Whist considering my current project (an RTS) I came up with a variation of RPS(Rock Paper Scissors for in un-initiated :P) that may have been done before (but I haven't seen in) I would really like some feedback on how you would think it would work and suggestions for improvments. Basically, there are 5 main unit types: Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry x3, and Tanks. Light infantry would be faster than other units whereas tanks are very slow, but very powerful. The heavy infantry would form a sort of RPS circle. The three types of heavy infantry would be: long range, medium range and short range. If they are used averagely by the player, short range can beat long range, with their greater speed and strength, long range would beat medium range as they can shoot them from further off whilst dealing similar damage and medium range beats short range as they can go just as fast so can keep out of the short range unit's range. However, if the player uses their unit effectively in the right place, they can be "unbeatable". Ie. in a dense area such as a city, short range would have the edge, a desert would give long range the edge and a normal map would be suited for mid range. Likewise, the wrong location can render a unit virtually useless (long range in city). There is also one other advantage the mid range unit has, as they do appear to be tacked on at this stage, but it is difficult to explain without explaining the whole concept of the game :P I believe that that will create a more in depth strategy than just RPS. Now let me explain how scouts and tanks fit in. Firstly, because of the speed advantage that scouts have, they can secure key locations quickly and respond to threats easily. This can be quite key. Also, as they get in to locations early, they can "fortify" their position, making it slightly more balanced and would be able to hold off till heavy infantry arrive, and with the benefit of knowing what the opponent has, can send the correct troops. Tanks on the other hand, because they would be so difficult to position on the fly, would be used mainly for defence, balancing their power. Finally, and sorry about the length, I was going to make this multi-tiered. Ie., the player can research new tech's giving access to new troops that would, although still fitting in to this basic pattern, be stronger and could potentially beat something on the lower tier, even if it isn't suited to it. Impressions? Thoughts? Suggestions? Thanks,

Personally I think you should forget about RPS entirely for now and think in terms of unit roles. To some extent I think you already are, but you maybe you just haven't quite realized it yet.

Basically, every unit should have some kind of distinctive purpose, and without too much overlap so as to avoid obsolescence. A tier 1 unit should still serve some kind of useful function even late game.
Thinking in terms of roles gives you an enormous amount of scope for creativity and diversity. With a RPS system, every faction needs a rock, paper, and scissors unit. With a role based system, there's no such limit: all factions do not necessarily have to follow the same pattern. Some factions might have unique units that fill roles that no other race has. This gives each faction a distinct flavour and different strategies to play with and against them.

Also, be cautious about balancing units for defense. Strong defensive units can tilt the game balance in favour of turtling gameplay which can get boring very quickly. Ideally the game balance should promote active, aggressive gameplay for the most enjoyable game.

Quote:

the player can research new tech's giving access to new troops that would, although still fitting in to this basic pattern, be stronger and could potentially beat something on the lower tier, even if it isn't suited to it.

I have never been fond of tech tree tiers where the top tier is unbeatable by lower tiers.

One solution I have though of is to use "Specialisations". That is Higher Tier units are more specialised than lower tier units, but are equally powerful. This creates a trade off of Flexability vs Specialisation.

For example:
Imagine you have a Tank Killer unit. In tier 1 this unit is fairly good against tanks, but it is not too bad against other unit types (it would be able to give its killer unit a run but will ultimately loose). In the highest tier units, the New Tank Killer is really good against tanks, but against other units it is not very good at all (and against it's Killer unit it would fair really poorly).

It might sound like the lower tier units are more powerful, but the Tank Kilelrs, if faced with the same number of tanks, the High teir Tank Killer would come out on top (as they are very good at killing tanks).

A mixed force of Top tier units would perform better than the lower tier units against an equally mixed force, but an unmixed high tier force would perform worse than a lower unmixed force agaisnt the same group of enemies.

So if your situation is uncertain (like near the start of the game when you don't know what your opponent is going to throw at you), then having a flexable force is good, but as you know more about your opponent's unit make up, more specialised units would far better. However, if your oppoent can throw you a "curveball" (say a suprise attack) then having flexability would help you and give you the edge that you need to have a chance at surviving.

Each tier then becomes a question of what degree of specialisation you desire, rathern than just upgrading because it give you more powerful units.

Quote:

Basically, there are 5 main unit types: Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry x3, and Tanks.

There are two 5 SPS setting that I like:
Using Units A, B, C, D and E

1) In this each unit beats two other unit types and is beaten by two other unit types. I call this the Symetrical system.

A -> B and C
B -> C and D
C -> D and E
D -> E and A
E -> A and B


2) In this system there is the B -> C -> D -> B SPR cycle but then as A beats all of them, E only berats A and the BCD cycle beat E, there is a second SPR cycle. I call this the Asymetric system.

