quote: Original post by GBGames
I''m sorry. I thought we were just talking ideas in general. I didn''t know that this was specific to someone''s design.

We are (which is why I simply disregarded the comment). Everyone is then left to implement those ideas they find intriguing/workable into their own designs. Me, I''m just letting my creative energies loose for a while (I''m not developing/designing any game ATM).

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

quote: Original post by GBGames
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.

Sorry, I didn''t mean to discourage you. It is an interesting idea, but simply not suited to my own design. By all means continue to brainstorm, thats what this board is all about.

I can see where Sandman is going here, so I thought I may as lay down the overall premise of what I''d like to see in a strategy game. In many ways, this will look familiar as a combination of Shogun and Close Combat.

1) Pre-planning phase: Before you even get to move your forces to attack or start your industrial machines, you have to have the game setup. In my envisionment, it will be something similar to Empire Earth, in that you get to create your own civilization. You will be able to take certain advantages or disadvantages to create a society to your liking. For example, do you want to create something along the lines of Japan? Then limit your natural resources, but give your troops fanatic discipline. Germany? Give your troops excellent machinery, but inflexibility in command structure. You also get to chose your starting resources and armed forces. In other words, you "build" your society at the very beginning...the foundations of your might before the game even begins. I think a society at a bare minimum must be defined by it''s various natural resources (power, raw materials, agriculture), I think there are other socio-econimic factors to think about too, such as discipline, flexibility, mercantile or industrial prowess, etc. And all of this must be "paid" for by the player. In other words, just as in RPG''s you design a character by determining characteristics like strength, dexterity, health and then equipping him with weapons...in many ways you will "design" your country in the same manner.


Now, this is important...your ARmy will have a certain maintenance cost, and you must factor this into your nation''s industrial/economic capabilities. You must also take into consideration supply lines. Admittedly, I only have a rough idea of how to implement these things, but I''m slowly working on it (inbetween all my studies ) However, reserves and reinforcements will have no artifical restrictions...except those placed by you yourself. In other words, if you want to attack with 75% of your forces and keep a quarter in reserve, more power to you. Remember though, that you have to get your reserves into Battle (I''m sure Napoleon won''t forget that one at Waterloo). Also, make sure your own homelands aren''t vulnerable to attack by spreading yourself too thin (along these lines, we should thank the French, they helped us win our Revolution, and had they not stretched England''s forces thin in 1812...we probably would have been reconquered....England shouldn''t have fought on more than one front....then again, Napoleon was attacking Haiti at the same too...but I digress)

* now, I do have some reservations about all these "point totals" because I''ve never been keen on the idea of "point totals". In other words, assigning a value to a unit, (although I think factory, or a resource are more easily objective defined) is a bit subjective. In the real world, there are only a few factors that affect the relative quanitity of a unit; price, training, raw materials. In other words, there are far more infantry in the world than tanks because tanks cost a whole hell of a lot more than infantry. Then there''s other considerations like its more expensive to transport them as well. But there''s a more dogmatic problem to assigning point values to units. Let''s say you created a unit that has a devestating weapon that can be used at incredibly long ranges. Normally, this unit would be extremely effective....until you put it in a jungle where it can get mired and it''s long range weapon is null and void. See what I mean? The value of a unit is very contextually based, so you can''t really say, "this unit is worth this amount of points". There''s also the problem of holistic effectiveness. You can create two cheap units, but together they become very effective because they cover each other''s flaws. So the net effect is that they are worth more than the sum of their costs. How do you account for these things??

2) Planning Phase- Okay, in the real world, when two nations are about to go to war, they already have an existing armed forces and industrial strength. Now, think of a grand map...for example, let''s envision Germany and Poland. Each country will be split into several regions, and units (and industrial might) will be placed in certain geographical regions. Now, if you want to attack, you simply move your forces via land air or sea (well, land or air in the Germany vs. Poland case) and invade the others territory. But, in true strategic sense, you have to make sure you don''t leave your own borders defenseless. So perhaps the German forces will launch a southern attack into the Carpathian area of Poland, spearing as deep into the rich urban centers along the Vistula river as possible. But to confuse Polish counterattacks, Germany could launch a feint along Poland''s northern reaches, near it''s Black Sea ports...making the Poles wonder what the true targets are.

So, there will be a grand map (and I do mean grand....in my thinking of strategy, I''m thinking in sizes of Divisions at least...maybe even corps or armies...i.e about 5,000 troops minimum up to 20,000+. Granted, these will be grouped into smaller units) that you can plot where you will put your forces. Now, you won''t be playing with all of these forces at once...rather you will fight in theatres of operations. In the above example, you might split it into a Northern Poland/Southern Poland thing

During this stage, you will also alot your industrial capacity to produce war material. I''m not sure how much domestic concerns I would include...such as civilian morale, feeding civilians, stuff like that, but I think it is important.

