Are what the benefits/drawbacks of having 2 different types of resources in an RTS (real time strategy) as compared to having just 1 type of resource? I played Starcraft extensively and no much of other RTS so my opinion is heavily biased towards 2 resources. Drawbacks --------- 1) In Starcraft, there are 2 different resources. However, almost all of the game's unit require both resources so there is no option to pick one over the other. I feels as if the game would still play well with just 1 resource instead of 2. 2) More resource types => more complicated game. Benefits -------- 1) Units in Starcraft can cost a lot of gas compared to their mineral cost. So even though both resources are used in almost all units, players still have a choice on which gas heavy units to spend their gas on. 2) Might add strategies regarding whether to grab more of resource 1 or resource 2. Especially if the maps are designed with spots that hold more of a type of resource. What I thought would best utilize the 2 resource system would be to split it into Basic and Advanced resources. Where most units require the basic (ore or minerals) to build while spellcasters or "tech" untis require basic and advanced. That way, the 2nd resource is use to limit powerful units in the game, forcing players to build a large force of basic units as the backbone of the army and support it with some advanced units. E.g. Footman = 100 gold. Mage = 50 gold 200 crystal. So the relatively weak and generic Footman will be mass produced and supported by Mages. Any thoughts on this?

What does each setup do for you? what do you want out of it?

0 resources:
Look at Myth 2. Emphasis is on the units you start with, and your strategy for using them.

1 resource:
The player only has one thing to deal with, how fast he can get income, and how much of it he wants to spend at a time. Higher tech units usually cost more. There is sometimes a cap on how much resource you can have at any one time (limiting your ability to quickly mass a high cost unit).
Cutting off a resource cripples your enemies build speed.

2 resources:
Look at starcraft. You get to pace your higher tech stuff needing the harder to get secondary resources.
Look at Supreme Commander. Different items cost differing amounts of mass and energy, but the commonly abundant energy can be converted into mass, resulting in hard to protect resource farms.
Cutting off a primary resource can cripple your enemy, but is often hard to do. Cutting off the secondary resource tends to be a setback, but causes a strategy change instead of directly crippling. This from the fact that the secondary resource tends to equate towards teching up, or progressing faster.

3 resources:
Look at Warcraft 2. Different tech is based in each resource. Buildings cost more wood, but occasional units cost wood. Naval forces uniquely require oil. Similar to the 2 resource world, but having a unique-to-navy resource means it is easy to cripple their navy.

5+ resources:
You get more fined grained control over what every resource is used for, controlling how each item in the game gets made.
Things like food go to units, wood to buildings, stone to defenses, gold for tech and expensive units, iron for higher tech weapons. Different units cost different combination of resources to make them easier or harder to get. An open market lets you trade anything for gold, and then turn gold into anything else.
Cutting off any one resource is likely a large setback, but also can't kill their economy. Core resources like food and wood are hard to eliminate (though some map settings can make them very scarse). Secondary resources can be hard to hold, but not all of them may be needed for your strategy to work out. Holding rare resources like gold, can be game changing (Age of Empires 1 didnt have a market, making gold very valuable). Resources become valueable based on strategy. Some of them being more valuable if you are teching one way over another.


So the question is where do you want the focus to be? Not having resources, or having fewer resources will get your player thinking more about how to use each unit, and what units to produce. Everything is perfectly equatable in costs, and you can know 2 zerglings cost 1 marine. Adding in more resources gives you as a designer more control over how the player is going to spend their resources. Having a "tech" resource, and limiting its placement on the map will slow down the rate players can tech up, and change how they think of their units that cost "tech resource". It also focuses enemy players on specific resources as points of contention.
Adding in more resources gives even wider depth to the design control. Some resources are only important based on your strategy, and random maps that provide you with an abundance of one resource can dictate your optimal strategy. Being left out of a resource isn't as detremental to your overall ability to perform.

Some food for thought: in some games, resources are used to power/maintain units/weapons as well as construct things.

Take red-alert, if you run out of resource #1(tiberium) you can't build, but if you run out of resource #2(energy), then your defences go off-line.
In some RA games, certain units also require energy to operate. Running out of this resource mid-battle can disable your offensive capabilities.

Or in the TA series, there are two resources: matter and energy. Both are required to build anything, but different weapons use different ones. E.g. firing a laser will consume a small amount of energy, and firing a cannon will consume a small amount of matter. If you're running low on one of these, it may reduce the rate-of-fire of your weapons, as they have to stockpile enough of their resource type before being able to fire.
Running out of one resource completely would disable some weapons but not others.


Also, starcraft has 3 resources - the 3rd being the unit cap ;) Every unit also has a cost in this 3rd resource, further adding to optimal strategy when choosing which units to build.
TA on the other hand didn't have this 3rd resource, and your 'regular' resources determined the size of the army you could maintain.

