StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I was prompted by the thread about Supreme Commander to post this. One of my pastimes is coming up with game designs, usually for RTS games - and I spend much of the time considering ways in which one could add new gameplay elements to the traditional RTS formula while keeping the games pace exciting and avoiding victory becoming a simple contest of who can micromanage the interface the best.

My main conclusion is that an RTS needs more intuitive automation built into many of it's functions than they currently do and improved unit AI beyond the usual "enemy in range, shoot". Most of these features have appeared in various games before, but I have hardly ever seen more than a couple put in one single game.

A list:

Target priorities:
One of the staples of RTS gameplay is "rock/paper/scissors" (or some variant) style balance of unit strengths and weakness. However this becomes a frustration for many players because your units hardly ever seem to know about it themselves, and will merrily shoot away their ammo at the first thing that comes into range and not stop firing until it is dead, no matter how ill suited they are to fighting it.

What I would like to see is a system where units selectively choose their targets based on the strengths of their weapons. As an example of how I would like it to work: say you have a unit with an anti-tank missile launcher and some enemy infantry come into range of it - it will start shooting at them, usually with very little effect. If an enemy tank were then to come into range your unit would immediately switch target to the tank because it is capable of doing far more damage to the tank than the infantry.

This could be extended even further to have units simply not open fire if they are horrendously ill suited to taking out a particular type of target (with the exception being if they are on their own). They could also prioritise within certain groups of targets. For example an anti-tank gun should think "There's two tanks in front of me, one has his weak rear armour facing me and the other has it's strong frontal armour facing me, I should choose to shoot the tank whose weak armour is facing me first".

Programming this does not seem to be an overly complex problem - the game already knows how effective each weapon is against each type of target, usually in the form of a simple percentage. You just make the unit periodically consider all targets in range and if it's weapon would be more effective against a new target than the current one tell it to switch targets. I would add an additional function where the player has a "force attack" command activated by double clicking a target when issuing an attack order, this would bypass the target priority system and force the unit to concentrate on your designated target.


Unit cooperation:
Most of the time in RTS games units run around blissfully unaware of their comrades in arms, which can have frustrating consequences. An example: You have 20 artillery units with very powerful guns that take a long time to reload, when a lone enemy infantry unit wonders into their range all 20 of them immediately fire at him. He's dead, but only one gun really needed to shoot to kill him, and now all your artillery units are useless for 30 seconds while reloading. This is even more irritating when it involves units that have limited ammunition, such as the aircraft in C&C Generals.

The way I would prefer it to be handled is have each unit attacking a specific target check whether it has a good chance of killing it in one shot (in most games the program would simply compare the health of the target to the damage of the weapon) and if it does, other units targeting that enemy choose different (sensible) targets, or if none are available they wait and take turns shooting the current target - so if the first units misses the second unit takes a shot etcetera...

I would only use a system like this for units whose reload time is above a certain cut-off point (say 5 seconds), as it would have little impact on units with a high rate of fire; it might also be useful in a game where infantry units have a "suppression" mechanic such as Company of Heroes, the result being that all your infantry squads would cooperate to suppress as many of the enemy's units as possible.

A second improvement that could be made is a simpler one - minimising friendly fire by having units that have powerful weapons that cause splash damage consider their targets before firing. Often artillery units in RTS games are crippled for this very reason, being programmed to fire at enemies only on express orders from the commander.

The better fix for this is simply to force dangerously powerful weapons to hold fire if the enemy target is too close to a friendly unit or structure. At this point it could check for other targets and engage them if found; if none are found there are a few solutions - the unit simply doesn't engage the enemy but notifies you, the unit hesitates a few (5-10) seconds (possibly hoping the enemy will move or be destroyed) then engages the target or finally the unit just (on failing to find a suitable alternate target) shoots anyway.

Standing orders:
This is a kind of catch all name I use for "settings" different units can have. Many RTS games implement one or two simple types of settings for units (i.e. Dawn of War with its unit behaviour toggle buttons) but I think there are additional ones that could be implemented, for example:

Warzone 2100 had a system where units could be ordered to automatically retreat when they reached a certain health level. The options were "Fight to the death", "Retreat at medium damage" and "Retreat at critical damage". Once a unit reached the pre-set damage to retreat they would become unselected and move back to base automatically. If you were adding this feature to an RTS you could improve it in a couple of ways. Firstly you could make the unit not only return to base, but return to base, get repaired and then rejoin their unit. Additionally if their unit was completely destroyed while they were at base (or all units were in retreat) they would simply rendezvous back at base.


