There are so many RTS games around.. the major once that are being hyped are WC3 and AOM... now suppose I make a RTS game, what would you like to see in it and what should i do to make it a BIG success.. like more special effects, a damn good 3d engine, more races, more units, new concepts (what concept du want?), story, or what would u like to see???? just enligten me.. .. thanks a lot in advance.. Slow and steady wins the race. [edited by - krad7 on April 22, 2002 1:52:22 PM]

Customizable scripting.

Is it my idea or is it just that not many people dont like RTS games? oh man, am i making a wrong game or genere or something.. i havent seen any replies to my post..

Slow and steady wins the race.

Not at all, I think there was a similar post a week or two ago, and maybe no one feels like writing the same stuff all over again.

I would like to see more emphasis on military style tactics (terrain, positioning etc) and less emphasis on resource management.

Also, more powerful unit controls making it easier to control and coordinate groups of units, rather than forcing the player to do lots of micromanagement.

I''m a heavy RTS player, heres a few things that would make an RTS good.
1: make it a hybrid rts, where you can drive around as a unit.
2: make it totally (and easily) modable
3: 3d would be nice
4: don''t overdo "customizable units"
5: lots of upgrades
6: don''t make resource management too complex (aka AOE2)
7. make several different races that are totally varied in how they are used and especially how they look, one of things that annoys me alot is any units looking the same as the next except for little differences.
8. thats all I can write for now, I have to get back to class, I might write more later.

quote: Original post by Sandman
Not at all, I think there was a similar post a week or two ago, and maybe no one feels like writing the same stuff all over again.

Do you have a link to that post?
thanks


Slow and steady wins the race.

I think it was this thread I was thinking about. (OK, slightly more than a week ago )

There have been quite a lot of interesting discussions on RTS games in the past, I would thoroughly recommend doing a search and checking out some of the old threads.

In fact, there have been several very detailed RTS threads in this forum - primarily started by Sandman and Dauntless, with contributions from countless others. Checking their profiles for recently started threads is a pretty good place to start!

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ ]
[ MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Boost ]
[ Google! | Asking Smart Questions | Jargon File ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Krad7-
Since your newly registered, I''ll assume you''re fairly new to reading the posts here Actually the two most populat genres in the Game Design forum are RTS and MMORPG''s. But I think Sandman is right, there was a similar post here not too long ago. Dig up some older posts and check what people have to say.

Me personally, I want to see several key elements. In a nutshell, I want a more true to military simulation of warfare. I would actually call my own plans for a game a Warfare simulator or a Leadership simulator.

Things I''d like to see:
1. No God-like control over your troops
2. More realistic scaling of time, and unit size
3. Better command and control (through orders)
4. Chain of command rules
5. AI commanders to delegate responsibilities
6. Economic and manufacturing concerns handled seperately or not at all
7. Scripting interface for AI and missions
8. More stress placed on command and leadership, rather than unit capability
9. Better implementation of morale
10. More realistic implementation of lines of supply and logistics
11. Handling of organized groups of units rather than ad hoc motley individual units
12. Customizable units, and groupings of units


If alot of that doesn''t make sense, do a search for any of my posts, and you''ll see what I mean But if there was one critical thing I want to see....it''s to have a game that stresses the concept of the ability to control what you have as effectively as possible. RTS games now assume god-like control over units, so the only concern is what unit goes up against what unit, and make as many of them as possible. Under my system, you could create 10x as many troops, that are twice as powerful as your enemy unit for unit....but if you don''t have the proper command and control procedures, and the ability to LEAD these troops...you will be beaten. This is the only way to replicate a smaller army defeating a larger one. With current RTS games today, you simply can not replicate the American REvolution, most of the battles the Confederate ARmy (of Northern Virginia) won, or something like Vietnam. Until this god-like ability is removed, and the focus goes away from how powerful and what capabilities a unit has to, "how do I maximize my control over my units", then you are really playing chess. I want to see a warfare simulator, not another chess, go, backgammon or mancala game. These are all classic strategy games in the truest sense of the word, but they do not simulate warfare conditions in any meaningful sense.

Before someone argues that go and chess were used by generals, this was more as a mental exercise. One of the great truisms of war is that all plans go to hell upon contact with the enemy. And that is precisely what is missing in RTS games. The command and control factor is totally missing from the vast majority of RTS games (Shogun, Close Combat and Kohan all have this to a degree). The military even stresses the three C''s as the foundation of warfare...Command, Control, and Communication. This is my number one wish for list.

The only way RTS succeed nowadays is in terms of refinement - in the art style, in the interface and in the balance of units and races. With a little luck and a little hype and some 3Dness you might make a scratch in an oversaturated RTS market...

Zaptruder