A -> B, C and D
B -> C and E
C -> D and E
D -> B and E
E -> A

It sounds like your system is similar to the asymetric system.

Quote:

However, if the player uses their unit effectively in the right place, they can be "unbeatable".

I think this is important. Having environmental situations the can change the ballance between units make for a more interesting game. For example, in Dawn of War you have "Cover" and "Negative Cover" which can make a unit harder to damage, or easier to damage but slows them down. So a weak unit in Cover and a strong enemy unit in negative cover can be defeated (but this does not effect hand to hand combat so your melee uniits can therefore bypass this effect).

I would also recomend haivng these effects emerge through the game rules rather than have it as part of a preset algorithm (like if cavalry are on open plains they have +10 damage). But if you made it part of the rules like:

Cavalry do more damage the faster they travel, but it takes time for them to build up speed.

Then on open plains, cavalry can use the environment to pick up speed and do that extra damage. However, if they were in a forest, then they would have to keep slowing down to turn and so thery would not be able to pick up speed and do the extra damage.

But, is a clever player found alocation where the cavalry could get an open run in a forest, then they could use that to allow their cavalry to spring a suprise ambush on an enemy. By having it as emergent from the rules, it give the players much more scope for creative tactics and strategies.

Quote:

Now let me explain

Actually it would help with a simple diagram (using the type of notation I used above).

So far I can understand the:
Heavy Infantry (Long Range) -> Heavy Infantry (Medium Range)
Heavy Infantry (Medium Range) -> Heavy Infantry (Short Range)
Heavy Infantry (Short Range) -> Heavy Infantry (Long range)

And the:
Scout -> Heavy Infantry (Short Range) + Heavy Infantry (Medium Range) + Heavy Infantry (Long Range)

But does the Heavy Infantry beat the tanks or does the scout beat the tanks? Or are tanks just like Turret buildings (that you can move)?

So, essentially, how do the Tanks fit into the RPS system?

What about economics, that could be another factor to consider. Just economics alone could be a unit's purpose or role, as it is so with wars.

An example of this could be the Conscript or even the Mercenary - now I don't know what time period or genre you are going to do this with, but they could pose different roles, numerically, economically, qualitatively. Especially quality. Sometimes things aren't perfectly balanced, sometimes there requires more of something to beat back another thing.

Your list could probably look something like this (just sketching):

-----CHEAP-----
Untrained (Conscripts)
Unconventional (Mercenaries like Blackwater, etc, unpredictable if left to their own devices)
Trained in [Medium Range] (rifle-toting Soldier)
Trained in [Close Range] (Flamethrowers, Shotguns, Carbines)
Trained in [Long Range] (Snipers, Rockets)
Trained in [Environment] (Marines, Mountaineers, Guerrilla)
Trained in [Engineering] (sets up the battlefield, explosives)
Trained in [Healing] (Field Medics, stops the lethality of lethal wounds)
Elites (Special Forces, Commandos, etc)
Armour (your tank unit)
-----EXPENSIVE-----

Now a select few would still have X beats Y roles, its just now there can be a bit more numerical balance, where the lower tier troops can indeed beat the higher ones if enough (except in certain cases such as the tank) with near equal costs (a Village of Conscripts vs a Squad of Soldiers). So your lowest tier does serve some purpose. Napoleonic era battles have shown that if you pair the masses of lesser trained with even a few of the trained or expertly trained, the results are quite effective - but then again that was in the Napoleonic era.

And to make it more faction-flavored (if you are doing factions), you could have like one faction having more resources in a military field than another. Such as a low-tech faction that has a lot of population can go Numerical. Or a native faction of a land can have extremely cheap Environmentally Trained. Or one that is afraid of casualties but has lots of technology, they would have tanks and higher-trained units, but be numerically limited.

EDIT: I tend to break down the attributes of what is required in warfare (such as Cost, Movement, Power, Range), and with each combination of each attribute together in various ways, that would be a role, rather than go paper-rock-scissors.

Quote:

Original post by Sandman Also, be cautious about balancing units for defense. Strong defensive units can tilt the game balance in favour of turtling gameplay which can get boring very quickly. Ideally the game balance should promote active, aggressive gameplay for the most enjoyable game.

I have to disagree with the idea that the game should require 'aggressive' gameplay to be enjoyable.

Ideally defense and offense should be balanced in their usability. Yes, you need to be ACTIVE for things to be fun, engaged with how things are going, but this doesn't require them to be aggressive with their troops always on the move.


The way most RTS games work, a unit sitting somewhere isn't effective. I view this as a flaw.

In my mind, the ideal game would allow superior use of units to trump superior numbers, without being a massive click fest that requires me to remember a bind for every single key on my keyboard. If I can lure a large number of the opponent's soldiers into a prepared killing ground, I should be able kill them with far fewer men/resources spent.

