PS

The missing link in my personal RTS-dream-design is a motive:

why do players take their armies and travel across the land?

Also, how can you keep seemingly invincible armies from preying on the weak?

So far, I''ve come up with the Lifeforce idea:
The planet itself gives off life (lifeforce). Living beings that can be at the right place at the right time can soak up this lifeforce. Certain places on the world mape give off more lifeforce than others.

Armies will travel across the globe in order to gain power through this lifeforce. When an army arrives at a spot that is giving off lifeforce at that very moment, units in that army might gain power. But the lifeforce is erratic. It might be at location X with power 1 at one time, but might appear at location Y with power 2 at another time, leaving location X without lifeforce for a while.

Players will have to send out scouts to look for lifeforce spots. When a spot is located, they will have to move to it as soon as possible, to soak up lifeforce before it ends at that spot. But, they will have to remember that other armies are also on the lookout for lifeforce. They will have to make sure to set up defenses once they arrive at the spot, so that they will be able to hold off an enemy army. An arriving army might find a spot occupied. They will then find out just how strong the opposing force is (how many units, what kind of defenses, what kind of equipment etc) and decide if they will risk attacking them or move on to another site. A well fortified army might be able to hold off any opposing army and soak up ALL lifeforce from one spot (let''s say that each spot will give lifeforce for anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour).

As different locations on the globe give up different averages of lifeforce, the bigger armies will most likely travel to the locations that give up the most lifeforce. Here is where they will be able to still grow in power (perhaps strong units will not gain any power from weak lifeforce spots). This will make it so the stronger armies will move towards the same general locations, leaving the smaller, weaker armies to live on the smaller, weaker lifeforce spots.

I can just imagine it...

I create a general, gather troops, equip and train them, set up specific AI instructions... then decide to leave my base camp and look for a lifeforce spot.

There, a spot has been discovered by one of my elite scouts. An enemy army is seen moving towards the spot, but since my army is lightly armored, I will probably be able to outrun it and reach the location first. I decide to go for it.

My army reaches the lifeforce location a while later. It''s still developing, so if I can hold the location I will be able to drain all the lifeforce from it. But for now, I will set up defenses around the location. I dig trenches, cut down some wood and sharpen them into big spears that I stick into the ground. I set up my archers and place certain units in specific strategic locations. I send my scouts out to keep an eye on the previously detected army, and I send a cavalry unit out, to attack the enemy once they engage.

Now I wait...

My scouts come back with a report. The enemy force is much larger than expected. And much stronger. I now have to decide if I stay around for the fight, or if I decide to gather my troops and leave this location. The opposing army will not attack me if they find a fresh lifeforce spot waiting for them. I will not risk losing my entire army for this small spot. Not yet.

The arriving army will find the lifeforce spot already fortified and will gladly take over. I will sneak out and look for another spot. There, a lifeforce spot has been found by one of my scouts. I move towards it, noting that another army has already occupied it. A quick calculation tells me that my army is about twice as big. I can''t see any special defenses yet, so now is the time to attack. I set up my attack plan, and order the first line to attack. Will they flee and leave me with a precious lifeforce spot, or will they stand and fight?

Pre-game:
Maps (satellite imagery as well as road maps) depicting obstacles, fortifications, etc; scouting reports for additional details that can only be gleaned first-hand, very limited (your spies don''t exactly have access to national secrets).

Weapons/munitions - everything from bowie knives to nuclear warheads. While you could just light one of those mutthas and let her rip, your opponent most likely has at least one warhead too resulting in a "nuclear standoff" situation. "We die, you die." So you have to resort to other methods.

Tactics:
For starters, you might want to position some of your troops/guns stealthily and others publicly (decoy, draw attention). For instance, you might send an aircraft carrier out to sea far enough away from the hostile territory as not to be detected and then order stealth bombers in from there. Your opponent, of course, could do the same.

And all the other warfare tactics I have no ideas about.

Chain of command:
Reasonably smart AI would allow you to give orders/delegate responsibility to officers under your command, but a "zoom in" feature would allow you to directly take control of a specific battalion/platoon/squadron/unit/etc if you so desired. In fact, you could play the entire game as the captain of a single platoon deployed at ground zero. And, of course, you can zoom back out.

Updates/upgrades:
If you incur heavy losses, replacement units should come through as a whole. By that I mean, if the 83rd Division has lost 67% of its men and is pulled out, it would be entirely replaced with the 2nd Mechanized Division, or whoever. Thus, there would be no transferral of experience, though all intelligence gained would be available to the new units. The remainder of the recalled unit could then be partially incorporated into another division, giving that division actual battlefield experience.

