Im doing a 2D rts in the style of Dune 2, total annihilation and to some degree rise of nations. Big maps with planty of bases and economy based on supplylines to your HQ(one of your bases). Worked some more on my 3 factions. Plz comment! IMPERIUM---------------------------------------------- influenses: soviet union, ancient rome Bulky, strong vehicles. Straightforward. Authority and discipline. power: coal. Later nuclear superweapon: nuke of course WATCHERS---------------------------------------------- influenses: starcraft protoss, modern USA Good airforces. Religion. Advanced technology. power: solar. Later fusion. superweapon: controlled earthshake REBELS------------------------------------------------ influenses: starwars rebels, ww2 partisan/guerilla, muhejadin good infantry. Fast, light vehicles. Hit and run, stealth. Traps power: wind. Later nuclear. superweapon: uprising (hordes of infantry reinforcement) NON-PLAYABLE FACTIONS--------------------------------- Independant cities (you can trade or plunder these) Raiders (will try to plunder you and your supplylines) Traders (can yield you income if tended to) Mercenaries (you can buy these obviously) So this can work? Any suggesions? Thanks for your input Erik

Didn't you post about your factions in this other thread? You needn't have made a new thread since the old one was about the same topic.

I'm not quite sure how balanced your tripartition is. For one, amassing infantry using your super weapon is pretty useless if they could all be wiped out at once with an enemy nuke (at least in terms of realism this is possible). And if the super weapons are unbalanced it's an indicator that the rest of it is a bit unbalanced too.

You have some interesting mixes of influences (not sure how you're going to mix the Soviets and Ancient Rome!), but their significant differences seem to lie in their technological level and the units they use. IMO this isn't particularly original or balanced, since it encourages players to follow stereotypes of play, like tank rushing, zerg rushing or turtling/teching. The RTSes I find most interesting are the ones where I have to plan how to play (rather than falling into a preset routine) because each of the factions are diverse in their capabilities but have distinct approaches to gaining advantages over one another. Starcraft is an excellent example of this (yes, zerg rushing originated in Starcraft but the Zerg are capable of many other strategies).

My question is: why three factions? Many RTSes use different amounts - just look at the original Command & Conquers, the Warcrafts and Dawn of War. You don't have to restrict yourself to that number. Typically 3 implies that there is a rock-paper-scissors element at play, which perhaps you aren't aiming for.

Well 3 is simply a nice and realistic number of teams.

Yes i agree that if there's always simply one way of doing it the game will not be very fun, its my ambition to not make it like that:)

Well a nuke can supposedly also wipe out tanks or jeeps dont you think? So why would the infantry superweapon be more exposed to this? Its also not likely a nuke-player keeps his nuke just to counter a possible infantry burst. Also if the burst is close to your own base (or inside it), keep your hand of that button:) Superweapons are a very rough idea, it was mostly for flavour.

Ancient rome in style/lore/attitude of the faction, not in military units. It would be fun to see some cohorts of hastati being blown up by stealth bombers though... Modern influenses of good ol' Rome manifest for example in warhammer 40K (i think they are called imperial guard).

The rebels seem less technological, but of course they will have their own kind of tech that they can develop for bonuses. All factions will have weaknesses and strenghts.

For example the watchers have the only armed scoutplane (the others will be armless) so they are first with air attacks, but they CAN still be shoot down by some units (all factions have air later on although the watchers will be cheaper/stronger/more specialized). Instead, watchers will have no heavy tanks.

I remember dune 2, a game i immencely liked back in those days, although i can see how flawed and imbalanced it is now (did anyone EVER use light infantry or trikes?). In contrary, Im definitely gonna give each faction unique units, although all will (for example) have some "combat tank", "basic infantry", "rocket launcher/artillery" and so on. The stats will be flavored by each factions style.

They did it really good in starcraft, having no unit really become obsolete. In the right hands, marines or zealots could be used in endgame. In many games, its just a matter of working up the techchain, and once you reach the top, you just build the "best" unit an masse, and they will do just fine. Thats surely sucks. One great idea ive seen (for example in age of empires 3) is to have some late-game tech boost an early unit so that it can make a suprise comeback.