Quote:

Original post by Girsanov Are what the benefits/drawbacks of having 2 different types of resources in an RTS (real time strategy) as compared to having just 1 type of resource? I played Starcraft extensively and no much of other RTS so my opinion is heavily biased towards 2 resources. 1) In Starcraft, there are 2 different resources. However, almost all of the game's unit require both resources so there is no option to pick one over the other. I feels as if the game would still play well with just 1 resource instead of 2.

Not true. You would have very little idea what the opponent is doing since you can't check out how much they invest on gas. The game would degenerate into a much dumber one, full of all-ins and hidden tech that needs serious luck to scout. This would be made worse by how players would be able to dump all their resources into specialized units, making all-ins that much more powerful.

Among other things, vespene gas has a much stricter collection speed limit per base than minerals do, so you see e.g. some Zerg take a third or fourth expansion to sustain a gas-heavy strategy while mining minerals at less than full capacity even from the old bases. That outlying vulnerable base necessitates a very different overall strategy than what a tight, easily defended cluster of bases allows. All due to the second resource.

In some rare games, you also see players run out of minerals and switch to nearly 100% vespene units, since vespene never runs dry completely. (For some reason it does in Starcraft 2, however.)

As you pointed out, if all units require both resources and they are both collected in the same way, then I agree with you and the game would play just as well with one.

However, one thing I am trying in an RTS I am making is by [trying] to make the resources meaningfully different. For example, all units require both Oil and People. Oil is collected much like a traditional resource, but people accumulate which you can only effect indirectly. Also, these people supply you with the third resource, money. So although you can use them to build troops, you reduce your income in the third resource (which effects things like research).

So then you have units that are low population cost and high oil cost: the player must decided which units to build. If you go for high oil, you will have to battle for the oil and the opponent will be able to choke you, but you will be able to keep a high income by not using your population.

I'm no fan of complexity for the sake of complexity, so I don't like the idea of adding additional resources to make the game more difficult. I also think Starcraft would work well without gas. Additional resources should be really different to add something to the game. IMHO the larva in starcraft (zerg) are an example for that.

I'd rather go with one resource and multiple different ways to obtain it than the other way around. An example would be Homeworld Cataclysm where you could harvest crystals instead of asteroids. The crystals were alot more effective as RU sources but had to be brought to your mothership to harvest and would blow up when attacked nuking everything smaller than a capital ship in it's proximity. Or you could harvest RUs in the open on some sort of fields or similar, where the production depends on the amount of workers (more scaleable but also easier to disrupt). But also in mines where the production depends solely on the amount of mines you control (slower but easier to defend)...

Also I assume balancing the costs of stuff in a multiresource system is a lot more difficult than with a single resource.

I think I'd either go for a single resource (for minimal complexity) or for three resources (for the rock-paper-scissors effect). The gameplay for three resources I imagine is one where you would not perfectly mirror the placement of resources so that each player has access to his or her own share of each of the three, but one where you would place the resources so the players have to fight over them; I imagine that in a two-player game, each player would end up ceding one of the three to their opponent, controlling one of the three, and then fight over the third remaining one. With their units requiring up to two resources, a player's strategy would be largely based on what resource he or she can control.

I think when designing resource systems in RTS games, the following questions are worth asking yourself:

1. What must I do to increase my supply of resource X, and how does that fit into the game flow?
2. What must I do to decrease my opponent's supply of resource X, and how does that fit into the game flow?
3. Why do I want resource X anyway?

Ideally, the answers to those questions should be different for each resource.
With Starcraft, the answers to 1 and 2 are essentially the same for both gas and minerals, which makes the distinction between them rather uninteresting - particularly since they are often placed together on the maps as well. More interesting is the distinction between minerals and the 'population' resource, which also functions slightly differently for each race.

Quote:

Original post by Sandman I think when designing resource systems in RTS games, the following questions are worth asking yourself: 1. What must I do to increase my supply of resource X, and how does that fit into the game flow? 2. What must I do to decrease my opponent's supply of resource X, and how does that fit into the game flow? 3. Why do I want resource X anyway? Ideally, the answers to those questions should be different for each resource. With Starcraft, the answers to 1 and 2 are essentially the same for both gas and minerals, which makes the distinction between them rather uninteresting - particularly since they are often placed together on the maps as well. More interesting is the distinction between minerals and the 'population' resource, which also functions slightly differently for each race.

Starcraft uses gas for tech. Getting minerals is a lot easier than getting gas because you only have 2 geysers per base(in SC2 at least, I forgot about SC1). What happens is you have a decision to take in your build to either get gas sooner to start building higher tier units or stay on minerals to fast expand or create a bigger no-gas army. Also, if you stay with low tier units that require gas, you cannot tech at the same time. These are things you cannot have with a single resource.

Quote:

Original post by Tiblanc Starcraft uses gas for tech. Getting minerals is a lot easier than getting gas because you only have 2 geysers per base(in SC2 at least, I forgot about SC1). What happens is you have a decision to take in your build to either get gas sooner to start building higher tier units or stay on minerals to fast expand or create a bigger no-gas army. Also, if you stay with low tier units that require gas, you cannot tech at the same time. These are things you cannot have with a single resource.

That's the answer to question 3.