Automatic use of special abilities:
This has been done in a few games such as WarCraft 3, but it could be improved. Usually the "auto-cast" function simply uses a special ability on the first unit that comes into range, regardless of type. It would be better if the unit chose targets based on which type of unit its particular ability is strongest against. For example, in Company of Heroes it would be more user friendly if the Volksgrenadiers could be set to automatically use their panzerfausts against enemy armour, but not waste them on infantry.

I think I've gone through enough for the time being, as this post has become rather lengthy - please add any ideas you have either had yourself or seen implemented in other games, or comment on the ones I've posted. I might post some more later, depending on how the thread goes. Also this thread is not for debating the relative merits of one RTS versus another, as the majority of the ideas could really be implemented in most types after minor adaptation.

Automatic specials is the most important of those to my mind. Though it needs to be combined with standing orders for that special, so that you can set a threshold before they will use it (for example, AoE specials you should be able to set a threshold of units/unit strength in range before they will use it, and possibly an awareness check and setting for distance that allows the units to move to use the AoE if it can see more targets outside the attack area.)

As noted, Warcraft 3, and even Starcraft, got close but they only allowed certain abilities to be autocast, and with no intelligence behind when to use them.

It all sounds great though, because it would vastly reduce the requirements in RTS games for micromanagement, and would mean that actual strategy and tactics might start being more useful than raw clicking speed.

Automanage targets would be super-useful in games without powers. In most games (as noted) who attacks what is critical. You'd expect ATGM crews to prefer tanks, or even to move to get better shots on tanks. You wouldn't expect tanks to fire main guns on infantry when other tanks are around, and there should be enough synergy so that smallarms infantry don't waste their time shooting at armour or air units unless you tell them.

Simply nudging unit types to 'prefer' to engage their best targets would severely cut down on micro and reduce the 'if you're not watching the battle you lose' effect.

The example of 'ambush' units is particularly galling: in many games infantry can be hidden in buildings, underbrush, stealth etc. They will usually either shoot NOTHING (rendering them spotters only) or ANYTHING (rendering them toast). A simple 'kill wandering infantry' tactic would work wonders: there's no point revealing themselves to fire uselessly at a tank.

However, I'd say that the real problem here is players and the genre itself. Many, many player *want* micro, they *love* having to do it all themselves with eight billion clicks. A game with features like these would be derided by these players as 'simplistic' or a 'nanny RTS'. The players and the perception of the genre makes innovation quite hard - at least that's my explanation for the lack of innovation.

Those people are the kind that will usually bitch and whine but buy the game anyway.

Or they're Korean, in which case they'll just keep playing Starcraft anyway.


I was impressed to see a fair minimum of micro in Battlestations Midway. You can control your units manually, but they generally seem to do OK if you don't.

There doesn't seem to be any kind of target prioritising, but at least fighters know they can't get anywhere strafing larger ships, and bombers are sensible enough to make a run and go and re-arm.

There aren't any special abilities per se, but you can at least control whether the AI is allowed to fire torpedoes (Which are the only things on ships with limited ammo)

Personally, I can no longer stand RTS's where one unit fires continuously at another, automatically hitting and slowly depleting a health bar. I'd like to see much more realism and much less direct control, it's just a game of choosing your forces and deploying them wisely, letting them do the actual fighting mostly on their own. And that fighting should be based on real-world accuracy with a real physics and damage model. I don't know who decided that RTS games had to be utterly unrealistic, but I'd certainly like to see a Total War level of realism for a modern-period RTS.

I've wondered about this for a while. It seems to me that an old game like starcraft with a bit of work in this department would be a lot better than a shiny new 3d rts.

One idea I'd like would be a better grouping system. You would be able to group a bunch of units, and then they would attempt to stay in some sort of formation and support each other.

Another nice idea would be a simple timing system to go with way points. You could select a group, and tell them to move to a point on your clicking the 'mark 1' button. Then, clicking on the 'mark 2' button they would execute an attack. It wouldn't be especially difficult to set up. You might need to bring up a simple overlay to do it, but I doubt that would be a problem.

As to the target priorities, I agree with that entirely. In an idea world you would be able to tinker with the formula yourself: perhaps deciding whether units should take out the threats to themselves or to concentrate the threats to a fellow unit type. Or perhaps to decide whether to try to finish off a badly damaged bad matchup, or to switch to killing a fresh ideal target.

Prozac the Robert wrote:One idea I'd like would be a better grouping system. You would be able to group a bunch of units, and then they would attempt to stay in some sort of formation and support each other.

