Need some feedback for a game I will be announcing in Help Wanted sometime in the coming months. Here's the lowdown on the gameplay: Main premise: The game places the player in command of an army of robotic warriors, including a commander unit which the player can control in third person shooter view. The player can switch between third-person and real-time strategy view modes at any time. The player battles an enemy with a similar robotic army for control over space docks on the map that allow squads to be acquired, upgraded and reinforced. Game Info

• Simple 3D indie game, single-player only for the moment.
• Game consists of 12 matches, player versus computer. Winner of each match decided by highest score.
• Game merges real-time strategy and third person shooter genres. Before each match, player chooses units. During the match, player can switch between RTS mode (issuing orders to squads) and third person mode (controlling the commander unit).

Matches

• A match consists of four 7-minute rounds, plus 30 seconds for planning and preparation before each round.
• Before each round, player is given a specific amount of money to buy (or "research") unit types. After the round starts, unit types cannot be added or removed until the next round.
• Once the round starts, the player can then purchase units that have been researched. Researched unit types come with one unit already.
• When a unit is killed, the cost of that unit is added to the opposing team's score.
• Commander units (including the player character) have permanent 3X score multipliers.

Squads

• The player can have up to six squads, with up to three unit types in each squad. Each unit type can have up to five units.
• Each unit type has one upgrade that the player can purchase that greatly increases the units' effectiveness.
• A single vehicle takes up an entire squad. No research cost for vehicles, just a construction cost.
• The player character itself acts as a seventh squad of sorts. If the player dies, he can be respawned within a few seconds if he can afford to rebuild himself. Otherwise, the player has to remain in the RTS view until he has enough money to buy another commander unit.

Docks

• In addition to the money earned at the beginning of each round, revenue is created steadily during the round by captured docks.
• Docks are placed throughout the map, and each team starts with one dock at the start of the match.
• Docks also allow the player to add units to squads and restore unit types and vehicles. These operations occur instantly if the player can afford it. If not, the operation is queued.
• Only commander units can capture docks. They do so by remaining near the dock for a certain amount of time.
• Each map has a "central" dock that produces revenue twice as fast as normal docks. Just to spice things up.
• Docks can be upgraded with defensive turrets.

I do have a design document with more details, including unit specs and prices, level specs, a backstory, and more. But the core gameplay is all here. So what do you think? Any glaring issues with the gameplay?

What are the benefits of changing to TPS mode to control the commander unit at the cost of losing control over all the other units?

Quote:

Original post by someboddy What are the benefits of changing to TPS mode to control the commander unit at the cost of losing control over all the other units?

Along the same lines, how well is the average player able to juggle the demands of third person combat with the demands of tactical management? Is the player going to end up hiding behind a rock every time he needs to issue orders/check on the rest of the battle field?

Sounds fine, and quite similar to Sacrifice. You may want to elaborate on the commanders play aspects though, it can be tricky to properly implement two different visual modes.

Quote:

Original post by someboddy What are the benefits of changing to TPS mode to control the commander unit at the cost of losing control over all the other units?

Thanks for this point, I should have provided these details. First, certain units have the ability to become invisible, and the commander unit is one of only two units able to detect these. Second, the commander unit is pretty powerful and can do a lot of damage, making it worthwhile to play in third person mode. If that's not enough, there's also the 3X score multiplier. [smile]

Quote:

Original post by swiftcoder Along the same lines, how well is the average player able to juggle the demands of third person combat with the demands of tactical management? Is the player going to end up hiding behind a rock every time he needs to issue orders/check on the rest of the battle field?

In third person view, the player can issue simple commands ("attack" and "move") pretty intuitively, so the player shouldn't need to constantly switch back and forth. To help with this, the maps are small, so there will usually be only one battle going on, maybe two maximum. Also, the squad AI will take more initiative than in your average strategy game. Nothing fancy, but they won't stand around if you don't give them orders.

You're right though, if the player is going to spend any time at all with the strategy interface, the commander unit will be vulnerable. I think one of the best ways to minimize this problem would be to keep the battle centered around the commander unit somehow, so the player doesn't have to switch gears a lot.

I'm still considering making the third person view similar to the RTS view, i.e. top-down, and merging the two. I hesitate because it would force the game to be more 2D, and it might make it difficult to aim. But maybe it's worth it. Thoughts?

Quote:

Original post by evanofsky I'm still considering making the third person view similar to the RTS view, i.e. top-down, and merging the two. I hesitate because it would force the game to be more 2D, and it might make it difficult to aim. But maybe it's worth it. Thoughts?

I have a marked preference for a full third-person experience, but it may make the strategy element difficult to operate. If you have the resources, voice command (ala Clancy's End War) would be the perfect solution, but lacking that it would have to be a very streamlined, keyboard-centric interface.

A solely third person view and a voice-based interface would be amazing, but unfortunately, speech recognition is definitely beyond the scope of this project.

At the moment, the third person mode works like this: the player holds down the number keys associated with the desired squads, then aims at the location or unit in question, and left- or right-clicks, for "attack" or move", respectively.

One option might be to give the player a set of qualitative commands. The player could maneuver the squads into position with the mechanic described above, then using a similar key-based system, give a command like "advance", or "take cover". Any special actions that the squads could perform would also be mapped to keys.

I have a neat idea for you. Make the map mode a mode that allows you to give general orders to your forces(attack this location, defend that facility, set ambush at this position etc.) while that squad AI you talked about take cares of the actual combat. So far that's what you have planned, right? Anyways, in the TPS mode the player will not have control over the entire army - it will be more like a squad based shooter. The player will control the commander unit, and will be able to give orders to specific units he selected in the map mode. That way you will be able to use a squad command system, because you only have small amount of units you actually command at this mode.

Quote:

Original post by someboddy I have a neat idea for you. Make the map mode a mode that allows you to give general orders to your forces(attack this location, defend that facility, set ambush at this position etc.) while that squad AI you talked about take cares of the actual combat. So far that's what you have planned, right? Anyways, in the TPS mode the player will not have control over the entire army - it will be more like a squad based shooter. The player will control the commander unit, and will be able to give orders to specific units he selected in the map mode. That way you will be able to use a squad command system, because you only have small amount of units you actually command at this mode.

Right. The whole point is that you only have up to six squads to command (probably less, but it's up to the player).

What do you guys think of the qualitative command idea? Do you think it's possible to effectively command with generic orders like "advance", rather than orders like "advance to unit X"?

I like the idea of adapting EndWar. One of the things people seem to forget - it wasn't just the voice commands that made it work on the console. Even without them, it was still easy to control. The system you described sounds equally effective - the numpad to select the units, pointing with the mouse left click to move, right click to attack and some keyboard buttons for alternate functions.

I also agree with the person who said that making both an RTS and a TPS could be ambitious. Really try to get everything streamlined in to the TPS element. Context sensitivity and small battles are the key - that's what made EndWar work.