Holy s***, Silvermyst, I actually read that same book.

(It was for History 111. It was what I like to call a
write-a-paper-while-reading-the-book kind of paper. It
took about three(?) days. I actually made the argument that
cavalry wasn''t the be-all-end-all of medieval warfare. I
even got an A. I kinda had to do that one. In Eng 112,
I had made a presentation on medieval combat including some
sword stances and axe play. I had hoped that with the
experience from Eng 112 and my interest in general to be
able to critique the book effectively.)

Maybe I shouldn''t be so surprised, that book was one of the
few on the reading list that was about medieval warfare.
Where did you buy your copy?
Are you interested in medieval combat and warfare?
Do you have Medieval Swordsmanship by John Clements?
Have you been to www.thehaca.com? It stands for "The
Historical Armed Combat Association" and they have some
good historical documents concerning the ''manuals'' for
fighting with medieval weapons.

Concerning the ''superb'' commander part i''d like to add something :-)

First of all i feel confident in saying this because i used to be a top 100 Age of Empires 2 player so i know a bit about rts gameplay with a r/p/s system.

Imo the commander is the player. He decides the outcome of the battle with his unit control. If a battle occurs with multiple counter units on each side u CAN make a huge difference on the outcome. The point is to make sure ur units attack the right units while also trying to make sure his units dont attack the right units. We have a term for this in rts games: micromanagement. RTS games are not building an eco then build a huge army and hope ur army counters his army better then he does urs (at least it isnt at higher levels of gameplay). It''s all about predecting his actions and having a balanced army which can deal with any mix of units and yes surroundings do have a huge impact on the outcome. There are height advantages, making good use of chokepoints/walls/buildings etc.
Then when i attack i wont bother with his military units. Try to avoid them and kill his economy instead. This is much more effective. Remember allied bombers bombing the shit out of german factories while not ''bothering'' about the aa guns? It''s the same principle which applies to rts games. Kill his economy and kill ur opponent.

No offense guys but i see to many ppl trying to make/design an rts game without having a deep knowledge about what a rts game is all about. Real life battle situations seem very cool, but there are just to much random elements involved to make gameplay fun. ''Damn that was a very lucky shot killing my tank... oh well u win'' Things like that dont belong in rts games imho. If i managed my army/economy better so that i have a bigger/better army my opponent should never be able to win due to a ''lucky shot''. Superb unit management, yes. Luck, no.

quote: No offense guys but i see to many ppl trying to make/design an rts game without having a deep knowledge about what a rts game is all about

Well I might not have any knowledge about what CURRENT rts games are all about...

quote: If i managed my army/economy better so that i have a bigger/better army my opponent should never be able to win due to a ''lucky shot''. Superb unit management, yes. Luck, no.

I think strategy shouldn''t be just about being better at building a big army and economy. And really, as far as current RTS games are concerned, it seems to be more like a step1-step2-step3 type of game (for AOE I''ve seen complete guides on how to get the biggest army in the shortest amount of time... I''m sure many players follow these guides to the letter in order to win); build building A first, then building B, while X villagers do this and Y villagers do that.

Personally, I''d like to create a game that looks more like Shogun than like all those RTS games I''ve never enjoyed. From C&C to AoE, to me they''re all the same. Shogun, be it that the interface doesn''t seem to like me (and vice versa), comes much closer to my personal opinion of what real-time strategy is all about.

RTS doesn''t stand for ''build up biggest army and economy fastest''.

I will admit that economy is a HUGE part of warfare strategy. I just don''t think that I''m interested in running real-time micromanagement against another player. That''s just not my thing. I want to deal with the economy micromanagement part BEFORE and AFTER I combat another player''s army.

KYLOTAN:

Exactly. I think that the main goal of the design should be to let players have the opportunity to develop several strategies, and depending on the strategy your opponent uses you pick and choose which one you want to use.