3) Real-time phase- Now comes the juicy part, actually watching your forces play out according to your overall grand plan, and watching them quickly crumble as no plan survives initial contact with the enemy. That''s where the RT aspect comes in, being able to alter your plans on the fly. After a certain amount of Real Time passes, it reverts back to the planning phase. The reason for this is I think it''s a bit silly to have a commander worry about fighting AND domestic concerns at the same time. I thought that ad with the game where a king has a trowel in his hand building a wall, while enemies were about to attack him was hilarious. They are two seperate considerations performed by two different people (well, except maybe in military regimes).

So, to get back to Sandman''s original idea, should a game start with predetermined forces? Yes, I think so. I also think that the "map" should be known for the most part. In other words, you create your armed forces because you know how you would want to attack or defend. For example, if your neighboring country was a jungleland, you probably wouldn''t build up on tanks so much, but concentrate on infantry. Conversely, if you were in a desert country, you may want to stock up on tanks. I''m just a bit leery on "valuing" units, since its so subjective, but I''m not really sure if there''s any other alternative. I''ve had discussions about balancing before, and I''m not sure if its entirely necessary.

About the point cost of a unit:

You simply have to use an interactive feedback system.

Start with a default point cost (depends on not only on the strength of a unit, but also on how much it is actually used curing combat) set by the game designers.

If the players play the game using the game's site as a host, there should be a way to keep track of which units are being used a lot and which units are not being used a lot.
Those units that are used a lot will see their point cost go up, those units that are not used a lot will see their point cost go down.
Units whose point cost goes up will be used less often. Units whose point cost goes down will be used more often.

Tanks will always have a unit cost higher than infantry of course, but within the tank category, there will be different tanks with different unit costs. The most used tank will have a very high unit cost and thus become less used over time.
If in the beginning tank A costs 10 points and tank B costs 10 as well, but you personally find tank A better because it works well with another unit, you will use tank A a lot more than tank B. But, when tank A's cost goes up to 15, will you still used tank A? Are 3 tank B's better for your army than 2 tank A's?

Basically, every so often the point costs of units would change depending on use. Players should adjust their strategy accordingly.

You can even forego the point system for units, but instead use the feedback system for the materials used to create that unit. If more tank A's are used than tank B's, you could make the raw materials used for tank A rarer. Or you could make it so more raw material is needed to create tank A.

This system is essentially an automated nerfing-system. The goal is to make players change strategy. Where nowadays usually players tend to find the best, strongest unit and their best, strongest tactic with those units, with the feedback system you can entice them into using many different units and changing strategy every so often. I think this will make things a lot more interesting for all players involved.

Edited by - Silvermyst on January 16, 2002 10:12:36 AM

Take a look at the table top game Warhammer 40.000 Epic Battles by Games Workshop.

It has exactly what you describe - units cost a certain amount, you build up your army knowing the map, but do not know

1) the enemy army
2) where he places his units

There is chain of command in the rules as well as morale and all the other factors you can think off. There are multiple races, so you can actually have a high tech Eldar race with few powerful units battle hordes of cheap, dump orcs.

When you start a game, you say "We will play a 4000 point game" and go from there. This approach works fine on a table, so why should this not work in an RTS?

quote: Original post by Silvermyst
Those units that are used a lot will see their point cost go up, those units that are not used a lot will see their point cost go down.
Units whose point cost goes up will be used less often. Units whose point cost goes down will be used more often.

Keep this in mind now...

quote: The most used tank will have a very high unit cost and thus become less used over time... If in the beginning tank A costs 10 points and tank B costs 10 as well, but you personally find tank A better because it works well with another unit, you will use tank A a lot more than tank B. But, when tank A''s cost goes up to 15, will you still used tank A? Are 3 tank B''s better for your army than 2 tank A''s?

This is logically backwards. If there is a product A being produced locally, increased demand provides incentive for increased production and supply which allows economies of scale to kick in. The cost of production goes down *significantly* per unit, while either the purchasing price goes down or the quality/features go up. Take a look at every modern example: cars, cell phones, computers (who thought you''d be able to get a 1GHz P4 with 256MB for just $899 - and possibly free shipping? I bought an Athlon 700MHz 128MB etc for nearly $2000 just a year and a half ago).

Agreed, other economic factors come into play (competition for domestic products, something which is much more limited for military supplies since there are fewer operators in that market) but the theory still holds. Lockheed will produce a much more powerful stealth bomber that costs slightly more in an effort to undercut Boeing''s existing bomber.

Now, if the equipment is being imported - that''s a whole different story. And that could add a level of strategy to wargames. You could specialize in (and hopefully corner the market for) a low-volume high-return military product, selling at a high price to other nations on the map (allies mostly, but that''s up to you) while providing it to your own army at a much lower cost. Strategy.

quote: You can even forego the point system for units, but instead use the feedback system for the materials used to create that unit. If more tank A''s are used than tank B''s, you could make the raw materials used for tank A rarer. Or you could make it so more raw material is needed to create tank A.

