good responses people. Who shall I take on first?

quote: original post by Diodor
Plain lazy is not ilegal. Why can''t plain lazy people enjoy a strategy game? Anyway, I''m rather click lazy. Generally scouting is a matter of how fast you can click (fast clicking all your units into doing what you want them to - time to scout), not how good a strategist you are....Actually this is adding tactics to the game, not strategy. Scouting in RTSs is generally hand controling a small number of units.

Wrong. You think a bit too simplistic, or just did not post enough thought to make me think otherwise. Scouting in an RTS (and in the real world) is a means of providing information. Generally you want to scout covertly so the enemy does not realize he is being watched and tries to hide his resources, like a large column of troops preparing to attack your base. Scouting isn''t just about figuring out where people are, it''s figuring out where they are and what they are doing. A normal person will scout out locations, a strategist will scout out locations and then realize that the enemy is about to flank him, or that the troops moving in from the top is actually a feint for those dropships he spotted moving towards the rear of his base. A heck of a lot of strategy goes into scouting, because in a war, each sides knowledge of the enemy is gained through this method only. The side with more knowledge is generally the side that will emerge victorious.

quote: Original Post by Sandman
2. Visibility of units and terrain should be elevation dependent. It is completely moronic to think that a bloody great mammoth tank sitting on top of a hill is just as hard to see as a lone infantry unit in the middle of a forest valley. Games with ''real line of sight'' like Starcraft are almost worse in this respect - you can park a small army on top of a hill and your opponent cant see it unless he has air units.

Gotta remember it''s the unit that''s looking, not you. A small footsoldier obviously can''t see up to the "high" plateus that are the resting grounds for seige attacks. Yeah the plateus don''t look high but who ever said the game was to scale?

_________________________________________________________________

Drew Sikora
A.K.A. Gaiiden

ICQ #: 70449988
AOLIM: DarkPylat

Blade Edge Software
Staff Member, GDNet
Public Relations, Game Institute

3-time Contributing author, Game Design Methods , Charles River Media (coming GDC 2002)
Online column - Design Corner at Pixelate

NJ IGDA Chapter - NJ developers unite!! [Chapter Home | Chapter Forum]

quote: Original post by Gaiiden
Gotta remember it''s the unit that''s looking, not you. A small footsoldier obviously can''t see up to the "high" plateus that are the resting grounds for seige attacks. Yeah the plateus don''t look high but who ever said the game was to scale?

Sure, thats fine if the unit is back from the edge. But if the plateaus are so high, why cant I see all the sides of all the plateaus nearby? As it is I have to be sitting right next to this humungous great cliff in order to be aware of it''s existence. Its completely stupid and not even remotely realistic.

quote:
Original post by Gaiiden

Wrong. You think a bit too simplistic, or just did not post enough thought to make me think otherwise. Scouting in an RTS (and in the real world) is a means of providing information. Generally you want to scout covertly so the enemy does not realize he is being watched and tries to hide his resources, like a large column of troops preparing to attack your base. Scouting isn''t just about figuring out where people are, it''s figuring out where they are and what they are doing. A normal person will scout out locations, a strategist will scout out locations and then realize that the enemy is about to flank him, or that the troops moving in from the top is actually a feint for those dropships he spotted moving towards the rear of his base. A heck of a lot of strategy goes into scouting, because in a war, each sides knowledge of the enemy is gained through this method only. The side with more knowledge is generally the side that will emerge victorious.

1) I find the implementation of scouting extremely annoying. The scout units are generally pretty expensive ones, and without a scouting AI, they need constant attention lest they move against the first enemy defences in their way.

2) FOW is unrealistic to the point of becoming loughable. In AOK a trebuchet could stay within firing range (few hundreds meters) of a 20 meters high castle and not be able to see it. I won''t even mention modern scenarios with all the satelites and high tech around. The very idea of a king or a general would issue orders like "move 10 meters to your left, duck, go 20 meters north" is ridiculous. A strategist would issue orders like "send 20 scouts to search the area north of us". And of course, the 20 scouts would be a very affordable fraction of his army.

3) The real reason why I posted this was to state that a better different kind of gameplay can exist without the fog of war, because having access to the bulk of the informations about an enemy (as it usually happens in real life too) will dramatically increase the level of interactivity between the players, as each action of a player will instantly be available to other players.