Since all wartime governments keep scientists researching for newer and more effective offensive and defensive equipment, you may receive new (and sometimes experimental) equipment - some of which may only have seen test applications depending on how dire the war situation is.

Supplies should come through regularly, but supply vehicles are also valid targets. Loss of a supply train, for instance, should have siginificant impact on the strength and sustainability of your front. In addition, for games that choose to simulate time as well, a unit can not remain perpetually on the field/in action. There must be at least occasional periods of rest and refreshment.

Just my thoughts.


Note: Translate all opinions to the appropriate chronological setting. I only consider modern present-day warfare.


[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM | STL | Google ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

quote: Original post by Silvermyst
why do players take their armies and travel across the land?

Because they are ordered to do so by their governments, an outcome of political conflict?

I think we need to separate the reasons for war from the act itself. We are simulating strategic war games, not global interactions. Ideally, the game should present a number of scenarios which provide a context for conflict. The generals/admirals (you) are given their marching orders and begin to strategize. Next comes deployment, followed by battle. Win enough of the battles and you''ve won the war. The rest is details.

The outcome of the war should then force a specific political outcome (surrender), which then allows us to move on to other conflicts. Heck, you could have simultaneous conflicts:

A "peaceful" rally outside a <your contry here>-an embassy in <hostile country here> went tragically wrong as both the crowd and the posted <your contry here> marines opened fire on each other. Heavy casualties were reported. The crowd managed to surge towards the building and eventually burnt it to the ground. All <your contry here> officials were successfully extracted.

Tensions remain high throughout the entire region as diplomacy appears to be failing in smoothing out this latest uproar. The <hostile contry here> government is accusing <your contry here> of ordering its troops to mercilessly murder <hostile contry here>-an people, an accusation that has been refuted by another accusation from <your contry here> that the rally was actually a government plot to forcefully eject the <your contry here> presence, a clear violation of the <some city here> Peace Agreement.

You declare war on the hostile country, their allies in the region declare war on you, you try to bring in some of your own allies - very interesting and complex combat scenarios may then ensue.

quote: Also, how can you keep seemingly invincible armies from preying on the weak?

Why should you? A government with a weak army should opt for diplomacy. If it chooses war, well, that''s suicide.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM | STL | Google ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

OLUSEYI:

Well, the questions I had were specifically for my own design.

But I guess they would apply to any system that uses an army-building system, especially one where the units can suffer a permanent death (which would make some sort of system necessary that prevents powerarmies from outright crushing rookie armies).

Ground Control is a good place to start for ideas. I would look more at Starcraft though, for purposes of seeing just how elegantly balanced an army can get (that game never ceases to amaze me). I would also ignore our AP, because it is inherent in a game that relieves you of in-the-moment micromanagement, that you would want a more diverse range of combat outcomes (have only one type of tank on each force, challenge yourself to come up with units that have a finely tuned, intertwined support for each other).

I agree with most of what Oluseyi suggested. I would try to move more towards small forces though, if you stick it down to an average of twenty units in four to five squads then the player can really get into the grit of the tactical nature of the game. it makes decisions on the use of individual units more important.

Pre-Game, Oluseyi could not have put it better: The player takes his/her intelligence and after sifting through it (maybe pay some of your precious unit points to get more intelligence information) chooses an army to suit the terrain, and a plan of attack. I offer this as a multiplayer solution, that each player has five minutes to pick his or her forces (or a scenario defined amount). That the amount of points you get depends on the scenario. That the exact objectives of either side are defined by the scenario, and finally, that there is a scenario editor packaged with the game.

I propose this design for re-enforcements:

In the scenario document, a per-minute point gain is defined. Meaning that the player has so-many (let''s say 1000) points at the beginning of the battle to delegate to his/her initial forces, and that for every minute of game time elapsed the player recieves so many (let''s say 50) more points to be spent when re-enforcments are required.

So, during the preparation phase, the player not only defines his/her starting army, but also defines a few re-enforcement groupings to be sent onto the battlefield when required. It would be logical to say that once requested, the reenforcements will take a certain amount of time to arrive which depends upon scenario settings (where is the battle taking place) and force demographics (are you sending twenty men in parachutes or three tanks and a howitzer?). Note that all the re-enforcement groups are decided BEFORE the battle starts, your forces have to prepare them, et-cetera.