However, careful balance must be used. It is a fine line between an effective defensive line to force an opponent to rethink their attacks, and an out right turtle fest where everyone sits in their base and does nothing for half an hour.

Thanks for the replies!

The game is set in the near future (yet sort of a repeat of the Cold War in the future). It will feature 2 faction, however, they will be very similar (if not the same, but with different skins) because as technology advances, optimum routes become apparent and everyone does the same. The way I was going to introduce variation was: each side (USSR or Capitalism) control a number of sub countries. Each of these sub-countries will have a speciality suited to their environment. For example, the Vietnamese would be suited to warfare in the jungle, allowing them to hide and deal damage to units without suffering damage to themselves for sometime. This is incidentally the advantage of the mid range units, they "level up" quicker than other units in foreign terrain.

@Sandman and Edtharan
I agree in principal, however, surely going up the tech tree is pointless if even when you reach the end, units are still beatable. Yes, units shouldn't suddenly become invincible, and as I said, they would still be weaker to some units. Ie. a lvl 2 long range would still have a hard time fighting a close range unit. Furthermore, the idea of them becoming more focused is an interesting one and I will certainly be considering it.

I also see your point about over powering defence. Hopefully, it won't become an issue because, as this is cold war-esque. Nuclear missiles and air strikes etc. can force people out of their shell. Also, as I discussed in another post(http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=491741), players will have to go in to no-man's land to claim oil to fuel their empire.

Also, I think I have incorporated the emergent feature in that, the short range isn't 25% stronger than long range, it is just that they are fast and their attack is very powerful meaning they can get to the long range unit and use their weapons before being killed.

Thanks for the replies

Quote:

Original post by Talroth The way most RTS games work, a unit sitting somewhere isn't effective. I view this as a flaw.

There are some cases where I would agree that it could, and should, be desirable to leave units standing around. But in overall, the game will probably need to tilt the balance in favour of the offense.

First of all, all other things being equal, the standard RTS model favours defense. Suppose you and I are roughly equal players who can pump out the same number of units in a given time. If I play aggressively, and gather a small bunch of X units together and storm them into your base, then they will have to fight X+Y+Z units when they get there: where Y is the number of units you can pump out while my units are crossing the map, and Z is the number of units you can pump out while the fight goes on. Given the importance of numerical superiority, particularly in the early game where there are relatively few other factors in play, I will almost certainly lose more units than you, and will thus be outnumbered when you launch your counterattack. To make things worse, I will have probably devoted more of my attention to launching my attack whereas you will have had plenty of free time to attend to your economy and tech level.

The net result is that unless you carefully balance to favour aggression, turtling can be come a dominant strategy. It's easy and it's dull, doubly so if all players are doing it at the same time.

Quote:

In my mind, the ideal game would allow superior use of units to trump superior numbers, without being a massive click fest that requires me to remember a bind for every single key on my keyboard. If I can lure a large number of the opponent's soldiers into a prepared killing ground, I should be able kill them with far fewer men/resources spent.

I personally think that increasing the range and significance of environmental factors is key here.

Quote:

First of all, all other things being equal, the standard RTS model favours defense.

The thing is all things arn't equal. In most RTS games, you have to leave your base to get the resource to build units. So this means that Turteling is only effective against a rush, as an expansion player will get all the resources and then be able to overwhealm their oppoent.

I'm no designer, I'm just going to share something I did once when trying to balance a few classes.



The colored triangles are abilities, each ability has a triangle tip pointing to it, the other two tips of the same triangle point, in the clockwise direction to an ability that's weaker, in the counter clockwise direction to an ability that is stronger. Blue ability is strong against Yellow ability. Blue ability is also strong against Red ability but only half as much. Blue is weak against Purple, and only half as weak against Orange. Blue is neutral against Green. Your basic rock-paper-scissors scenario.

Blue>Red>Yellow>Green>Purple>Orange>Blue

Now I create classes on that circle according to their abilities. For instance, lets say Yellow is magic, a class close to Yellow would have better magic abilities then others. Let's say Blue is Agility, a class close to Blue would have better agility then others, and it would be strong against magic.

Now to get an idea if the classes are balanced, I'd imagine the classes having weight, and I'd try to balance that circle on the tip of a pencil. The circle I showed would probably tip towards Yellow because it has few classes with ability Orange, so ability Red would in theory be a bit overpowered, and so would be all the classes good at that ability, since there are few classes with Orange abilities to keep them in check.

This is pretty in theory, but in practice doesn't work 100% at all, I just used it as a guideline. It depends a lot on the correctness of the placement of the classes on the circle, and with lots of abilities, spells, terrains and items it becomes complicated.

Hope it's somewhat helpful though. =)

@xor

Just to check, it is like a colour wheel where each colour represents a skill. Closer to the middle is an average in all areas unit and units on the edge are more specific. If that is correct, that is very interesting and works well with the previously suggested units getting more specific.