To eliminate the clicking problem (I to have a problem with controlling several groups of units at once), you could have some sort of area map, where you can plot things like waypoints, and paths, etc. You could also tag these waypoints as one time only, every so often, or patrol points. So, scouting units would automatically plot paths to each way point, and, if its one time only (automates exploration), they go there, and continue on to the next way point. If its every so often, a unit will visit that waypoint every few minutes, to keep the player updated (long patrols), and if the waypoint is patrol, scouts will spend idle time (not going to another type of waypoint) going betwen these waypoints(base protection).

As for FOW, I downloaded the new Art of Magic Demo. I couldnt decide whether the blackness was FOW, or a problem with my vid card. Im sorry to say that I looked like someone vomited on my screen. I think an even better way to do FOW in 3D games would be to actually use FOG. As you move into a FOW-ed area, the fog distance would be reduced (black fog), until the screen is black.

Z.

quote: Original Post by Sandman
Sure, thats fine if the unit is back from the edge. But if the plateaus are so high, why cant I see all the sides of all the plateaus nearby? As it is I have to be sitting right next to this humungous great cliff in order to be aware of it's existence. Its completely stupid and not even remotely realistic

If this is to say you want a relief map available, then I agree that this is okay. On the other hand, is it really so important that you see this big honking cliff face before you're right on top of it? Beleive me, if you're looking to be forwarned of enemies sitting atop it, they'll see you first anyways, so what's the big deal? And this is true, try it. In StarCraft enemies will fire on you before you can see the cliff, but their location will be made available to you.

quote: Original Post by Diodor
1) I find the implementation of scouting extremely annoying. The scout units are generally pretty expensive ones, and without a scouting AI, they need constant attention lest they move against the first enemy defences in their way.

Last I checked, the peons in StarCraft costed 50 minerals. Ouch.

quote: Original Post by Diodor
2) FOW is unrealistic to the point of becoming loughable. In AOK a trebuchet could stay within firing range (few hundreds meters) of a 20 meters high castle and not be able to see it. I won't even mention modern scenarios with all the satelites and high tech around. The very idea of a king or a general would issue orders like "move 10 meters to your left, duck, go 20 meters north" is ridiculous. A strategist would issue orders like "send 20 scouts to search the area north of us". And of course, the 20 scouts would be a very affordable fraction of his army.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but keeping to good battle techniques (used throughout the ages) that castle should have been scouted out long before you plannes to attack it, so it's your fault. And usually you can increase a seige weapons range by having "spotters" out in front of it so it can see farther. Snipers use this technique, albeit a man sitting right next to them with a powerful wider-range scope.

quote: Original Post by Diodor
3) The real reason why I posted this was to state that a better different kind of gameplay can exist without the fog of war, because having access to the bulk of the informations about an enemy (as it usually happens in real life too) will dramatically increase the level of interactivity between the players, as each action of a player will instantly be available to other players

This instaneous information will be no more realistic than your views of scouting with FOW. You can try to take scouting out of a strategy game, but I'd hate to be you when all the hardcore (and vast bulk of casual) strategy gamers come banging on your door in rage. Okay that was a bit harsh. I'm sure there are ways you can minimiez scouting, but instaneous gathering of information? What a boring game that would be. At least make them work a little bit to gather intel.

Let's all remember one thing people - the gathering of intelligence (through scouting and spying) is like 95% of a strategy game!! All your attacks, defenses... ALL your actiona should be based on intelligence gathered through scouting or spying. Ask any StarCraft world champion how he wins. He'll say he scouts a lot and uses that information in planning his movements.


_________________________________________________________________

Drew Sikora
A.K.A. Gaiiden

ICQ #: 70449988
AOLIM: DarkPylat

Blade Edge Software
Staff Member, GDNet
Public Relations, Game Institute

3-time Contributing author, Game Design Methods , Charles River Media (coming GDC 2002)
Online column - Design Corner at Pixelate

NJ IGDA Chapter - NJ developers unite!! [Chapter Home | Chapter Forum]

quote:
Original post by Gaiiden

This instaneous information will be no more realistic than your views of scouting with FOW. You can try to take scouting out of a strategy game, but I''d hate to be you when all the hardcore (and vast bulk of casual) strategy gamers come banging on your door in rage. Okay that was a bit harsh. I''m sure there are ways you can minimiez scouting, but instaneous gathering of information? What a boring game that would be. At least make them work a little bit to gather intel.

