Again, it depends how you define strategy. For me, the strategy in RTS games is more about economical and technical decisions than battlefield strategy. The main reason for that is the poor controls which only cater for micromanagement. Playing a current RTS to me is like painting a huge mural with a tiny paintbrush. I want to see a control system that lets me plan my overall strategy in broad brush strokes, but still lets me take control of the details. The important thing for me is that it''s up to the player to choose what level of involvement they want.

I would like to see some kind of smart formation support, as GBGames suggested, coupled with a decent waypoint system so you could preplan the overall strategy. It would be nice if you could set a path for a squad to follow, and give them orders to hold position until another squad was in position before proceeding, for example. That way you could set up a pincer manouver without having to scroll back and forth constantly to position your units. If a "leader" was chosen for each group, that would mean fun moments where sarge gets nuked and all the rookies he was commanding freak out until someone takes over

Personally I think there''s some really great ideas here Hopefully some RTS developers are watching and will make an game that deserves the have the word (macro)strategy in its title.

There should be a ban on anything but turn-based games...the other ones are really crappy. j/k RTS ROCKS!! j/k again =)

Whoa, that''s two j/k''s in a row! He negated a negation! Ah!
So inefficient!!!

Personally I think turn-based is far better, but I like playing chess too. I think its a matter of whether you''d like to actually think, or memorize strategies and just click a bunch of times to execute the strategy. I''m developing a small scale turn-based game (spent only 2 weeks on it so far) and will post a link to it in the near future. It takes terrain elevations and LOS into account, which no turn-based I can think of does. Well, at least not any that use hexes (some square tiled ones do, but they''re much simpler). Other than that it''s pretty much the same concept as most other turn-based strategy wargames. Might not work on all machines but should work on most (I fear something isn''t being set right for some machines). I''ve got a puzzle game on some server as well, but I can never remember the address.

Bill6

quote: Original post by Argus
Hmm I usually prefer turn-based strategy, but some of the claims made against RTS games here are plainly ridiculous.

Typical RTS games are rarely won by sending a "chaotic mass to annhilate other sides amorphous mass before he does the same to you". At least not if any decent players are involved.

Actually, the ''chaotic mass'' tactic is pretty much dominant in every RTS I have played - sure, an expert micromanager can maybe tip the odds a little bit more in his favour, but ultimately 3 hydralisks are *never* going to survive long against 20 seige tanks, however well micromanaged they are. There are some exceptions - correct use of units like defilers or science vessels can help a lot to even the odds, but doing so successfully is more about fast mouse movement than strategy.

In a recent game of SC with my flatmate (both playing protoss), we defeated our 4 opponents with a combined force of 46 fully upgraded carriers , and 36 mind controlled zerg guardians. The whole lot was accompanied by around 8 arbiters (cloaking the whole fleet) and several observers. Wiping out the enemy was a simple matter of attack-moving around the map, completely obliterating anything that got in the way in a matter of seconds. Fun? Yes it was in a way. Strategy? Not really. But it was completely unstoppable. In theory, a well coordinated zerg + terran response, making use of defilers and science vessels to drain hitpoints and shields, and a load of scourges could have taken the fleet down very cheaply, but to do this successfully would be incredibly difficult/impossible for a human player, and a AI player is too stupid to think of it. So in the end, it boils down to a chaotic mass of units.

So I would agree that the potential for strategy is there, but actually implementing the strategies is too difficult for the average player.

Argus,

Actually Germany did already have most of its factories built up prior to 1939, and was in fact breaching the treaty of Versailles even before the 1930''s. Yes, they were still building factories from 1939 on, but the bulk of their fighting force was already in place by that time.

And while I have not played every single RTS out there, of the few that I think got close to how it should be modeled, the majority simply let you group units by hitting CTL+ a function key to "group" them, then you can order them as a whole, rather than one at a time.