I will be sure not to make a unit that is good vs "everything". I think its also important to make it smooth to use cheap units in large numbers, so the players do not only use few, more expensive units only for reasons of control/less frustration. Building cues and simple selection and orders ftw.

Your remarks made a lot of sense. Made me clerify some stuff:)
E

Quote:

Original post by: suliman In many games, its just a matter of working up the techchain, and once you reach the top, you just build the "best" unit an masse, and they will do just fine. Thats surely sucks.

The idea of Super weapons is in direct opposition to this. If you ahve a super weapon then it needs to be "Super", which implies that it is good against all other options.

If you ahve super weapons, then why would I want other units? If the other units are better or as good as the Super weapons, then the super weapon is not a super weapon (it is just a weapon). However, if it is better than the units, then why, once I have the tech for the SW, would I build units? I would just mass produce the SW and win.

Also it is not just units you have to balance, it is also strategies. Bravepower talked about having to think about what they are doing each time and not falling into a set routine.

If you ahve a set routine, then you have a dominant strategy as the strategy of that particular build/research path beats the others.

For example, in Red Alert (2 IIRC) there was a problem with tank rushing, where if you played a certain faction and just built tanks and rushed them into the enemy base, you would win (if they didn't do that to you first). It was patched and fixed, but it still didn't solve the problem of the dominant strategies.

What you need to do is to allow players the ability to counter act an opponents strategy without the enemy ending up in a position from which they dominated.

For instance. If Tank Rushes are a problem, then have the player able to make anti tank defences on their bases early on and make them cheap. Then if a player suspects a tank rush, they can build these defences and if the rush occurs, the rush can be defeated. If the rush does not occur, then the player can't turn this into a defeat against the other player.

This also encourages scouting and trying to find out what the other player is doing. If you scout and find that they haven't prepared for a Tank Rush, then they have left themselves open to it (but this might just be a decoy and they have prepared an ambush by other means).

IF you think of strategies like you think of units, then just as you have counters to a given unit, you need to have counters to a particular overall strategy. Currently RTS games are about units countering units, which makes it more of a tactical game than a strategic game. More like a large scale squad game.

What they forget is that there is more than units to counter, there is strategies too. How you use those units is as important as what units you have. A smaller force can defeat a larger force if they use the right strategies.

Now, this is where you can really differentiate your factions. If different factions favour, but are not limited to, certain strategies, then this helps players predict what strategies their opponent will likely employ, but knowing this the first player can chose a different strategy even if it is a weaker one than their favoured one.

Dont fokus so much on the name "superweapon" itself.
Why would it be good against all other options? Or against all units? That doesnt make sence. Take my example with the nuke. How can a player give up economy, base defence, ground assaults and expansion becouse he can use a powerful missile every now and then? Why would you stop building airplanes for example? Think of it more like the "superweapon" of dune 2, age of mythology and generals. They need to be taken into account yes, but they will not dictate the gameplay.

I agree on your second point though. My idea is similar to what you describe. Lets say the imperial has good tanks, so its not very unlikely that he will use tanks. But if he uses them to much, or ONLY tanks (like in the mentioned tank rush) the defender can easily kill them with bazooka infantry or attack helicopters. That way the tank player looses huge amounts of resources.

Also bear in mind the game will most likely be single-player only.

Quote:

I agree on your second point though. My idea is similar to what you describe. Lets say the imperial has good tanks, so its not very unlikely that he will use tanks. But if he uses them to much, or ONLY tanks (like in the mentioned tank rush) the defender can easily kill them with bazooka infantry or attack helicopters. That way the tank player looses huge amounts of resources.

No. You have to make the counter to this either a one off deal or tied to a particular location. The reason for this is if the player can defeat the attack and then use what they ahve left over (which if it is a proper counter it could be quite a lot), they can then use that in a counter attack against the initial attacker. As the initial attacker would ahve just spent a lot of resources in a particular strategy, this would leave them completely vulnerable to the counter attack and it would mean game over.

