I made a thread in the past about RPG's, here's one for RTS games. We'll probably stick with RTS first instead of RPG. So while the programmers are learning and creating little arcade games to get themselves started, I'll be writing for an RTS. What would you guys like to see the most in an RTS? Innovation? Action? Actual Strategy? Other? Discuss.

A DWIM* point and click interface. (*Do what I meant)

Human error:
It would've been cool, in Warcarft 2, to see a peon accidently hit another peon with an axe while chopping down a tree.
It did happen when an archer would shoot a character closer to the action.

Voice overs that add to the game:
I like the way in 'Z' where the voice over would turn against you, when you screwed things up. The voice over in Dungeon Keeper also added a lot to the game.

The most important thing in a real-time strategy game is strategy because it defines the genre.

The most strategy I've seen in a strategy game is in the Total War series, mainly because the building/recruitment aspect of the game is completely separate from the battles. You don't really have to worry about "rushing" or "turtling".

The key to good strategy is recruiting units in battalions, instead of one at a time. It makes it easier to coordinate attacks. I'm also a big fan of a rock-paper-scissors element; it makes the player feel like they're making advantageous choices and sacrifices.

I would like to see lot of variety of units and buildings.
When i first started playing "Age of Empires " I was more intersted to see all kinds of units , buildings and technology.
But,mind you, when i say ,lot of variety of units ,there should be certain limit. Too many units,resources to collect and buildings to build will make the game complex for the player.

Age of kings ,i feel, had a right number of units and tech,with each civilization having its own unique tech ,unit and buildings.

I feel variety is the one of the key factors if you want the players to play your game without getting bored soon.

Random maps also adds Variety to the game.

I don't want to have to constantly be micro-managing everything in order to ensure victory. It gets tiring playing a game where you constantly need your attention on three different parts of the field (a.la. StarCraft). Here's some suggestions:


1) When I build a resource gathering unit, I should be able to set a flag that instructs that unit to immediately seek out resources without having me to explicitly tell it to do so.


2) I want a side-bar interface like Command & Conquer, or some other interface where I can go to my construction/research menu without having to find the structure in question on the map. C&C 3: Tiberium Wars seems to do this pretty well (you have separate unit build queues for each of your barracks, war factory, etc.).


3) Allow the player to set "triggers" so that they can automate some of the more tedious tasks and can instead focus their attention where it is most needed. For example, specify that 20 resource units should be harvesting from resource location A. If any of those 20 resources get killed, they should automatically be replaced with existing units, or new units that are built.

Quote:

Original post by Roots 3) Allow the player to set "triggers" so that they can automate some of the more tedious tasks and can instead focus their attention where it is most needed. For example, specify that 20 resource units should be harvesting from resource location A. If any of those 20 resources get killed, they should automatically be replaced with existing units, or new units that are built.

Thats an interesting idea, and rather easy to implement.

It really depends on whether you are aiming for the players who seek nothing but hardcore strategy, or realistic and varied environment and interaction.

I agree that the voiceover adds a lot, and I would add that while I loved warcraft 2 I was not very fond of starcraft because warcraft 2 was bright and humorous whereas starcraft was dark and serious. Dungeon Keeper was an awesome concept because it was funny. And yeah variety, not just any variety but the point of the variety should be to allow the player to play with different styles, and the styles should be balanced against each other. For example my favorite style is to build a fortified base that will defend itself more or less automatically (but I will alert me when it gets attacked) then build a fast, preferably flying and healing/able strike unit and micromanage that to take out enemies with no casualties to my side.

What would be really awesome is an RTS which was not about war or killing enemies, but I'm not sure what it _would_ be about then. You wouldn't want it to be just another Lemmings or Sims or SimCity...

not having the end all strategy of "unit spam"

Quote:

not having the end all strategy of "unit spam"

Along this idea, I would like to see units that would be useful in asymmetrical warfare. Units that would be good at taking out large numbers of enemy units, but is bad in a 1 on 1 (or relatively equal) situation. This way if someone does use a "Unit Spam" strategy, you have a counter to that strategy.

I don't think Unit Spam needs eliminating, but I do think that an effective Counter to that strategy needs to be included.

Also in Dawn of War: Dark Crusade (DoW:DC), the campaign structure used a turn based system where the player had to conquer each territory on the map, but could do so at their own discretion. This gave the player more control over the campaign and the story. The linear plot lines of current campaigns does not give the player a feeling like they are actually "in" the role of a commander in a war.