As an after thought, there should be either a limitation on the number of rounds for which the reenforcement bonus applies, or better yet, there should be a limitation on how many times you are allowed to call on reenforcements (again defined by the scenario). I would allow the player to define twice as many re-enforcement groups as are allowable however, so that (s)he has a good array of different options to choose from depending on need.

I also think that unit diversity should be of paramount importance, have a medic unit which will pitch a tent to have men come to be healed. Have builder units, which can be given the rescources to build certain objects from the start (bridge, bunker, short-range high-def radar, only one object per builder).



George D. Filiotis
Are you in support of the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide? You should be!

Symphonic, I consider your modifications/enhancements to my suggestions excellent! I particularly agree with the small forces suggestion, as I would personally find that sort of game more enjoyable, but there are those who might prefer truly macro scnarios (involving land, air and sea forces, etc).

As a matter of fact, I would find it interesting to play a game from the perspective of a squadron leader, with reinforcements, orders, directives, morale boosters, limited communications in areas where radio silence is critical - sort of a Band of Brothers RTS.

Agh, I really have to start developing games again

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM | STL | Google ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

quote: Original post by Symphonic
Ground Control is a good place to start for ideas. I would look more at Starcraft though, for purposes of seeing just how elegantly balanced an army can get (that game never ceases to amaze me). I would also ignore our AP, because it is inherent in a game that relieves you of in-the-moment micromanagement, that you would want a more diverse range of combat outcomes (have only one type of tank on each force, challenge yourself to come up with units that have a finely tuned, intertwined support for each other).

I agree. I never liked Red Alert (sorry AP), yet Starcraft has held my interest. It does have flaws in terms of balance though (protoss > zerg > terran - more so with the Brood War pack) I have only played the demo of Ground Control, but I remember it being a great game. I intend to pick up a copy of it at some point. And yes, I do intend to have a slightly more interesting range of troops than RA had.

quote:
I agree with most of what Oluseyi suggested. I would try to move more towards small forces though, if you stick it down to an average of twenty units in four to five squads then the player can really get into the grit of the tactical nature of the game. it makes decisions on the use of individual units more important.

Pre-Game, Oluseyi could not have put it better: The player takes his/her intelligence and after sifting through it (maybe pay some of your precious unit points to get more intelligence information) chooses an army to suit the terrain, and a plan of attack. I offer this as a multiplayer solution, that each player has five minutes to pick his or her forces (or a scenario defined amount). That the amount of points you get depends on the scenario. That the exact objectives of either side are defined by the scenario, and finally, that there is a scenario editor packaged with the game.

The idea of spending points on better intelligence is interesting. There are a few problems with this idea - players already familiar with the map/scenario have a clear advantage over other players, unless you use random maps, in which case you have to figure out some method of generating the necessary information. And of course you have to balance the cost of intelligence against everything else - too cheap and it becomes an uninteresting choice.

quote:
I propose this design for re-enforcements:

In the scenario document, a per-minute point gain is defined. Meaning that the player has so-many (let's say 1000) points at the beginning of the battle to delegate to his/her initial forces, and that for every minute of game time elapsed the player recieves so many (let's say 50) more points to be spent when re-enforcments are required.

So, during the preparation phase, the player not only defines his/her starting army, but also defines a few re-enforcement groupings to be sent onto the battlefield when required.

Not sure about that, its a good idea but I think I'd like to give the player some more control over what he gets during the game. Need to think about that one.

quote:
It would be logical to say that once requested, the reenforcements will take a certain amount of time to arrive which depends upon scenario settings (where is the battle taking place) and force demographics (are you sending twenty men in parachutes or three tanks and a howitzer?). Note that all the re-enforcement groups are decided BEFORE the battle starts, your forces have to prepare them, et-cetera.

Definitely. I have yet to work out the details, but heavy equipment will need a suitable landing spot for a dropship, and will be easy to shoot down if it is too near enemy controlled territory, whereas infantry will be able to paradrop to just about anywhere, much more stealthily.

quote:
As an after thought, there should be either a limitation on the number of rounds for which the reenforcement bonus applies, or better yet, there should be a limitation on how many times you are allowed to call on reenforcements (again defined by the scenario). I would allow the player to define twice as many re-enforcement groups as are allowable however, so that (s)he has a good array of different options to choose from depending on need.
[/quote

I was thinking that too - either limit the number of times the player can call on reinforcements or make the 'points' penalty increase exponentially with each additional call. Hence players who want to get a good score will rely on reinforcements as little as possible...