This would only shift the insta-win to the counter attacker. You would not have dealt with the problem, only swept it under the rug temporarily (with a compulsive rug mover in the room).

Both the attacker and defender, in these cases, must loose the resources expend in the initial strike and counter or the problem is not solved (just delayed).

Quote:

Also bear in mind the game will most likely be single-player only.

Even so, if you want the player to not be able to have a dominant strategy, you need to place in counters for that strategy.

If a tank rush will wipe an opponent out, then why would you use any other strategy? Or if upgrading to tier 2 tanks as soon as possible will allow you to defeat any enemy that doesn't upgrade to tier 2 anti tank units (and knowing the computer never does this early in the levels) then why would you not do that.

If you want the player to think about their attacks and to fight the hard battle, then you need to think about counter strategies in this way.

In multiplayer games, you generally want the game to hit a tipping point where victory/loss is virtually inevitable. Then, at this point you allow the winners to quickly finish the losers off.

In single player games, to give the player a more satisfying victory, you want to make it so that they have to fight for each small victory, and make them have to hold onto it (but don't make it too hard).

If you can win by a cheap trick (tank rush), then it makes any victory seem hollow.

If you think about the RTS game you have played in the past, it is the hard own victories that you remember best.

To get this kind of effect, you need to include Negative Feedback loops. These are where an increase in one component of the system causes an ultimate decrease in that component.

So, if the player gains territory, and this is used for victory, then ultimately this gain in territory must make it harder to hold that territory.

A Positive feedback loop is one where the opposite occurs. Where an increase in a component causes a further increase in that component. This is the kind of loop you want to start having an effect when the player is ready to complete the level.

If you have units that can defeat a rush. You have units that can take over more territory, which give you access to more resources, which allows you to build more units, and so on where as your opponent will ahve lost their units and the resources that went into them.

This small amount of units extra, through the positive feedback loop of Units -> Take and hold territory -> resources -> Units loop means that the small victory at the beginning of the game gives you an almost insurmountable lead that gets harder and harder to catch up to the longer the level goes on.

Quote:

Dont fokus so much on the name "superweapon" itself.

I did understand the meaning of your term. However, any weapon/unit that can be used offensivly, if it worth while using, forms part of a positive feedback loop. Therefore, any weapon that is in any way more powerful that the usual ones will accelerate the positive feedback loop and lead to a runaway leader situation.

If you want this to occur for the ends of level, then, sure, it is a good idea. But, you will have to control the player's access to this very carefully or it can break the balance of the game.

This is usually done by making them expensive, one shot and you need full tech to get. The problem with this is that because of the positive feedback loop of units, by the time players can afford this, the game is already decided (and so they don't usually get built).

If a player is not going to use a feature, then why spend time developing it. It will be wasted effort (and in commercial games wasted money).

I would instead use them as a means of counter strategies (but ahve counter strategies for the super weapons too).

For instance. A super Weapons of a Virus Bomb might be a way wipe out massed enemy infantry. The virus bomb does not give a huge explosion, but any infantry infected will loose health. While infected, any infantry that comes close will become infected and so the virus can be passed on. The counter strategy is to separate the infantry and let the infected die. When an infected infantry dies, the area around him stays infected (and can infect infantry) for a short period of time.

Such a weapon could be catastrophic if someone was attacking with massed infantry as the infection would spread rapidly around their troops and potentially cause them to loose them all. But if they break them apart then the virus can run its course and the player can regroup.

It would cause the attack to be broken off until a better plan of attack could be devised (take out the bioengineering labs, or bring in some medics to cure the virus in the field - or even run the infected at the enemy infantry :D ).

These things (the super weapons) must be defensive in nature and more easily available. If they can be used for a direct attack, then they are part of a positive feedback loop and are game finishers (and thus truly deserving of the title "Super Weapons")

I dont get where you wanna go with this?

When i said there will be a counter for tactics like tank-rush you say that will screw up the balance. If the attacker lost a lot of money he might be in a bad spot yes, but how are you suppose to win if a terrible plan is not punished?