Now one, of the exceptions is Kohan, which I haven''t played, but I heard does do a good modeling of giving "orders" and doing combined arms warfare. In the majority of RTS games, you simply amass your groups, and then hand-hold each unit (or group) what to do. That''s not how the real world operates.

I mentioned something about protocols earlier, and that''s exactly how real world armies and navies fight. There are sub-units which are organized hierarchically and operate at various levels of abstraction. For example, the general may tell his brigade commanders, "We need to take that hill at 43ax63f, use whatever force you have, we need it bad". So then the various regimental commanders come up with the plan: "wheel your forces to strike at the enemies left flank. Take the ground along the ridge, and hold until the center comes up". Now the company commanders are told what the general plans are, and are told that they are to engage and advance at all costs, but to be mindful of any enemy counter attacks to their flank.

Do you see what I''m getting at? You have presets of orders which filter down level by level, each getting from more abstract to more specific. Also, each level will have a certain level of autonomy depending on the forces cultural bias (American forces tend to have lots of liberties...most communist forces have very limited independent actions). So basically what you do, is you goal orient your forces, and then let them act on their own. You set priorities and the troops will act on their objectives based on those priorities you assign them,

It also goes further than that because of combined arms warfare. In most RTS''s, you just lump your units together, and then you try to click on one subgroup to use its special attack...hopefully not while you need to click on something else. Instead, combined arms forces also have to be set with a protocol, such as when supporting units attack, and at what hierarchical level they can be used (can a mere lieutenant call in for artillery strikes or air support?). In mechanized units, they are trained to support one another (the IFV''s and infantry I mean) so that they will effectively act as one whole, rather than two disjointed units...although they can act as such if required by the commander).

When you have a true "order" system in place, rather than a "select unit(s), select action, repeat" style, then you will be able to concentrate more on strategy. Indeed, I think it will elevate the game to a higher level of strategical gameplay. The trouble with my idea is that it requires a vastly improved AI system for the differing unit commanders to be smart enough to understand the protocols and levels of priority.

I have lots of other beefs, but they aren''t specific to RT, but I definitely think that with a few exceptions, the RTS games being made today have no originality to them...and are missing great opportunities for something truly innovative which would require a different style of gameplay.

Krunk (and everyone else)

I think you said it right. It depends on your idea of strategy for many players. What I think might be happening though is that because of the prevalence of the RTS paradigm of strategy...that''s what players think strategy is. To me, there is a different, and imho, a better way of implementing strategical thinking.

I agree that I think a better pathfinding/waypoint system is needed, along with better morale, a better logistics/supply setting, and scads of other considerations to be made. Some will say this will just make things more complex, but it will also introduce a much broader gameplay. Sometimes that''s what bothers me about many people, they just want simpler. They want to be able to jump right in and hack and slash. But I think like most things in life, the more effort you put into something, the greater the reward.

Ah well, that''s a rant for another subject

Another problem with the AI you talk about is that the game will need to have some way of determining how to move about a map with intelligence.
Imagine the AI not only having to find a way from one point to another, but being able to determine how it''s forces should use the terrain to their advantage.
For instance, you might say, Hey attack that base.
The AI will have to determine that the base is on a cliff, and the that there are two ways to attack. By air and by the land up the behind the base.
Now the AI must determine AIR, LAND, or BOTH.
This might be more easily implemented on the basic maps but what about custom maps? How would the AI determine the "best" way to attack? There will undoubtedly be flaws when these ideas are first implemented.
Still, it will make for an exciting game.

I would say allow both, but that might make battles too long for turn-based, and too difficult at real time. Shogun is an excellent example of an RTS done well, with very few logical incosistancies. Separating resource management from combat is the way to go I think, but there would still be probs for multiplayer.

The only thing I see wrong (well, maybe not wrong, but I don''t like it at least) is that battles are incredibly slow. The user spends most of his time watching units move from point to point and fight in huge masses. Don''t get me wrong, I like the game, but there doesn''t seem to be enough interaction for the player.

Bill6