If we talk about balancing, THIS is where the balancing should take place. If one type of strategy dominates another (be it because of superior units or because of any other factor) then the gameplay will be ruined as every player will use that one strategy. If we talk about creating counters, we should talk about creating counter strategies against dominating strategies. Not creating counter units against dominating units.

Silvermyst...I have both volumes of that text. I think you can often find them from the sci-fi book club...

R.

quote: Original post by Silvermyst

No offense guys but i see to many ppl trying to make/design an rts game without having a deep knowledge about what a rts game is all about

Well I might not have any knowledge about what CURRENT rts games are all about…

quote: If i managed my army/economy better so that i have a bigger/better army my opponent should never be able to win due to a 'lucky shot'. Superb unit management, yes. Luck, no.

quote: I think strategy shouldn't be just about being better at building a big army and economy. And really, as far as current RTS games are concerned, it seems to be more like a step1-step2-step3 type of game (for AOE I've seen complete guides on how to get the biggest army in the shortest amount of time… I'm sure many players follow these guides to the letter in order to win); build building A first, then building B, while X villagers do this and Y villagers do that.

Well there are a lot of online players who use these so called 'build orders' but these guys are actually the easiest to defeat. If i disrupt him at step2 he'll be unable to perform step3 and he will be clueless as to what should be his next step. Or maybe I manage to counter step3 with step3a. It's all about adapting to situations rather then trying to create the perfect situation, which due to the definition of perfect will never happen.

quote: Personally, I'd like to create a game that looks more like Shogun than like all those RTS games I've never enjoyed. From C&C to AoE, to me they're all the same. Shogun, be it that the interface doesn't seem to like me (and vice versa), comes much closer to my personal opinion of what real-time strategy is all about.

I'm sorry comparing C&C to AoE is a huge mistake. I think u havent really played any rts games. Not that it matters but it does make it look like ur not in a position to judge these games. U can still design ur own rts but u cant say it will be better then {insert rts game} because {insert reason}.

quote: RTS doesn't stand for 'build up biggest army and economy fastest'.

Ur right it doesnt it's all about adapting/predicting.

quote: I will admit that economy is a HUGE part of warfare strategy. I just don't think that I'm interested in running real-time micromanagement against another player. That's just not my thing. I want to deal with the economy micromanagement part BEFORE and AFTER I combat another player's army.

Well what is the difference really? except for the fact u handle economy and combat seperatly? Wont players still use the step1-step2-step3 system to make the 'best and biggest army'? And wont good players still beat them because of the fact they can think beyond these steps?

Edited by - DaJoostMan on February 13, 2002 10:17:19 AM

DaJoostMan:

I think that a lot of people here would like to play an RTS game that is not at all similar to what is currently on the market.

After playing C&C and a few other games I got very disillusioned with the whole genre, and thought all RTS games were shit. After playing SC I came to realise that this is not the case, and there is a lot more depth even within the standard RTS model than I first realised. (haven''t really made my mind up about AoK, haven''t really played it enough. I have played it enough to know that it has some very nice features though.)

However, this does not mean that the ''Standard RTS Model'' (as I have described it) is the best/only type of RTS you can make. I think there is plenty of room in the genre for some serious variations, and while those variations might not satisfy the hardcore fans of existing games, there may be many other people who are disillusioned with the genre for the same reasons I was, who find the variations more to their liking. In fact I think some good variations are essential if we don''t want to saturate the market with a thousand games which are all the same except for some slightly different graphics.

quote: Well there are a lot of online players who use these so called ''build orders'' but these guys are actually the easiest to defeat. If i disrupt him at step2 he''ll be unable to perform step3 and he will be clueless as to what should be his next step. Or maybe I manage to counter step3 with step3a. It''s all about adapting to situations rather then trying to create the perfect situation, which due to the definition of perfect will never happen.

Still it seems even from your own posts that there are general steps being used: tool rush and bronze rush (and yes I have read up on it when I played AOE but never tried the step program myself as it defeats the purpose of gameplay fun for me). Of course these steps are perfectly legit, because even in the game I envision, certain strategies will be used that have ''steps''. Archers first, infantry follows, cavalry charges flanks.