Empire at War sort of has this. You can group every unit you damn well please in that.

But it's sort of hit-or-miss at staying in formation. Sometimes they will, and sometimes they won't. I haven't yet figured out why, in one instance, my four AT-STs would stay in formation with four Stormtrooper squads moving with the 'Cover' command enabled (thus much slower than normal). And yet shortly thereafter (same battle!) my AT-STs went charging off, leaving the infantry behind.

One thing that might work in that regard is a 'Stay in formation' command. Where you group a ton of them together, click that button, and when you tell them to move somewhere they'll all move at the speed of the slowest unit, maintaining (ideally) some type of mutually supporting formation.

I would rather like it implement as the EaW infantry's 'Cover' command though, where you can issue it to units seperately and can, if you want, take it off of individual unit types. Basically so you can have your whole force grouped together, with the bulk of them in formation, but your fast scout units could still speed ahead as they like. Then you order them to all move, at the same time to some spot on the map, and the main force stays together while the scouts zip ahead, without having to seperately order two formations to do it.

It is frustrating in EaW to have my infantry and AT-STs charge ahead of my AT-AT formation, only to allow enemy infantry/repulsor vehicles to scoot in underneath my walkers' legs where they can't touch them (and thus I have to call back my light units to deal with it after they've charged ahead...sometimes to their doom without the support of my heavier units).

EDIT: Typos.

I would have to say... Shared line of sight. I find it aggrevating when my tanks/hydralisks are one or two units of distance away from enemy units destroying my base and they're sitting on their butts. So, having units respond to any enemy that's in the collective LOS (essentially, those that I can see), or in the LOS of buildings.

Example: A Group of tanks is sitting south of my base. Now, some enemy tanks are attacking one of my building in the north. These (evil, wicked, nasty) tanks are in my building's LOS. So, my tank drivers (having been informed of the attack by comm) drive norh towards the enemy and shoot them when they're in range.

Why has this never been done before, and, if it has, why is it not more common?

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Personally, I can no longer stand RTS's where one unit fires continuously at another, automatically hitting and slowly depleting a health bar. I'd like to see much more realism and much less direct control, it's just a game of choosing your forces and deploying them wisely, letting them do the actual fighting mostly on their own. And that fighting should be based on real-world accuracy with a real physics and damage model. I don't know who decided that RTS games had to be utterly unrealistic, but I'd certainly like to see a Total War level of realism for a modern-period RTS.

Realism will probably equate to either a very long game or a very small-scale game. Battles generally take quite some time to resolve in real life.

Have you tried playing any "serious" wargames? It sounds like that's the sort of gameplay you're really after.

Three words: combat initiative slider.

Basically, a slider control that you use to increase the level of combat initiative of your units. At zero, they act like classic RTS units. As you increase the level of combat initiative, they do things like moving to attack hostiles just outside their range, more intelligent selection of targets, etc. At the highest level of combat initiative, they're basically AI controlled, and will do things like autonomously rushing back to your base if you're under attack, patrolling the area around your base and probing unexplored areas (if they're scout units), or forming up into groups and attacking enemy targets once they decide they have enough forces to get the job done.

Others have pointed these out but I just want to reiterate them. It would be nice to have less micromanagement in all RTS games; its real time strategy, not real time clicking. The outcome of a battle should be decided on who was more innovative, more decisive, capitalized on victories, and executed better attacks/defenses.

Units should be able to prioritize their attacks. Tanks should not be attacking infantry if there are other tanks in the area. It would seem like this is an obvious concept but is seriously lacking in many games. I've had many experiences where I had a superior force only be destroyed because the initial salvos were directed at unworthy targets.

Units which have special capabilities should be able to use them automatically AND at the proper target, without you have to tell it to. You shouldn't have to tell an anti-tank infantry unit to target a tank with accompanying infantry support. Such a thing would have been extremely useful in Star Craft. It was completely stupid that you had to have each individual ghost use their special skill to immobilize enemy battleships. It became who could click the fastest in order to use the special skills the fastest.

Grouped units should have an arbitrary sub-commander assigned to it. In the heat of battle, it would be nice to be notified of other attacks and such events can be relayed by a chain of command from the sub-commander to you. This sub-commander could also provide a small morale bonus and whatever else. It would be nice if you actually felt like a general, issuing orders to lower commanders, rather than a mere traffic director. In games like the Total War series, you actually feel like a leader of a nation because you can assign generals to certain armies and armies without generals are at a great disadvantage compared to an army with a general.

