why should troops not get to use abilities simply because you are too busy collecting energy to use them at every refresh? If I were a Space Marine Librarian, I certainly wouldn't forget to use my psychic powers :P

Anyways, sorry I couldn't reply to everything there (in fact barely anything at all). Lets just agree to disagree, I'm making this my next project after my current one anyhoo (though not basing it on 40k). I figure it will be an easier project if I concentrate purely on combat, which is another aspect that makes the idea appealing to me. Focus is good for design and for actually completing said design :P

Again, I do enjoy DOW, it's kept me quite entertained, I just think I would do things differently.

Just to answer a couple of last things to do some justice to your posts.... yes I have experienced long games, see-sawing of balance, short rush games and games where defeat was inevitable but took a long time coming.

Making set sized armies makes games more predictable in length because forces are predefined. If you play with set forces of 20 troops eachm you can be sure the game will likely go on for a short period of time. Give each player 40 troops with 10 waves of reinforcements, and you can be sure it will go on for a fair bit longer. The player cannot extend the game to any great degree by rebuilding his forces. The only limiting factor is in how much they defend or give the opponent the runaround.

Cheers,

Steve