Risk? Chess? Z? Shogun Total War? (OK, Shogun Total War on a sunny day and without forests )

quote:
Let''s all remember one thing people - the gathering of intelligence (through scouting and spying) is like 95% of a strategy game!! All your attacks, defenses... ALL your actiona should be based on intelligence gathered through scouting or spying. Ask any StarCraft world champion how he wins. He''ll say he scouts a lot and uses that information in planning his movements.

That hardcore StarCraft players would not rush into my game and scare off the newbs can be seen as an advantage. (I believe part of CounterStrike''s success was that for the first time after many years the kings of Quake & Co could be finally killed by us mere mortals)

I''m thinking this is one of those topics like the savegame thread where we''re just gonna bicker endlessly until some moderator whose sanity remains closes it Hahaha

Chess? I don''t think that''s such a good example. It''s just the way in which it''s played compared to warfare. I mean chess is "war" in a way but I think mainly it''s from it''s well-defined and well-known rules of play. In wars enemies tend to use dirty tactics... hmm I guess there may be some dirty tactics in chess... I know people give me hell when I do "pawning" (I think it''s called) where when your pawn reaches the sixth(?) square from your side he can be moved backwards on a diagonal left or right.

I don''t know. I''m just thinking of how it would be if I played StarCraft with no FOW and I''m not liking it at all. There would be no way to sneak in drop ships, pull flanking manuevers, feints, set up seige posts... fer cripes sake the game would be reduced to giant armies just running into each other and fighting!! There would be no thought to it at all! You''d simply see that your enemy is building such and such and immediatly counter. The only way one would gain advantage is to build a bigger army the fastest and attack the quickest. Rush tactics would become the norm, cause otherwise games would last for an hour or more! And even rush tactics would suck cause the enemy would see you coming!!

AAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

I just had a bad dream........

quote:
I don''t know. I''m just thinking of how it would be if I played StarCraft with no FOW and I''m not liking it at all. There would be no way to sneak in drop ships, pull flanking manuevers, feints, set up seige posts... fer cripes sake the game would be reduced to giant armies just running into each other and fighting!! There would be no thought to it at all! You''d simply see that your enemy is building such and such and immediatly counter. The only way one would gain advantage is to build a bigger army the fastest and attack the quickest. Rush tactics would become the norm, cause otherwise games would last for an hour or more! And even rush tactics would suck cause the enemy would see you coming!!

I must agree with you here. The reason why *craft & co wouldn''t be fun without FOW is they are quite limited on the strategic level. Like you said all there is to it from the strategic point of view is building armies and killing the enemy. The terrain doesn''t matter much, there are no goals. It would end in a big battle in no man''s land. Still, I''d be very curious if somebody actually tried to play a stracraft without FOW.

On the other hand, Z was utterly fun without fog of war (because it had no FOW). Not only that but even the time remaining until a factory would produce an unit was visible for friend or foe.

But Z had a lot of things''n''stuff on the map. There were the factories (with their clock ticking - requiring timing attacks to win the factory''s territory before the clock runs out and win a new unit - with the risk of a brand new enemy heavy tank popping out in the midst of the attack), there were the abandoned units and static defenses, and the contest of who gets there first, there were bridges and there were abandoned bridge repair units.

And because owning less territories than the enemy meant a lot less units produced (less factories AND increased timed per unit) every little thing mattered greatly. Keeping an eye on the enemy, instantly and constantly responding to his moves was extremely important. AND moving the screen to see the enemies territories and squinting at the minimap was in itself an intel gathering resource investment (since time was a scarce resource with the average battle being decided in the first 5-10 minutes)

Hmm... I gues then that Z would be a lot like chess in that regard huh? Even still, I know what you''re saying but to me simply building armies and sending them out to fight with no tactics is no fun. I saw your tactics vs. strategy post and realize that Z is without tactics. I guess some people like it that way. You make your game and I''ll make mine So long as you realize that a strategy-only game caters to a select audience. I''ve never heard of Z. Can you gimme link?

_________________________________________________________________

Drew Sikora
A.K.A. Gaiiden

ICQ #: 70449988
AOLIM: DarkPylat

Blade Edge Software
Staff Member, GDNet
Public Relations, Game Institute

3-time Contributing author, Game Design Methods , Charles River Media (coming GDC 2002)
Online column - Design Corner at Pixelate

NJ IGDA Chapter - NJ developers unite!! [Chapter Home | Chapter Forum]

In Starcraft I never had to deal with fog of war, because I scouted the map and always had units, parasited enemies, or whatever all over the map at strategic locations.