To me though it''s the economy part that pushes me away. I don''t have a problem with the steps but I just couldn''t get myself to once again start out with 10 villagers and follow the exact same procedure over and over again (PS if the players could construct an AI behavior pattern for these villagers, so that they could do some things on their own, I might enjoy it more. Of course, this would completely alter the gameplay...)

quote: I''m sorry comparing C&C to AoE is a huge mistake. I think u havent really played any rts games. Not that it matters but it does make it look like ur not in a position to judge these games. U can still design ur own rts but u cant say it will be better then {insert rts game} because {insert reason}.

Well... both C&C and AoE have a resource gathering system, both have buildings to be constructed and both have units to be constructed. I know there must be differences, but they do both fit into the exact same genre. And I''m not saying the game I envision (not that I''ll ever produce anything) would be better than anything out there, just that it will be different and come closer to what I personally prefer. Hey, I admit, numbers don''t lie and C&C and AoE type of games sell enough to justify the design. But to ME, both do look and feel the same. Just like current MMORPGs all look and feel the same. Are they the same? No. But they share enough to make them look like siblings.

quote: Well what is the difference really? except for the fact u handle economy and combat seperatly? Wont players still use the step1-step2-step3 system to make the ''best and biggest army''? And wont good players still beat them because of the fact they can think beyond these steps?

Well, for me, what matters is that I want to do combat during real-time, not micromanagement. How the micromanagement is handled outside of combat doesn''t really interest me all that much, it''s just to complement the combat part. Still, the micromanagement part I''ve come up with doesn''t really allow for a real step system, and players will be left to mostly do their own research, instead of just copying tips from others.

To me, it''s all about creating an interesting experience on the battlefield, win or lose. I hope there are enough gamers out there that share my vision, so that one of them might some day design the game I crave to play.

One of the interesting things about the Romans was that they were an incredibly professional Army, and their fighting style, in contrast to the vast majority of the people they fought, was incredibly organized and they fought as a whole, rather than as individuals.

Take for example their Pilums, Shields and Gladius. The Pilums were their javelins that they used to soften the enemy and possible damage their shields. They then followed up with the Gladius, which though just a shortsword, was more effective at close in fighting that larger two handed style weapons, especially when wielded in the tight formations that they had...which is what their shields were designed for. In a one on one confrontation, the Romas would probably have been at a disadvantage against say a Germanic Tribesman or a Pict, but they rarely fought one on one unless the Cohort began to break.

The other strange thing about the Roman army was that it was a stepping stone to political power. A legionnare could become a Centurion, then possible a Camp Prefect, which in turn could lead to being a Legate or a Tribune.

Another huge innovator that other armies really didn''t stand a chance against was Phillip of Macedonia...who really paved the way for his son, Alexander the Great (as an interesting historical link, Alexander''s mentor was none other than ARistotle). He created one of the first paid professional armies, developed new weapons for the Phalanx, and created one of the first combined arms forces with integrated coordination of infantry artillery and cavalry.

I''m not as keen on ancient military history as modern, but it is interesting to see the progression of military strategy. And of course no one interested in Strategy Gaming should NOT read Sun Tzu''s art of War or Miyamoto Musashi''s Book of Five Rings. There''s also the 36 strategems.

References:
The 36 Stratagems
Sun Tzu''s ''Art Of War'' (mirror)
Miyamoto Musashi''s ''A Book of Five Rings''

Personally, I think C+C and AoE are very similar, within the wider context of computer games. They both involve gathering resources, placing buildings, producing combat and non-combat units, and fighting opponents in real time.

Thinking more on the Magic: The Gathering analogy... perhaps it would be possible for players to choose their armies (or the buildings/resources that create the armies) before the game, limiting them to a subset of all the units the game provides. All players would do this without seeing what the other players choose. Then, when the game begins, each player will have a different combination of forces and hence a different strategy, adding longevity to the game. This will only work if the units available are sufficiently varied and combinations of them has some sort of emergent behaviour.

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