SANDMAN:

Well, my theorized system actually doesn''t make a unit cost depend on how much value YOU place on it, but rather on how much value the entire playerbase places on it (which might''ve been what you meant with "you" but just wanted to clarify ).

This is why I like it so much. Because the playerbase might think of unit A as an absolute waste of points, but I happen to like it. And, more importantly, I''ve found a use for it. So, I get a very cheap unit (since entire playerbase thinks it''s a waste, the point cost will decrease) that I can actually use.

Until other players play me and discover just how useful the unit can be

Actually I think I had a slightly different take on it. I see it the values being reset at the beginning of every game, and changing during the army selection process. Furthermore I see it as being specific to each player. There is also no need for a central database of values.

Lets say I am playing a game on a desert map, and experience has shown me that megatanks are very powerful on desert maps, but llamatanks are fairly weak. I could choose an army composed entirely of megatanks, but every time I buy one, the cost of the megatank goes up. At some point, the cost of the megatank will be so high that it actually becomes inferior to the llamatank. So the art lies in determining at what point this occurs - it may depend a lot on the map, since megatanks may be a match for 10 llamatanks on some maps, but on other maps they might be vulnerable to forces even as small as 2 llamatanks. (eg jungle maps, where the megatank''s size limits its mobility, and the dense jungle negates its awesome firepower)

SANDMAN:

True, that way you would avoid having to store all the info serverside. I think I''ve seen that system before(units become more expensive, the more you use). I guess it would work, but you''d still encounter the ''okay, this is <the> best selection of units'' type of gameplay.

That''s the whole thing I want to avoid: predictability.

Well, there may be one optimum selection for a given map. Now, sure, if you play a particular map a lot, then you might learn the 'optimum' selection, but combine this with the ranking system discussed earlier, the optimum may change as you get better.

Throw in random maps as well, and it will be very difficult to garauntee an optimal force in any game. Also, I think with sufficiently varied units, you could have several 'optimum' selections for any given map - the difference between them is the strategy you use to achieve victory.

Edited by - Sandman on January 18, 2002 11:53:06 AM

It occurs to me now that we have for the past few posts overlooked the simple factor of racial diversity in unit demographics.

Imagine playing a game of Starcraft, wherein you started with 5000 minerals and 3000 gas. The prevailing questions as to the strategy of any given player in this situation are:

1) Which race will you use?
2) What units will you choose?

What we have passed over is the rock/paper/scissors method of game balance. Given that you do not know what your opponent will have for race, and furthermore you do not know which units they will use, how can there be any particular super arrangement which will solve all your troubles?

I postulate that given a well structured interplay of forces, even on maps which are played often, there still will not be any real end-all-be-all choice of units to use.

This however still falls back on the precise details of the design and play balance.



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

AN idea I played with is to have a population-base to use for creating your armies. And instead of building
tanks you order the forming of an infantry brigade or an arnored brigade which will be created over a time
decided by acces to weapons, raw materials, population morale and so on.
The command structure (a brigade is comprosed of battalions that are comprised of companies that are..)
is predefiend but can be redefiend by the player if he/she wants to. This gives a possibility to avoid the
"tank rush" strategy to be a viable choice since you know the basic structure of the enemy forces and have
to use a strategy in accordance with that.

Of course you could define an armored brigade comprising solely of tanks, but since the enemy has anti tank
ground and air units such a brigade would be rather useless.



"A witty and slightly sarcastic quote from an unkown source"
-- The generic SIG

/trysil

Silvermyst, I see what you are saying about predictability. I don''t want a player to be able to assume to know when and where he will be attacked, thereby eliminating the, "I need to create this kind of an Army" type of gameplay. However, he can chose exactly what he wants for his own attacking forces, since he will know what kind of environments he will be sending his troops to attack.

But really, here''s the real key. When you create an army, you don''t really know what kind of opposition you will be fighting against. That''s the role of intelligence. Let''s say that your opponent really only has mostly mechanized infantry units, ooops, well, I guess squandering most of your resources on tanks really isn''t going to help much.

And this brings up yet another point. Most unit design is based on a relatively simplistic attack/defense factor. An infantry unit will pretty much never beat a tank. In the real world, this isn''t the case. Look at Chess as an example, if done right, any unit can kill a queen (gotta love those knights). So even if you buy super duper 100pt cost tank unit, it might get taken out by mr. 10pt grunt with a LAW up the rear end. I''m not talking, rock/scissors/paper, I''m talking about the appropriate usage of forces for their intended task. Tanks for the most part are not good at getting rid of infantry (in modern warfare). Send un supported tanks against well armed mechanized infantry...and watch them blow up real good. So this will also negate the "this is the best unit/group combination to build" type of gameplay.

One last final point. There should be an defined unit organization. You don''t just create a bunch of units and lump them together. As I mentioned in the example above...a well structured combined arms mechanized unit will eat up a unit composed solely of tanks...even though the tanks will "cost" more. More to the point, there is a logistical "cost" to being able to organize this effective combined arms group (the cost I refer to is the chain of command structure which says that commanderA can call in for air support, the level at which he can coordinate units, the support groups he can call on etcetera). There is a reason ARmies are logically organized. A commander simply doesn''t say, "hmmm, I''ll create a unit of two platoons of infantry, one AT support group, and two tank platoons". Now, a commander may send those units out, but only as a part of a larger group which contained those units.