Edited by - Sandman on January 14, 2002 4:15:23 PM

quote: Original post by Sandman
The idea of spending points on better intelligence is interesting. There are a few problems with this idea - players already familiar with the map/scenario have a clear advantage over other players, unless you use random maps, in which case you have to figure out some method of generating the necessary information. And of course you have to balance the cost of intelligence against everything else - too cheap and it becomes an uninteresting choice.

Very true. I think a good way to generate scenarios is to employ the same set of maps (a fixed world), but vary the context so that different tactics are necessary. A fairly simple formulaic method for deciding on the parameters of the contest shouldn''t be too hard to develop - based off of the parties involved, their financial status, their levels of training and equipment etc. It makes sense that if a "rebel" coalition decides to go to war agains a "superpower" they would employ more guerilla, hit-n-run, stealth and concealment tactics. So while knowledge of the maps would be an advantage, the gamer would still need to think fast to respond to the very varied types of conflicts.

Furthermore, local forces could have spent time preparing for the battles by modifying and boobytrapping the terrain - poisoning water holes, digging trenches and convenient concealment spots, etc.

quote: Not sure about that, its a good idea but I think I''d like to give the player some more control over what he gets during the game.

The player could be allowed to request a specific type of reinforcements, but receiving them would be dependent on availability and higher priorities:

Supply Seargent: "Major, I''d love to send you a platoon of Rangers, but we''re too thin on the western front and they''re needed there!"

This could also introduce other elements like influence. Successful completion of missions with minimum casualties, war decorations, citations for heroism, etc, could make your commander more influential meaning more likely to get exactly what he asks for:

Major: "Son, I was cutting up the Kilbari when you were still painting fingers in playschool! Get that platoon out here ASAP, you hear me!"
WO2: (whisper) "Sarge, that''s Major Unglaublisch! He''s got more awards for courage in the face of personal danger than the entire command division!"
Supply Seargent: "*Gulp* Yessir!"

quote: Definitely. I have yet to work out the details, but heavy equipment will need a suitable landing spot for a dropship, and will be easy to shoot down if it is too near enemy controlled territory, whereas infantry will be able to paradrop to just about anywhere, much more stealthily.

We''re all agreed on this one.

quote: I was thinking that too - either limit the number of times the player can call on reinforcements or make the ''points'' penalty increase exponentially with each additional call. Hence players who want to get a good score will rely on reinforcements as little as possible...

Which would affect your "influence" as detailed above. If you use too many soldiers to accomplish a task, your commander may be relegated to a desk job. This could have a positive or negative effect on the morale of the units depending on how connected they were to him. For more on this, I heartily recommend the Tom Hanks/Steven Spielberg HBO miniseries Band of Brothers. At one point the unit had a leader with no nerve, resulting in huge casualties and loss of morale.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM | STL | Google ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

quote:
The player could be allowed to request a specific type of reinforcements, but receiving them would be dependent on availability and higher priorities:

Supply Seargent: "Major, I''d love to send you a platoon of Rangers, but we''re too thin on the western front and they''re needed there!"

This could also introduce other elements like influence. Successful completion of missions with minimum casualties, war decorations, citations for heroism, etc, could make your commander more influential meaning more likely to get exactly what he asks for:

Major: "Son, I was cutting up the Kilbari when you were still painting fingers in playschool! Get that platoon out here ASAP, you hear me!"
WO2: (whisper) "Sarge, that''s Major Unglaublisch! He''s got more awards for courage in the face of personal danger than the entire command division!"
Supply Seargent: "*Gulp* Yessir!"

Excellent idea! I was already planning to make the availability of different units vary during the game, according to some sort of supply and demand algorithm, but this makes a neat new twist. If the player has a set of persistent stats which include his ''efficiency'' - taking into account his reliance on reinforcements and the size of the force he picks to begin with, then this stat can be taken into account when he actually makes the requests - he doesnt get any extra men, but he is more likely to get the ones he really wants. Of course, if he over uses this privilege, his efficiency drops and he loses it.

I''m sorry. I thought we were just talking ideas in general. I didn''t know that this was specific to someone''s design.
I just thought that if there was a resource aspect, it could be handled independently of the military aspect, yet still play a vital role in the overall game.
Just my idea, but everything is sounding good here anyway.