I also favor the "standing orders" suggestion. Too many times have I lost units because I was not directly commanding them. It would be nice if units which reached a certain health point would fall back.

Funny thing is, a lot of this stuff already appears in some past RTS games, if not fully(or correctly) implemented.

Dark Reign, for example, not only gave you the ability to have units automatically disengage when they reached certain levels of damage, they also allowed you to set units to automatically patrol around for enemies, seek them out, or harass enemy forces/bases. It also had an AI that was actually pretty damn smart. If a frontal assault failed, it's next attack might come from the rear, or even through the jungle.

Uraniun235 wrote:

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Personally, I can no longer stand RTS's where one unit fires continuously at another, automatically hitting and slowly depleting a health bar. I'd like to see much more realism and much less direct control, it's just a game of choosing your forces and deploying them wisely, letting them do the actual fighting mostly on their own. And that fighting should be based on real-world accuracy with a real physics and damage model. I don't know who decided that RTS games had to be utterly unrealistic, but I'd certainly like to see a Total War level of realism for a modern-period RTS.

Realism will probably equate to either a very long game or a very small-scale game. Battles generally take quite some time to resolve in real life.

Have you tried playing any "serious" wargames? It sounds like that's the sort of gameplay you're really after.

Not at all. Wargames are a totally different type of game. I'm talking about an RTS experience with realistic damage, scale, and accuracy. I didn't say I wanted everything to be realistic.

Thanks for the replies,

Darth Wong wrote:
Three words: combat initiative slider.

That is a very elegant idea for the implementation of some of the methods I described. It nicely avoids the pitfall of using so many different automation methods, namely that the player ends up bewildered by them all instead of aided. With a slider to control them all (I suppose on a global basis with the possibility of overrides per-unit) it eliminates the need to track lots of different atomisation options; obviously it costs a little flexibility, but still provides way more options than players currently have.

I had an idea along similar lines: rather than automatically give every unit the various "intelligent" behaviours we've described why not make those behaviours actual in-game "upgrades". So for example you could buy "Target priority training" to enable your units ability to auto-choose best targets. Or you could award it through veterancy (more experienced units actually fight more effectively, rather than just doing X% more damage as they in most games). Or you could even have one particular "side" have those intelligent units, whereas the opposing side lacks them.

Think of Red Alert for example, the Soviets are meant to use brute force and shear numbers to win, whereas the Allies rely on high technology. What this ends up meaning in gameplay terms is that the Allies have weak, expensive vehicles while the Soviets have cheap, tough ones. Imagine how much more effective it could be done though - the Allied units all cooperate and share target information actually demonstrating good command and control; the Soviets, on the other hand, would play much more like a "classic" RTS side with their units being numerous but less efficient in combat. The Soviet side requiring more micro management would force the Soviet commander to play a more conservative game, whereas an Allied commander who could reply on initiative from his unit could afford to spend time setting up daring plans, because he doesn't have to babysit the front lines.

Another few ideas to list:

Planning
Mentioned already, but being able to plan your units attacks before hand is very useful. A very poorly appreciated aspect of Red Alert 2 was that it actually included a very simple, streamlined "planning mode". You simply held down Z and issued orders; as you were doing this the orders would appears as waypoints on your screen. You could issue any order this way that you could normally (move, attack move, guard etc...) and once you released Z the orders would immediately begin being executed.

If you selected some more units and pressed Z again you could see all the waypoints and order the new units to join an existing path simply by ordering them onto one of it's waypoints. I used to use this function to set complex move orders or to order powerful units (such as Dreadnoughts, Aircraft Carriers and Kirov Airships) to destroy a base in a certain order - first they would strip away the air defences, then power plants, then the important structures; it took seconds to set-up and once given targets they could be left alone.

This system worked so well because it was fast and simple which fit perfectly with the pace of Red Alert 2, however there are a number of possible improvements. The ability to edit the path once it was placed would be nice (Supreme Commander lets you move waypoints in this manner, but not add new ones, or remove redundant ones). Additionally it would be more flexible if the plans could be created independent of units, who could then later be tasked onto the plan.

Another potential improvement, an idea I borrowed from the Rainbow Six series of games, is "Go" codes. Essentially what these mean is that various waypoints in a plan can be assigned a code by the commander - Alpha, Bravo or Charlie. When a unit reaches one of these waypoints in a path they wait until the appropriate code is given by the commander and then continue the path.

