Space Game Idea Just think of the advantages and disadvantages of things and give ideas if you want -R.t.s. Game -3D map (like real life) -allied and owned troops can be moved along a planet quickly as long as transportation is built. if not then it takes more time -planets have fog of war and have to be navigated or have a spy sent down before u can see the layout of the planet -planets are divided into squares, cities are built in these squares and there can be a certain amount of buildings depending on the size of the city -can customize and build ground vehicles and space ships -as a city grows it generates more money, the cities production speeds up, and it can hold more buildings -can zoom in and watch battles being fought on planets -have rotating and revolving planets -can create custom ships and vehicles -can have units on allied planets -there is a max city size -bigger a city the more health it has -can build defensive buildings in cities to attack enemy ships -city buildings dont get destroyed until a city is destroyed -ships are a lot of money compared to troops -landing troops and vehicles on a planet is cheaper than destroying a city or taking a planet with ships [Edited by - G-Dizzle on March 1, 2009 12:13:51 AM]

Quote:

-R.t.s. Game

Advantage: attracts RTS players
Disadvantage: does not interest non-RTS players

Quote:

-3D map (like real life)

That would be neat. A 3D space RTS would require players to completely rethink engagements. Neat walls of defensive turrets don't do it anymore - now you need a SPHERICAL SHELL of defensive turrets, and that gets expensive fast. Best be defending something important. But... I digress. If you can make the interface in some way understandable/usable, and implement it so that spacecraft can maneuver just as easily up and down (or abandon up and down!) as easily as they can left, right, forward, and back, then it should be great and tactically very interesting. Makes me think of Ender's Game. Programming the pathing AI should be super simple, too.

Quote:

-allied and owned troops can be moved along a planet quickly as long as transportation is built. if not then it takes more time

This is a somewhat realistic way to implement a defender-advantage when one player attacks a planet held by another. It's also a good way to introduce an element of managing supply lines when two factions are fighting on the same planet.

Quote:

-planets have fog of war and have to be navigated or have a spy sent down before u can see the layout of the planet

I don't know how much sense this makes. If you have the technology to fly around a planet, you have the technology to look down at the planet, barring weird exceptions (e.g., underground cities).

-planets are divided into squares, cities are built in these squares and there can be a certain amount of buildings depending on the size of the city

So you would have to claim/define some tract of land as a 'city,' or you would just start building?

Quote:

-can customize and build ground vehicles and space ships

I'm not a big defender of customization of units in typical RTS games. First, it'd add a whole extra dimension (in a bad way) in terms of trying to achieve unit balance. Second, I don't want to be putzing around customizing a tank in the middle of an RTS when someone else might come knocking on my door with heavy planetary bombardment at any moment.

Quote:

-as a city grows it generates more money, the cities production speeds up, and it can hold more buildings

Be careful here. I think exponential resource growth is very dangerous because it turns very small resource differences early on into game-deciding resource differences later.

Quote:

-can zoom in and watch battles being fought on planets

Sounds good.

Quote:

-have rotating and revolving planets

I like it. I think it would be tactically and strategically interesting for celestial bodies to be moving relative to each other. Maybe you want to wait half an hour until Alpha Centauri II and Alpha Centauri III are lined up, so that you can strike with less warning. Rotation is slightly less interesting, but it could make the difference between arriving at a planet and bombarding it, versus arriving at a planet and having to take a few seconds to fly to the other side before bombarding it.

Quote:

-can create custom ships and vehicles

Again, not a big fan.

Quote:

-can have units on allied planets

Sure.

Quote:

-landing troops and vehicles on a planet is cheaper than destroying a city or taking a planet with ships

This makes little sense to me in terms of realism. Orbital bombardment is a lot safer and easier than trying to invade and occupy a planet. Occupation of the planet, however, has the bonus of being able to use any remaining resources and buildings left after the invasion. If your aim is to promote ground combat, then you could make landing cheaper, or you could just make it much more rewarding.

ideas are welcome

-can pause game
-can mine different materials that give different benefits, they are stockpiled in cities until they run out,
the materials can be moved from city to city by ground once dropped off at a city as well
-you have to research a material before you gain a benefit from it
- it costs material and time to research a material, there are fields in which u study each material say economy or military (thats all i can come up with) and it will unlock a new benefit either making cities more productive, happier or more money or helping troop health or ship health
-once a material is gone for a while a city forgets it and it must be researched again?
-can rob enemy tradeships
-tradeships transport materials from planet to planet
-can reasearch faster but it costs more money and material
-every actions u do or say when neotiating with a civilization leader is remembered by that leader and makes them act differently towards you
-you decide trade cost of materials
-money has to be spent on a city to keep it running, the bigger the more money but you choose the amount it will just rebel if it gets bad enough, different materials help happiness when researched
-the less an civilization knows about a material the more they will pay to trade with you for it

I'm not seeing the big picture that you have in your head, but what you describe here is more a sim city on steroids than a RTS, IMHO.
Too much focus on city development (and I'm not saying that's a bad thing) and less on strategy elements.

Quote:

Original post by mystb I'm not seeing the big picture that you have in your head, but what you describe here is more a sim city on steroids than a RTS, IMHO. Too much focus on city development (and I'm not saying that's a bad thing) and less on strategy elements.

I agree. Your apparent emphasis on a wide variety of resource type, unit customization, and city-building makes it sound more like a 4X game than a true RTS.