One thing that I don''t think has been addressed here is that, in reality, new vehicles/weapons/etc (i.e. units) ARE designed to counter the units of the current enemy. Early aircraft were used to drop bombs from a height that was at the time a relativly safe place to be. Tanks were supposed to be mobile infantry-removal devices. Submarines were designed to be unbeatable opponents of surface ships. And for brief periods after the introduction of these new weapons, they WERE essentially unbeatable. Probably not as unbeatable as the people inside them would have liked, but more than their enemies were happy with. But of course they were too successful, the designs were copied by the other side, balance was restored, and everyone could get back to a good honest stand-up fight between equals.
Occasionally, one side will go into a battle with a devastating new unit, or an innovative new tactic, which unbalances the fight in their favour. It''s the other side''s ability to copy that unit''s designs and tactics which should restore the balance. This makes the development of military hardware and tactics a kind of Darwinian process, which naturally tends (over time) towards some sort of balance.
Implementing this concept in a game however, might be tricky.

Plasmadog...that''s an excellent point!

Good point plasmadog, but I think that there is something even more fundamental about specialized units...you will never see them act alone, but that''s what RTS''s allow you to do.

For example, in an Infantry regiment, you will have Anti Air teams, Anti-Tank teams, and Forward observers. With the exception possibly of the FO, you do not create JUST Anti Air teams, or JUST anti tank teams let alone send them off on their lonesome without support.

RTS''s stress the creation of individual units. In real life there are specialist units, but they are not generally created alone (other than the submarine example, I can''t think of any specialist units that act alone...maybe bombers) nor are they expected or ABLE to act indepently of a larger group. The key word there is able to. The problem with unit creation in RTS''s is that they focus on individual units rather than the larger formations that they make up. For example, naval fleets are broken up into Task Forces and Squadrons. You don''t send a single destroyer or cruiser, let alone an Aircraft Carrier on its lonesome. The Aircraft Carrier is an amazingly powerful weapon, but it relies on its destroyer escorts and light cruisers in the Task Force for protection against Subs, other capital ships...and barring any BARCAP flights, against other fighter craft.

My game is a bit different because you don''t fight with individual units, you fight with Organized Units. The smallest level of organized unit depends on the faction that you play, but I think I''m going to keep it at the Platoon Level.

I also think that even specialized units can be effective in roles they weren''t intended for (look at the dreaded 88gun the Germans used in WWII, they were designed to be anti-aircraft). Aegis Cruisers were designed as the supreme defenders (aegis means shield of course) but can hold their own against a ship even against a ship greater than its own tonnage. However, specialized units have to be more tricky and cunning. Remember the scene in Saving Private Ryan where they brought up that 20mm cannon? That was an anti-air gun, but it sure as hell made mincemeat out of those soldiers.

I can''t fault PlasmaDog''s opinion, but I have two points to make:

- In history, the differences were rarely that profound, such that Unit B would always defeat Unit A while costing the same or less than A (which is the case in many RTS systems). I wholeheartedly believe that certain units should be weak against some others. I just disagree with this concept being the crutch upon which the whole game balance rests. Other factors need to be brought into play, and we have mentioned some good alternatives.

- The occurence of something in reality does not make it fun Modern warfare is, more often than not, about who has got the most money and people. Whereas I would want my game to be about who has got the best tactics and strategy, or as was said, a "good honest stand-up fight between equals". I think the R/P/S element is one aspect of reality I would rather reduce.

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

I agree with the whole Darwinian warfare theory. Got some interesting medieval warfare books that go into detail about this.

The problem is though that this comes close to how an evolution takes place. Each battle both sides would learn about the strengths and weaknesses of their opponent. It could be months before there would be another battle, so there was lots of time to prepare. Swords were adjusted (shorter, longer, heavier, sharper, etc), horses were bought to provide more cavalry (one of the most dominant units in medieval warfare), and of course tactics changed.

But in games, I don''t think you can simulate this timeframe correctly in a multi-player game (I think it''s possible to achieve this evolution effect in a linear single-player game). Usually, players have the ability to control every unit from the get-go.

So what happens? The units that must surely have come at the end of the warfare evolution are simply stronger than earlier units. To balance it out, the designers either make them cost more, or make them suffer some illogical drawbacks.

RPS has NO place in evolutionary warfare, as the two have completely different functions. RPS tries to create balance, where evolution tries to create inbalance.

Silvermyst - that''s basically what I was thinking when I said that it would be tricky to implement, but I don''t think that it''s impossible.
There are games (Shogun for example) which consist of a discreet series of battles. These games can and do introduce new units between battles as the campaign progresses. With more traditional RTSs, there must be a simplification of the evolutionary process, and this is where technology trees come in. Having said that, I don''t think I have ever seen a tech tree system that I have been completely happy with, but with good design I think it can be done.