This is logical, except that most equipment/vehicles/weapons are not made from rare materials (the notable exception being, of course, nuclear weapons).

quote: This system is essentially an automated nerfing-system. The goal is to make players change strategy. Where nowadays usually players tend to find the best, strongest unit and their best, strongest tactic with those units, with the feedback system you can entice them into using many different units and changing strategy every so often. I think this will make things a lot more interesting for all players involved.

I disagree. I think players should be encouraged to change tactics by providing varied encounters - air, land, sea, stealth, full frontal assault, diplomatic, covert - with several potential solutions and diverse theatres. I also think the game should be balanced such that no particular unit/armament has a distinct advantage over all others. A player may have nukes and SAMs (to protect the launch silos), but if you can covertly take out his radar guidance system the nukes could become gigantic paperweights and the SAMs only effective in the short range.

That, gentlemen, is war.

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

OLUSEYI:

quote: I think players should be encouraged to change tactics by providing varied encounters - air, land, sea, stealth, full frontal assault, diplomatic, covert - with several potential solutions and diverse theatres. I also think the game should be balanced such that no particular unit/armament has a distinct advantage over all others.

I guess overall I agree with you. But still, I hate the fact that units have to be so perfectly balanced. The whole evolution of war is based on the fact that even after a lost battle, you can come back a few years later and win because you''ve just created a superior unit or device. I think some units SHOULD be much better than others. Even in the overall picture. They shouldn''t be MADE better, but if realistically they are just stronger, they should not be penalized in order to make them equal in strength to other units.

I think that it''s wishful thinking to think that when many units are being offered, you can create a perfectly balanced system. You''ll either end up having to constantly nerf the unit costs or stats, or you''ll end up with a userbase that simply prefers some units over others. You might''ve created hundreds of different units, but realistically only tens of those are used in combat.

I also think that whatever system you use, logic will always in some way be thrown out the door. You simply have to. There is always a superior unit that simply outmatches all others.

I guess there are just as many cons as pros to most systems. Personally I''d prefer a system that tempts me to try out all different units. The automated feedback system not only does that, but it continually tempts users to try out new units, as the unit costs rise and fall.

PS Yes, I realize that logic has NO place whatsoever in an automated feedback system as described, but I''m not too interested in logic when I play an RTS game. I''m more interested in a challenge and in a surprising battle.

Use the automated feedback during testing. This helps you find the "true" relative value of units. Then freeze the values when the game''s is released, preventing the inconsistency with the real world that Oluseyi mentioned.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost ]

quote: Original post by Silvermyst
I guess overall I agree with you. But still, I hate the fact that units have to be so perfectly balanced.

Perfectly balanced? No.

No one weapon should be the ultimate "be all and end all" but definitely some weapons will totally overshadow all others. Now, what happens if a person acquires the nukes and SAMs as above, but secretly also fortifies his radar installation with back up missiles (or even lasers) and short-range radar (which can''t be remotely detected). So before the enemy can destroy his radar, he spots them and takes them out, simultaneously launching a counter-initiative. Result: he wins the war.

This forces players to design their installations more intelligently, using natural barriers, the lay of the land, etc. It also makes contingency planning a more important aspect of the game - increased strategy.

quote: The whole evolution of war is based on the fact that even after a lost battle, you can come back a few years later and win because you''ve just created a superior unit or device. I think some units SHOULD be much better than others. Even in the overall picture. They shouldn''t be MADE better, but if realistically they are just stronger, they should not be penalized in order to make them equal in strength to other units.

I agree entirely. I hope I didn''t give the opposite impression in my earlier post; that wasn''t what I meant.

quote: I think that it''s wishful thinking to think that when many units are being offered, you can create a perfectly balanced system. You''ll either end up having to constantly nerf the unit costs or stats, or you''ll end up with a userbase that simply prefers some units over others.

I disagree. My problem is that I don''t play existing "RTSes" so I don''t know, value or hold on to any of the existing paradigms. I don''t believe that you can''t introduce a game that employs fundamentally different principles from what is currently on the market. In fact, I feel that until we discard many of the accepted conventions and rethink our designs from the ground up, our games will remained in the genre quagmire. A more realistic and flexible potrayal of wargames may actually broaden the audience rather than contract it.

quote: I also think that whatever system you use, logic will always in some way be thrown out the door. You simply have to.

Compromised - yes. "Thrown out"? Absolutely not.

quote: There is always a superior unit that simply outmatches all others.

Name one in real life. Take your time - there''s no hurry. I submit that there is none, yet wars are fought very effectively. As we agreed, compromises will have to be made, but within reason.

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

has anyone even heard of myth here? they did away with building and kept pure combat (in fact that was the selling point). units were given point values AND there were limits to the max amount of particular units to help keep balance. you guys may want to look into that game for some inspiration (though the gameplay is probally simpler then what you seem to be shooting for).