[snip] Aargh, triple post... make it stop!

I am a big fan of starcraft, because it has a strong balance. Altering unit production from one contigent to the next trully affects the outcome. It becomes a game of what counters what, and how you plan to attack, etc.

I'm currently doing some research on Tiers, as they are an important part of balance... You'd be surprised how little theory there is on RTS tiers, even though it is a key element to making a good rts... I suppose that explains why so many rts suck...

On the other hand, I like Starcraft, but it is a game that requires a lot of adapting. Most people won't go too deep into the meta-game, and I think getting the players to trully immerse themselves into the deeper side of the balane is actually the real first challenge. Without it, balance and gameplay elements is nothing.

So how do you convince someone to bother going deep into the logics?...

We'll figure it out someday :P

The problem with most RTS is the less efficiency of higher tier units make player spam the low tier units. On the other hand, if you get higher tier units stronger, the player whom reach the higher tier first will always win, so either it is a game to race up tiers, or it is a game to reach the most units.

Meta game does not tell you the correct balance of the game because it is not "Perfect Game." Perfect Game is the solution to a game. All game has a solution to it, but not many players reach this level of game play. Solution is the result of a game at the highest level through Perfect Information, etc....

Good RTS will not have tiers that will cause units to become redundant. Units in the higher tier must be equally efficient to lower tech units or else the higher efficient units are preferred. That's why some game have infantry spamming. Spamming comes from the higher efficiency of lower tier units.

In Supreme Commander, if you can set up your tech 1 units so that you build at the same rate that your units die, you can out flood any other players, and maintain your units at unit cap. If you want the game to run faster, upgrade your units to tech 2, and later to tech 3 when all of your mobile units are tech 2. Once at tech 3, the game should end or stay in a stalemate. That's the basis against low quality players, but a different strategy is needed against stronger players.

StarCraft stands as a model RTS for me because it found a balance between three races with units that were truly different (not just reskins of the other races' units). It makes the strategy and tactics--at least for the average player--different for each race. That is something most RTS's should aspire to IMO.

I know that many players find hero units cliche, but in a single-player game, hero units can help facilitate the story if they interact with each other and respond with commentary to events on the map during a mission. StarCraft and WC3 are examples of how this is done. Having Darth Vader just walking around the map slaughtering things with his red lightsaber and never advancing the story during a mission is not a good use of a hero character.

I personally like a campaign map that shows where a mission is taking place in the game world/galaxy. It doesn't need to be Total War style, just something so I can see where places are relative to each other. I think it helps keep the player aware of the story progression.

One feature I liked in the original Blitzkrieg allows the player earn and control a couple of units that are brought from mission to mission which can be changed/upgraded during the campaign.

One of the Lord of the Rings RTSs has optional/side missions that the player can undertake to gain certain units or unit upgrades.

Storywise, I'm for having the player be a character in the story recognized by the other characters. If one is really ambitious, this could even allow for some RPG-style choice and consequence dynamics.

Echoing what has been said, eliminate the micro-managing so that I can stop playing a hyperactive tactics game and start playing with real strategy. Tactics aren't so bad if its turn-based as it eliminates the hyperactivity portion of the problem making it just an annoying part of your turn instead of a time and thought consuming task in real time.

But anyway, yeah, get ride of micromanaging.

All I can say, that one feature of an ideal RTS (to me) is that it's long.
I hate those games, that I can go through in 2 or 3 days (with all parties), like Read Alert 3 for example (or can't go through at all on hard, but if I could, it wouldn't take much longer).
But of course that requires a very good gameplay and story.

I often dream of RTS games (while sleeping), and they all have 2 important features: flexibility, and survival. So the game can take many directions: all your bases are being destroyed, but still have a few surviving units, which can win the game, or rebuild a base. (Warcraft II, Beyond the Dark Portal, is a bit like this, and that is my all-time favorite of RTS games.)
Flexibility is a feature of some RTS games, but I'm talking about non guided flexibility (when there aren't any 'optional quest' to take out a power supply, for example).

But I guess this would only mean annoyingly hard gameplay, so I guess it only works in my dreams.

So this post is nonsense.

EDIT: As for the story (I've finally read the op :P), I'd prefer a dark story, but a survival story, or getaway story (in epic scale) (so not good vs evil type, but in the end, you will need enemies of course, so it will be good vs evil).

So this post is nonsense.

In my opinion I like the following traits but it all depends if you are going for one of those micro-managing ones (which I like but others don't) where you get to design every uniform and every weapon in order to make yourself feel like your in control. Where as other games make you adapt to your units.

1) Cover, been used in a lot of games recently notably company of heroes and dawn of war 2 (both by the same creator I believe) I like the idea that you can use the environment and even other units to cover and fire from.

2) Adaptation, I know you haven't really got time for it in an RTS to be changing all of the little details but perhaps in between games you can change to match the map or enemy.

Just my little opinion there. As for stories, Good vs. Evil is always going to be told to the people, we were good, they were bad. Perhaps a story which involves companies as they tend to have less morals and ideologies. Now I'm just talking so I'll stop.

Quote:

Original post by sunandshadow Personally I am interested in the single player campaign, not so much the multiplayer, especially not at a highly competitive level.

Right, but the same deal applies. All the StarCraft/WarCraft games since WarCraft II have required a very high level of micro management. While you can win the campaigns without much micromanagement, that is only because the campaign missions are heavily stacked in your favour.

Even so, most of the campaign missions can be completed much more efficiently through micromanagement tricks with siege-tanks/reavers/ghosts/etc.

Now, I am not saying this is a bad thing, but it is something that most casual StarCraft players never cotton onto, and at that point, one should consider trying to eliminate that aspect - especially if you aren't including multiplayer.

IMO there are two main types of RTS games.

The first of these are the "Grand Strategy" games (eg. Starcraft, Supreme Commander, Warcraft) and usually involve base building, resource gathering and large numbers of units.

The second are the "Thinking Strategy" (can't think of another name at the moment) games (eg. Ground Control, Desert Rats vs Africa Korp, Dawn of War II) and will usually involve smaller numbers of units choosen prior to battle.

These two types will generally produce two different styles of playing. "Grand Strategy" will usually revolve around through as many units as possible at the enemy as quickly and as often as possible. In contrast to this the "Thinking Strategy" is about doing the best to keep your own units alive and hence will general be less frenetic.

There is also a third type, but I don't know too many games that do it. These are games where you choose your troops before hand (just for that battle or built up over the course of a campaign) and set the strategy before the battle begins. Your units then carry out the strategy and you can only make minor influences. Examples for this type are History Channel: Great Battles of Rome and Legion Arena.



In terms of story I like having the Cinematics whether live action or cg (anime/cartoon style would work also I think particularly with a humor based story) (eg. C&C) over having the story told through in-game cutscenes (eg. Warcraft III), but they should only be full screen before or after missions not during. If they are needed to be during missions then I think they are better done as small videos in the corner.

Quote:

Original post by Dragoncar The first of these are the "Grand Strategy" games (eg. Starcraft, Supreme Commander, Warcraft) and usually involve base building, resource gathering and large numbers of units.

Supreme commander certainly fits your category, but you need a new category for the Blizzard games.

For example, WarCraft III has a food cap of 70, which in practice makes it hard to field more than 25 combat units, and the entire game is about power-leveling your 1-3 hero units.