But I think the original idea of this thread was to discuss the design of units at the time the game is being made, and I think that, in that context, an evolutionary approach would be better than the usual Rock/Paper/Scissors principle. The designers should try to think of a logical evolutionary path for each unit, similar to the idea of writing a back-story in sci-fi. Start with a small set of basic units, and then add new ones one at a time. Each new unit is designed not to bring balance to the two sides, but to shift the balance in it''s owner''s favour. It can be designed either to counter the previous unit directly, or provide some new capability which makes the previous one obsolete. This process could just be a thought experiment, or even better, tested within the game engine itself. Just continue this process until you have the desired number of different units. The set of units will then fit together in a logical and realistic way.
Once this full set has been designed, they can either be introduced all at once, with earlier units tending to be cheaper, or they can be arranged into a tech tree and drip-fed to the player.
One idea (this has just occurred to me) for a tech tree is to put both side''s technology into the same tree, meaning for example that you cannot build a certain unit until the enemy has the unit that it was designed to counter. Also, I think it would make things a bit more interesting if items in the tech tree got cheaper over time.

Actually the evolution of technology is an interesting equation that I had not considered. In my designs, I have mostly considered a relatively static technology tree. Most wars that go beyond the 3 year period usually make significant strides in technology that force the other sides to counter or lose. This could be used as just another means of victory. Instead of militarily outmatching your opponent, create units or technologies that he simply has no defense against. In this sense, having "unbalanced" units is more than acceptable, since it requires a more significant investure of skilled resources (which is why in my game model, I don''t just have natural resources, but a "human" resource as well).

In history these included:
Hittites- iron weapons
Assyrians- chariots
Byzantine- "Greek Fire"
American Civil War- telegraphs, baloons, Ironships, cartridge rifles, repeating rilfles (just to name a few
WWI- planes, submarines, tanks, chemical warfare, truly automatic weapons
WWII- Radar, Computers, Atomic Bombs, cryptography crackers, rockets, jets

All of these were truly amazing achievements that forced a creation of new strategies and tactics. If the other side could not either develop the same technology or had no means to counter it, then they lost.

So would that be "unfair"? To create unbalanced units or advantages to units if the player spent more of his money and human resources on technological advancement? I think this is very justifiable. Actually, the old Avalon Hill turned Hasbro (I think) game Axis and Allies had a technology tree just like this. The game ended to whomever was able to build the Atomic BombI haven''t really considered it in my ame...mostly because I already have the timeline figured out and I know what technologies will be created. But I think this is definitely something to be considered for designers who wish to make games with technological evolution.

Of course there''s also the strategic evolution that comes with unit and technology evolution.

Dug up an interesting book I bought a while back called The Art Of War In The Middle Ages (by Sir Charles Oman; buy it, it''s VERY interesting and educational). I only own volume 1 which covers 378-1278AD.

I''ll list some of the warfare evolution described in the first few pages.

------------------------------------------------------

In the first centuries, there was only one army that really stood out: the Roman legion. But in just 200 years (250AD-450AD) the composition of the Roman legion changed drastically.

In 250AD the Roman legion was made up out of mainly heavy-armed infantry units. Shield and sword in hand, this well organized army simply waltzed over any opposing army.

But, as the empire grew, so did the lenght of the borders that had to be defended. Garrisons were strategically place along the border and for more than a hundred years, the Romans were able to withstand every barbarian attack, because those attacks were never organized.

In the third century though, the Roman empire broke down in chaos. In the span of 60 years, 16 different emperors and 30 wannabe emperors were killed (assassinated). Legions were now turning to eachother, swords raised, rage in the eyes of the units. At this same time, Persia''s strength rose and the German barbarians started to unite in confederacies.

The Roman borders were still well defended, but the inner regions were left unprotected. The Roman empire had a tough shell, but a very ripe and soft core. When legions were withdrawn from the borders to partake in the raging civil war, the Goths started their organized attack. The Romans held for a few years but in 249AD the Goths broke through. The Roman emperor Decius, after having defeated his rivals, hastened to meet the Goths and fight them off. But his army was defeated, the emperor slain. This was the first Roman emperor to ever die in a battle with the barbarians.

For the next 20 years, the Goths did pretty much as they pleased, ransacking the inner provinces.

Finally, the Romans were able to fight back and in 297AD the Roman empire had risen back to its former glory. But half its provinces lay waste, the other half drained of its resources.
It took 20 years of hard work and heavy taxing to get things going again.

During the 60 years of anarchy the Roman army had changed its composition drastically. Instead of pure Roman legions, now foreign units were part of the army. They had been necessary during the times of chaos and were now retained as mercenaries.

The very word ''legion'' which used to be a term for superior troops, now was simply used to describe the front lines. By the end of the 4th century the legions had been so neglected that it was hard to keep their ranks filled. Nobody wanted to be a mere legionnaire.

Instead, the focus now lay on auxiliaries, which used to be units comprised of mere Roman citizens, not real soldiers. As an auxiliary, soldiers faced less severe discipline, lighter work and bigger and faster rewards for good service.

Lots of new units were added, mostly non-Roman.

One of the main problems were still the barbarians. They didn''t attack to conquer, merely to plunder. Sending foot soldiers to respond to their attacks was useless, as the barbarians would be long gone before the soldiers arrived. To combat the barbarian raids, more cavalry units were created. These could catch up to the barbarians and punish them, preventing further attacks by a show of force.

