To add to diodor''s suggestions, skew the tech tree so that battle ready units are available earlier in the game (this coming from a Starcraft player, where the useful units only come in mid- to end-game).

However, while doing so, also adjust tech so that ''re-branching'' takes longer than it would in a typical RTS. So if you started out going for a strong air force, and your target built a strong missile defense array (expecting an attack from another player who was building infantry), it should take a bite out of your speed to rearrange your production line to make tanks and other armoured units (which missiles aren''t so effective against).

I second Diodor''s suggestion not to have fog of war. I think that forcing game over in favour of the first player to get his target would be a very cool feature. If you shrank force-size and map-size, you could play in ''rounds'' and give winning players a random bonus (extra starting rescources, special tech advances, pre-upgraded units).

Were I to create this game, I would keep rescource collection out of it. Give players a base amount every round and increase slightly each round, so games get more intense as they go on.

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

This wasn''t a gameplay idea to apply to previous games: it was one to consider when writing new ones. So if it doesn''t work with Starcraft, that''s Starcraft''s problem, not mine.

emileej - I am not sure what you are saying about the alliances. Choosing who your allies are would all be done by the player. The computer implements the alliance, but the player chooses when to start it and finish it.

I think the game would take too long if you had to reach 10 kills. It also removes the ''sneak attack'' element, because after the first kill, everyone knows who your opponent is.

Diodor - admittedly, it might not work well in a game where there are newbies: but then, the normal game structure doesn''t work for newbies among more experienced players either, does it? All these games tend to be better when the players are of approximately equal strength. Apply handicaps if necessary.

Regarding fog of war... well, I don''t mind so much either way. I think this is something you should be able to specify in the game options when you start. Personally I wouldn''t mind having to explore to discover where everyone is, and to find out who is attacking who. But let the players decide for themselves in multiplayer games.

Symphonic - removing resource collection might be interesting in some situations. But personally I like the idea of leaving it in. Example: a player who is adjacent to you is mining your metal/harvesting your tiberium/whatever. However, they are not your target, and you are not theirs. Do you risk sending units to secure those resources when they might be better deployed against a ''real'' enemy?

It just adds another ''meaningful decision'' to the game, which is what I think it''s all about.

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

This somewhat reminds me of the optional victory conditions for the game Risk.

When we played Risk, we didn''t always use the rules (usually we''d just play until someone dominated the entire world), but they did change the entire game when used.

There were different types of victory conditions:

-control X amount of lands
-control continents X and Y
-defeat any opponents of color X (if no player uses color X, then go to secondary victory condition)

These victory conditions were written down on cards that were secretly drawn.

During the game, the element of figuring out your opponent became important. Because where without the rules, you could just focus on one side of the game, leaving the other for later, you now had to worry about what the other player''s victory conditions were. Sure, I can mass my forces in America, but if I give up Europ, Africa and Australia, will that mean victory to my opponent?

Should I outright move towards my own victory conditions, obvious to other players, or should I cloak my actions, never revealing what I truly intend to do?

I like the idea, but I think the ''eliminate player X'' is just one of the many victory conditions that can be used... depending on your actual gameplay that is of course.

Hey, if you''re about to change RTS anyway, might as well go for the complete overhaul

A quick idea: a player should get an important advantage for killing another player (other than his target) - troops, resources, etc.

But, if a player kills another player, the player that had as a mission to kill this banished player now gets as mission to kill the guy who killed his target.

Meaning that destroying the guy who wants to kill you isn''t always the best idea, because then everyone wants to kill you for your resources. So the guy who wants to kill you can as well be your insurance against your enemies. Neat, isn''t it?