Using this method one could, for example, have 3 different groups of units all approach an enemy base and wait for code Alpha just outside its sight range. Upon code Alpha being given by the commander all 3 groups would begin executing their pre-arranged plan. Once that had successfully distracted the enemies defences, the commander could issue a Bravo go code which would signal an air strike on the crippled base. Just with three go codes it is possible to create very intricate plans, with even the possibility of branching paths (the branching depending on the Go code given at certain waypoints) to allow for multiple contingencies.

Grouping
A few people have also mentioned improvements to grouping and I agree that the unit groups system (i.e. assigning units to number keys) is really under utilised and poorly developed in RTS games. There are so many possibilities for them that, so far as I am aware, have barely even been considered.

I think groups should be managed more like squads in Dawn of War/Company of Heroes rather than the sort of loose aggregation of units that they usually are. In my ideal RTS I would apply a heavy penalty to any unit not being in a group (to represent inefficient command and control) such as a 5 second delay on carrying out orders or some other handicap. A unit must remain in their groups immediate area and may only leave with some special circumstance (such as retreating to base for repair) in which case they will temporarily be placed beyond the players control.

This may sound a bit draconian, but the purpose is to minimise the effectiveness of micro management. It achieves this by preventing any unit in the group from being given orders individually - much like squads in Relic RTS games, except the player gets to choose exactly what goes into them. Special abilities for all the units in the group can be displayed in one area, meaning no searching through many different unit types to find the ability you want. Additionally if multiple units have the same ability, a single click on the abilities icon (which displays the number of "shots" ready for that ability) should select one "shot" and choose the unit nearest to its target to "cast" it, whereas a double-click orders all units to use it on the target; this would be accompanied by a change in cursor to make the difference apparent to the player.

Additionally, groups could have the ability to be "trained" in a certain form of warfare. Train group 1 in armour tactics, for example, and it becomes the "1st Armoured Division" and receives various enhancements to its effectiveness in that role. Another unit could be trained in amphibious warfare, allowing them to disembark from transports more quickly etcetera. Groups could also be assigned overall commanders (chosen by the player or at random) with different abilities, strengths and weaknesses. These could actually act as heroes do in WarCraft 3, where experience for the whole group allows their commander to level up and choose new abilities for his group.

Rise of Legend handled reinforcing groups well as you could set the rally point of a factory onto a specific units icon, causing units built to immediately join that group and move to it's position. Perhaps you could expand this and define a specific set of units you want a group to contain, then task a factory with automatically replacing any losses that group suffers.

Anyway, again I've written and extremely long and rambling post again that's probably a nightmare to read. Please keep ideas and comments coming though.

Uraniun235 wrote:Realism will probably equate to either a very long game or a very small-scale game. Battles generally take quite some time to resolve in real life.

Have you tried playing any "serious" wargames? It sounds like that's the sort of gameplay you're really after.

This doesn't actually make any sense. Realistic damage = quick game, not slow game. Play 'Sudden Strike', a terrible game with realistic damage/penetration/etc and you'll see how fast such things can be. You don't have to go to Close Combat-style combat to avoid health bars and other RTS holdovers.

The health bar thing is almost a litmus test though - if a game has health bars - like DoW - it will play like an RTS, and if it doesn't it will probably play differently. I was stunned when I played the DoW demo back in the day and the combat boiled down to 'hose that guy with an MG until you chip through his hitpoints and he dies', since it's the exact opposite of the 40k system.

With regards to grouping, I think once grouped units should actually be linked and act together. Currently groups do nothing at all aside from let you select a group again - it's a convenience. Groups should work and move and fight together, since you've basically designated them as a task force or whatever. It's absurd that groups don't react as a group and force you to manually create formations etc when such things could be dynamic and automatic.

Forcing units to work as close squads in all circumstances is going too far. Cohesion rules have a place in infantry squad combat, not starships, tanks, planes, robots, etc etc. They only need to work together.

Aaron Ash wrote: Planning

In addition to more than bog standard waypointing, it would be nice to be able to select an automatic Time on Target attack as well, so that pincer attacks or plain ol' sneak attacks and diversions could be more effectively co-ordinated.

I understand that SupCom gives you ETAs on waypoints, but this still leaves you micromanaging the units to arrive together. It would be nice to form a time on target link between two unit groups, give them separate sets of waypoints, and then know that, barring interception, they would arrive together automatically, modifying their speeds and holding at waypoints so that they get there at the right time.

The funny thing is that most of the things mentioned here are already implemented in the games - when you play against the computer.

The computer player's units automatically prioritize, retreat, reform, repair, and lots of other stuff too.