There was another reason for a stronger cavalry force though. Since the Roman foot soldiers were no longer far superior compared to their opponents (and they knew it, which lowered their morale and bravery), they desperately needed the support of a strong cavalry body. Their enemies (some of whom had served as Roman mercenaries in the past) had learned from previous encounters and were now prepared for most of the Roman tactics. So the Romans changed as their opponents did.

As proof of the necessity of the cavalry units, there is the battle of Adrianople, where 40 thousand Roman soldiers died, including the emperor and all his chief officers.
It was a pure victory of cavalry over infantry. The Roman army had attacked the ''laager'' in which the Goths lay encamped. The Roman formation was that of ancient times, legions and cohorts in the middle, squadrons on the wings. The attack was in progress when suddely a great body of horsemen attacked the Roman left. It was the main strength of the Gothic cavalry, which had been foraging at a distance. When they received news of the fight, they rode straight for the battlefield, practically falling upon the exposed flank of the Imperial army "like a thunderbolt which strikes on a mountain top, and dashes away all that stands in its path." (Ammianus)
There was a considerable number of squadrons guarding the Roman flank, but they were caught unaware, the unlucky ones ridden down and trampled under foot, the lucky ones fleeing disgracefully. Then the Gothic horsemen swept down on the infantry of the left wing, rolled it up, and drove it in upon the centre and reserve. So tremendous was their impact, that the legions and cohorts were pushed together in helpless confusion. Every attempt to stand firm failed, and in a few minutes left, centre and reserve were one undistinguisable mass. Imperial guards, light troops, lancers, auxiliaries and legions of the line were wedged together in a press that grew closer every moment, for the Gothic infantry burst out from its line of wagons, and attacked from the front, the moment it saw the Romans dashed into confusion by the attack from the flank. The Roman cavalry on the right wing saw that the day was lost, and rode off without another effort, followed by any of the infantry that was not too heavily engaged on that side of the field.
Then the abandoned foot-soldiery of the main body realized the horror of their position; beset in flank and rear by the horsemen, and in front by the mass which had sallied forth from the Gothic laager. They were unable to deploy or to fly, and had to stand to be cut down. Men could not raise their arms to strike a blow, so closely were they packed. Spears snapped right and left, their bearers being unable to lift them to a vertical position. Many soldiers were stifled in the press. Into this quivering mass the Goths rode, plying lance and sword against the helpless enemy. It was not till two-thirds of the Roman army had fallen, that the thinning of the ranks and the approach of night enabled a few thousand men to break out and escape.

This was the first battle in which heavy cavalry proved its ability to supplant the heavy infantry of Rome as the ruling power of war.

The Romans realized their weakness and changed their armies accordingly.
Only 6 years after Adrianople there were already 40 thousand Gothic and other Teutonic horsemen serving in the Roman army.
A few years later these horsemen were used by the Roman leader Theodosius to defeat his rival Magnus Maximus, leader of the West empire, whose Gallic footmen legions were considered the best footmen in the world.
It took another even worse defeat only a few years later before the West learned their lesson, again utterly crushed by the Gothic horsemen.

The cavalry was there to stay.

Hm, that turned out a lot longer than I''d planned... Sorry for the inconvenience

What it does show however, is that there are many factors that influence warfare.

The Roman army only adjusted once it lost a few battles. Their enemies learned from each and every defeat. New units were added to the armies, old ones had to change or become extinct. Mounted units became dominant only when their value was proven.

I think this is what any good strategy games needs: the motivation for a player to change his strategy and make-up of his army based on previous losses and to perfect strategies based on his victories.

Take a game like Magic: The Gathering.
When you first play it, you play simple. You don''t think too much about what you''re doing. As you keep losing, you start to think up things before you even play. You build your deck (army) and use cards that you know are good (good units). During play, you know what your strengths and weaknesses are and you learn to find the weaknesses in your opponent''s deck.
(the bad thing about MTG for me, is that things become too repetitive, because players don''t want to spend time coming up with their own ideas, instead copy the decks and strategies of known winners. This of course is a sound strategical thing to do, but it lessens the thrill of the game)

And just when you think you know the game (combat), new card (units) are introduced, that sometimes disrupt older, proven tactics and call for new ways of winning.

That''s what I''d like to see in a game.
But it''ll be hard to achieve unless you create a plan that releases new units, with new technologies, every so often.
Perhaps a game can move about a century in warfare evolution every year. The first year would end with foot soldiers determining battles, the second year would find cavalry gaining in strength, finally in the third year cavalry completely dominates. Only to find a working defensive tactic placed against it in the fourth year, when units with specific weapons against horses come about. The same principle could be applied to the weapons themselves, evolving over time.

Still, this seems like a long progress and prevents players from experiencing the full thrill of the game in the first few years. Plus as a designer you''d have to stay on top of the game the entire time. I''d rather find a system that allows for warfare evolution from the start.

Nice posts. I don''t think it has to be something that evolves over time, though. With enough depth to the units, and different ways of combining them, you would find that you had to evolve different strategies against different players, each of whom are likely to use the units in different ways.

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