What i mean is: if the attacker made a bad decision and the defender didnt, then the attacker SHOULD loose more resources and be vulnerable. In the example, player A sends just tanks, and player B defends with just bazookas. You then say player B will wipe out base A with his defending forces? Well if he uses ONLY bazookas, they would be very easily disposed of dont you think? Just throw out some machinegunners. A player must adopt to his opponent units and balance out his own army's weakness.

You then go on to say games with offensive superweapons are imbalanced although i know lots of games where this is done in a satisfying way. And you say if its good enough to use it will be overpowered? Well this is why you balance games. There's a middle path between not-usable and overpowered.

You're simply not being very constructive.

The term "uprising" sounds like the reinforcements should appear all over the map, specifically around enemy bases lika a mega ambush. Kinda like a hopefully successful version of the Tet offensive. Which makes a nuke kinda useless against it.

I dunno how you plan to implement those supply lines, but Imperial supply lines sounds like a prime target for those rebels. Whereas rebel supply lines would be more like smuggle routes or the Ho Chi Minh trail. The watchers might bring their supplies by aircraft and can thus be vulnerable to the right countermeasures.

How does the powerplant affect gameplay? Does the Imperium have to find coal mines or somesuch at the start of the game? Or is it just for atmosphere?

I agree with you suliman, a hard-counter (like bazooka vs tank) should also be able to win you the game if your opponent is stupid enough to push on and loose all his units after he realised you got the counter.
During his tank-attack after loosing some (scout)-units to your bazookas he should fall back and add some anti infantery to get a well balanced force and be able to beat your bazookas. Gaming is about strategies but not only, it is also about taking chances, you build mass tanks and move towards the opponent and if he is not well enough prepared you can crush him, if he is you have to fall back before you loose ressources. On the other hand your opponent who anticipated or scouted your tank-rush and build some bazookas can take his chance and attack before your got time to build enough infanterie - or switch strategy as well to try to surprise you.

Of cause it is not bad if some strategies favor attack or defense. For example armed structures are mainly used for defense (called defence buildings or similar as well) but that is not their only purpose. In some games you can use them to "tower" your opponent by building them close to your opponent (ideally out of his vision) and use them for an attack.
And the proposed virus bomb has its attack-potential as well, if you manage to drop it into your opponents economy you might kill all his workers at once bringing his income down to zero (at least if you use workers to generate income).

And for the nuke. Surely it can lead to a feedback loop if you allow one player to dump them into the other players base/army regularly but usually the other player has can do similar stuff and even it out. In my opinion they mainly serve as a tie-breaker when everyone has build a massive wall of towers and noone can attack the other because of the massive defense system. So both could build them as soon as they see that conventional attacks are futile or one builds it and the other tries to build up a last attack force and when the nuke destroys his base he tries to crush the other base as well.

Thanks for the input.

Well supply lines is merely that each base must send its cash using automated trucks to the hq (or via other bases to the hq). Not before resources are at your HQ they can be used. This is similar to the stronghold games. It makes it harder to sit back in your base, you must get out there to defend those trucks.

"Towers" (gun-emplacement, pillboxes) will be useful but have a limit to how dense you can build them, so it will be hard to build a superwall of fixed cannons that noone can break through. As you also might want some AA guns, plan your base carefully!

Fot the purpose of countering digging-in i also plan to include big berthas/ long range missiles and units with longe range (deployable artillery). This goes along the lines of total annihilation where they where a fun addition.

Different powerplant are (for now) purely flavour aport from different stats (cost, time, armour, produciot etc). Although fission/fusion might have a nice boom to them when destroyed! They will be less spaceconsuming but more expensive. (note: im studying a master programme in energy engineering:) But no biofuels for this game...

Yes im not gonna give one team access to spam countless overpowered nukes:) "Superweapons" will only be included if they can be made balanced. But i will have plenty of activation-abilities like airdrop, offmap-bombardment, field repair etc. These will be researchable and not extremely powerful.

As you can see, i have some balancing ahead of me:)