IMO, the actual problem is two fold:
1) You have to have an easy, intuitive interface to issue complex orders/behavior. The initiative slider proposed by Darth Wong would be one example of how to solve a part of that.
2) The entire focus of this RTS would be completely different from (all) other RTSs - but you still have to have a way to make the gameplay challenging, skill differences noticeable, replayability, etc. In other words you have to have a game.
The harder part is not (or shouldn't be) implementing the automation, but having a game DESPITE all this automation. In effect: what does the player do when his base-building, army formation, group behaviour, individual unit reactions are automated?
So, on the one hand, you can list all these things that would be cool and useful, BUT you also have to show how they all fit together into one (fun, addictive) game concept.

My impression with Supreme Commander (as an example) is that they started with the first step as they had all these cool ideas about coordinated attack, automated transport, huge scale (strategy wins, not tactics), etc, but when they had implemented it all, they came up (relatively) empty with an actual game (a mistake made by many game developers - one innovative concept alone does not make a good game).
Your entire focus of this thread is moving right along the same path: You have ideas of how to make the player's units smarter, more autonomous, react intelligently, etc. But you are lacking (or haven't shown) the idea of how to implement these things into a game.
That is the reason why in most RTSs your units are very stupid: So that you have challenging gameplay, where you directly influence the results.

To repeat, heavy automation with smart units is in every RTS out there that lets you play against the computer.

D.Turtle wrote: The harder part is not (or shouldn't be) implementing the automation, but having a game DESPITE all this automation. In effect: what does the player do when his base-building, army formation, group behaviour, individual unit reactions are automated?

Strategy.

I think this kind of game would be far better, as well, with hard unit limits, because then strategy is more relevant than Tanks+1 and charge.

So, Ground Control 3 anyone?

Vendetta wrote:In addition to more than bog standard waypointing, it would be nice to be able to select an automatic Time on Target attack as well, so that pincer attacks or plain ol' sneak attacks and diversions could be more effectively co-ordinated.

I understand that SupCom gives you ETAs on waypoints, but this still leaves you micromanaging the units to arrive together. It would be nice to form a time on target link between two unit groups, give them separate sets of waypoints, and then know that, barring interception, they would arrive together automatically, modifying their speeds and holding at waypoints so that they get there at the right time.

That would be much better than the SupCom system. I think a 'symbolic' control system, using not just waypoints but time 'markers' as well would be neat. To coordinate moves, just drag the time of a waypoint from one group to another. This would require a 'show me more than one waypoint set', but that's required for the R6-style go-coding anyway.

A more complex approach to waypoints and organising movement would deal with a lot of problems, and you guys have some great ideas. The ability to create links between waypoint groups would make it trivial to arrange not just time of arrival, but complex feints, standing orders, rally points, and changes to rules of engagement. Actually, the ability to link groups so that they share 'aggro' would also be useful: during an attack, as soon as one part of the operation is discovered and begins fighting, the other groups should react in some controllable way (ie, retreat to abandon the mission, assault in to support the other group, or head to a different point to attack from behind etc). This sort of complex context-specific planning would be awesome - but I wonder if a UI could be made that could arrange them quickly enough for them to be relevant.

EDIT : As Vendetta says, all this extra functionality does is allow the player to more easily conduct his strategic plan. It shouldn't be painful and it shouldn't require Eisenhower telling a tank commander to use his smoke grenades. I'd actually like to see 'officer' AIs for players, so you can set an AI to look after your harvesting/scouting/etc teams, with set goals, priorities, factories and airlift assets allocated etc - this means the player can play 'shared command' even with only one player, and ppens the way to the player serving the goals of a strategic AI in a battle too large to manage alone.

RogueIce wrote:

Prozac the Robert wrote:One idea I'd like would be a better grouping system. You would be able to group a bunch of units, and then they would attempt to stay in some sort of formation and support each other.

Empire at War sort of has this. You can group every unit you damn well please in that.

But it's sort of hit-or-miss at staying in formation. Sometimes they will, and sometimes they won't. I haven't yet figured out why, in one instance, my four AT-STs would stay in formation with four Stormtrooper squads moving with the 'Cover' command enabled (thus much slower than normal). And yet shortly thereafter (same battle!) my AT-STs went charging off, leaving the infantry behind.

One thing that might work in that regard is a 'Stay in formation' command. Where you group a ton of them together, click that button, and when you tell them to move somewhere they'll all move at the speed of the slowest unit, maintaining (ideally) some type of mutually supporting formation.

