Quote:

Original post by Oberon_Command Quote: Original post by hiigara An RTS that almost plays by itself. No micromanagement. I only give high level orders. You might have liked Command HQ. By the way, can someone please explain to me this animosity towards micromanagement that I keep hearing? What is it about micro that makes a game less fun? I actually enjoy micro, as it actually takes some skill and strategy and it makes matches more exciting. I love the thrill of pulling off some micro tactic well. But then, I "grew up" with micro to a large extent since I mostly play StarCraft, so maybe I'm biased.

The problem that I have with needing to use micro to be highly effective is that it requires my attention to be highly focused in one area at a time, and that somewhere across the map can't be effectively micro-ed.

I enjoy micro and having close control over the units if we're talking about smaller games that have a tighter focus. However there are LOTS of games that focus on micro. Vanilla ice cream is great, but when you are allowed nothing but vanilla ice cream then you start to want something else.

Quote:

Original post by Oberon_Command Quote: Original post by hiigara An RTS that almost plays by itself. No micromanagement. I only give high level orders. You might have liked Command HQ. By the way, can someone please explain to me this animosity towards micromanagement that I keep hearing? What is it about micro that makes a game less fun? I actually enjoy micro, as it actually takes some skill and strategy and it makes matches more exciting. I love the thrill of pulling off some micro tactic well. But then, I "grew up" with micro to a large extent since I mostly play StarCraft, so maybe I'm biased.

I don't hate micro management, but I can't play with others, since a lot of people seem to play it like work, where they do it as fast as they can and hope it's over without entertaining themselves. I've tried to emulate taht sort of... where I try to play fast, it gets real tedious and I really don't feel like I"m having fun.

I like campaigns for Warcraft 3 and StarCraft 2 though. They were really fun.

That said, I think I have a great idea for an RTS... but like everyone else, an idea is just an idea... and realizing it is probably impossible for me any time soon.

[Edited by - pothb on August 30, 2010 12:27:23 PM]

Re: Micro

I am also against micromanaging if it is required to win. In a strategy game, if a pattern of micromanangement can be defined, it should become a operation mode that the player assigns to the units. The player takes the role as a commander, not a pilot. The pilots should be smart enough to execute tactics on their own.

Some common tactical modes:

o Attack: Attack the target and avoid the frontal line of fire
o Berserk: Attack the target, do not avoid the line of fire, do not retreat
o Build: Construct a list of buildings according to the order on the list
o Commission: Build a fleet according to the defined composition, activate the fleet to attack when the composition is complete
o Energize: Transfer all energy to the leader and nearby allies
o Formation: Stay in formation and fire the main weapon forward
o Flank: Attack the target from the sides of the target
o Group Attack: Attack the enemy but do not fly too far away from the leader
o Hold Position: Attack nearby enemies but do not pursuit
o Protect: Deploy the energy shield and transfer extra energy to the leader
o Reinforce: Rebuild lost units for a battalion, send reinforce units immediately once built
o Repair: Stay close to the leader and repair any damaged units nearby
o Retreat: Return to the leader and stay close
o Skirmish: Attack the enemy with long range weapon. Stay out of the range of the enemy when weapon is charging

Modes of target selection:

o Attack the closest
o Attack the weakest
o Attack the strongest
o Attack enemy leader
o Attack turrets
o Attack production buildings
o Attack the leader's target

I think that some of these modes should be automatically assigned by the attack leaders according to the situation. But the situation can be difficult for the game to perceive. In the game, the player can override any command and even pilot a spacecraft manually. Piloting is just for fun, it won't win the game.

I whole heartedly agree with Talroth. If we're looking for any sort of realism in an RTS (and, sometimes we are, and sometimes we're not), his chain of command idea is key. When I first looked at CoH, I thought to myself "wow, those little squads are great, no more building a million single units. wonder what their AI is like". Of course, their AI was minimal, but imagine if each of those squads had a sergeant in them, who Would do some command routines based on your more general orders provided. Think of how many concurrent battles you could manage that way, gameplay could get way more indepth, and a war or battle would feel much more realistic (which I think is great!)

One thing noone's mentioned yet-

I look for modability and LAN support. In fact, I bought Warcarft III only to play the user created maps. I'm pretty sure it's the main reason WC3 lasted so much longer then competing games.