I would rather like it implement as the EaW infantry's 'Cover' command though, where you can issue it to units seperately and can, if you want, take it off of individual unit types. Basically so you can have your whole force grouped together, with the bulk of them in formation, but your fast scout units could still speed ahead as they like. Then you order them to all move, at the same time to some spot on the map, and the main force stays together while the scouts zip ahead, without having to seperately order two formations to do it.

It is frustrating in EaW to have my infantry and AT-STs charge ahead of my AT-AT formation, only to allow enemy infantry/repulsor vehicles to scoot in underneath my walkers' legs where they can't touch them (and thus I have to call back my light units to deal with it after they've charged ahead...sometimes to their doom without the support of my heavier units).

EDIT: Typos.

I think (correct me if this refers only to FOC) if you select them all and give a move order, they will eventually get into, and stay in formation automatically.

Unfortunately, they usually run off when they see enemies. For this reason I give the stop command, and have my units stay in formation while firing. They don't move so this doesn't work in a chase scenario.

PS. If you want to keep yout AT ATs clear, try putting a squad of AT AA at their feet. They don't do the most damage, but don't go running off and can also shoot down those pesky speeders.

What about allowing units to move at their own speed within a formation/group? (i.e. in a combined scout/heavier-unit situation, the scouts reach the target first but both can be redirected in the same command.)

Like Turtle stated, the technology is already there, and often demonstrated in the computer AI when you fight it. Yet, it's never shown for your own units.

I loved the AI, mostly, in Starcraft. If I had a bunch of carriers attacking hydras, the hydras would *immediately* group fire on the carriers themselves, rather than the intercepters, if they could get into range. But my own hydras refused to do so unless I specifically ordered them too.

Likewise, I'd love to see shuttles/transports immediately return to base after dropping troops. Autocast on abilities like psionic storm. Hell, even have an option so that when Templars run out of energy, they automatically seek another Templar to do an Archon merge with.

That's the main reason I'm always torn between RTS and TBS games. Real-time offers more fun in the 'holy crap, look at everything swarming over the screen' sense, but turn-based, because of stupid AI in RTS, allows for a more realistic battle in the sense that you actually have the time to make sure each unit is acting like an actual, intelligent, combat unit. It just takes excrutiatingly long.

I'm sorry, but I did not buy an RTS to become a click-warrior. I think the same people who enjoy training themselves to hit ninety hotkeys in ten seconds are the same type who enjoy camping a spawn-spot for ten hours to get that rare, +1 armour piece in RPGs.

It's just a case of obsessed people training themselves to fit in well with the limitations of a game, then throwing a fit when those limitations they've based their skills around are removed.

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:I'm sorry, but I did not buy an RTS to become a click-warrior. I think the same people who enjoy training themselves to hit ninety hotkeys in ten seconds are the same type who enjoy camping a spawn-spot for ten hours to get that rare, +1 armour piece in RPGs.

I agree with the 1st part wholeheartedly. On the 2nd part though, I have to disagree vehemently.

I don't believe that everyone necessarily "enjoys training themselves" to achieve a degree of APM (actions per minute, that's the term we're all ignorant of here), they just obviously LIKE the game and want to GET BETTER. Boasting about APM in itself is rather immature though it is the skill needed in micro-intensive RTS's and is just a byproduct of doing what it takes to be a good player.

But that last point... well, while at my peak as a Starcraft player, I probably could get streaks of 150-ish APM games, it's extremely taxing. When the game's over it's not like "fuck yeah I won -- bitch" it's like ... coming out of a trance. You're just so sucked into the click-a-thon. That feeling has it's own appeal but as you say:

It's just a case of obsessed people training themselves to fit in well with the limitations of a game, then throwing a fit when those limitations they've based their skills around are removed.

I don't either believe it to be the ideal. It shouldn't be a predictor of success, OTOH, taking away that option is draconian, IMO.


Borrowing a page from DW, I'd like to see an Initiative Slider applied to the entire MACRO aspect of the game but in a much more limited fashion and not %100 efficient. (spending the money the moment it's mined) Macro as in putting the workers to work, advancing the tech tree, keeping your unit-supply / power grid in the green, even building units.

On it's lowest, the Macro-Slider won't do anything.
On the HIGHEST though, it builds up the economy early, making and putting the workers to work, builds the farms / power depots, builds the BASIC unit-producing building, SUGGESTS units to build commensurate with what your intelligence is telling you about the enemy's own units and unit-producing building, DOES NOT research or upgrade and DOES NOT advance the tech tree where it might BRANCH and DOES NOT EXPAND. (since at this point, you can either spam basic units, branch in one direction, say armor, or the other, say air, or even try to do BOTH)

One very simple thing to cut down on macro-tasks but without invoking automation: just as you can Ctrl+left click to get all of the same type of unit (for example), the same should apply to unit-producing buildings, that way you can quickly spam fighters as-is necessary, without making it easy-automatic. Stuff like that I'd use judiciously.

That doesn't sound THAT high-speed, but Turtle's point of overdoing the automation is a good one. The Auto-Macro I envision would MERELY prevent the UBER NOOBS from sitting on a mountain of money that is being inefficiently mined / gathered and even spending what little money he DOES get at an atrociously slow pace. Last note though on Auto-Macro: there should NOT be a tax on canceling buildings in progress. Yes, you've committed the resources already, but such a minor feature penalizes adaptation. Really, this sort of flip-flopping is already inherently taxed in wasted time.


My own ideas really just seek to cut the waste out, applied to Starcraft, it would take the trance-effect out of playing Terran. (who, because of supply depots, medium cost and medium supply-value units, and multiple unit-producing buildings, are macro-intensive, to say NOTHING of siege-tank / spider mine / missile turret pushes against the Protoss ) I'd keep DW's combat initiative slider verbatim though. It'll save time when you need to but give you the option to micro those Decisive Battles. Long example follows, but don't worry, it's generic real-world analogues, not esoteric Starcraft inanity.

Take a typical grunt. He has a rifle, like every other grunt but he's also got an RPG. He's just as tough (armor) as other infantry like in real life but obviously a bit slower. He's more powerful but that rocket is only power that's suited to targeting tougher targets, not other infantry, that would be wasteful. Now on max, that combat initiative would mean once he's got the opportunity, he's gonna target an APC or tank or even pillbox, the 1st target that is not a waste of a rocket will be shot. But let's be real -- I don't think the programming will EVER make the perfect decision. The PROMPT decision is not always the best one, sometimes it is patience that is required, to see if the enemy's got something in reserve, or to adapt to his tactics.

The scenario is you have mostly infantry, with a decent amount of RPG guys. The other side has infantry, a single tough tank, and several pillboxes. Depending on what your guys see 1st and where your RPG guys are, happenstance could dictate that they fire enough rockets to severely damage the tank, NOT KILL IT, and only take down one pillbox. (for the sake of the argument, a tank will take 3-4 RPG's whilst a pillbox takes just 1) Now, had you waited, by not putting the auto-initiative-slider 2 D MAX, you might have come to a better strategy: micro against all of the pillboxes, since they're just as deadly as the tank, but much easier to kill.

Numerous other examples abound. Perhaps there is an enemy APC, your grunts might want to target it 1st. On your own side is an IFV, some RPG guys and rifleman. Although the APC is a tempting target, and may even be full of grunts, if there later appears a tank and you cannot mass fire on it with your RPG men, the tank will outclass your IFV. Furthermore, even IF the APC isn't fired upon, the IFV is well-suited to fighting enemy infantry and APC's in it's own right.

It's those sorts of duplication of targeting or piecemeal, haphazard destruction of the enemy that I don't believe any amount of AI will ever emulate perfectly. If both sides are literally staring across each other from a trench with observation balloons and everything is known about the balance-of-power before the actual fighting starts, it may be, but otherwise there may still be something to be gained from micro-managing your combat units.

I think his point about initiative making the game 'player free' is fucking dumb. Yeah, having units that can do their job without the player directing every single action will result in nothing for the player to do! It's not like the actual game is still exactly the same and battles are simply less onerous - having units that respond autonomously or throw their own grenades or follow preset battleplans will make the rest of the game automatic... somehow.

Frankly, it's an example of what I've been saying all along: these people don't want to play a 'real-time strategy game', they want to play 'regular' RTS's with all the baggage that brings along. The idea that units doing the sensible/obvious thing is some kind of noob-assistance reveals a great deal about the mentality of RTS players. Other statements - like cancelling a project in progress should always refund resources - shows that they're incapable of imagining different games: heavens, in SOME games it makes sense, in others it doesn't! No, it shouldn't be penalised because of RTS gameflow convention.

I think you should be able to utilize the terrain more effectively. In RA2, you could garrison buildings. I like the idea of using them as makeshift forts. You could spend money to fortify them, maybe add mines and tank traps. Modify the terrain so your troops have trenches or hills for defense. Engineers don't really seem to play much part in games.