[RTS] What are the arguments against pre-build?

[Stark]

Assume the build tree (and game) is designed with prebuild in mind, rather than it being hacked in later.

Pre-building allows players to spend a set amount of resources 'before' the game starts (time, money, etc) to configure their starting base/force before play starts, generally within a limited area. It's used to allow games to avoid the early resource stalls or early-game being built around furious teching.

In my experience the early phase of RTS games is generally incredibly boring (few of the interesting units in play) and yet often determines the outcome of a game. Prebuilding allows the 'fun' part in the middle of the tech tree to be reached without ten minutes of houseruled truce or without encouraging rapid raiding.

Obviously there are issues with it; people who spend it all on units could convievably swamp defences, but this is a balance and tactics issue rather than a design issue. This system is also used in games like Ground Control that allow players to choose their units before play starts.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

Honestly: I've only ever seen the same old tired SC style remarks of "skill" that are generally holding the whole genre back.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Personally, I find it adds more depth to the game, that is, being able to properly organise yourself prior to the epic clicking of units into attack positions can make or break a game. If you're just tank rushing with basic units and killing the opponent before they can even erect a basic economy, then you're showing no tact or gamesmanship and make for a boring experience. Far better to see how someone can utilise what resources they have and produce a better strategy from it. That requires skill to get right, not an itchy clicking finger.

That said, I don't mind games that neglect having any base building or economy in the classical sense (the aforementioned Ground Control) and to a lesser extent its sequel). But having been raised with C&C and also the spectre of tank rushes, I prefer prebuilding personally.

[Ford Prefect]

Holy shit, Valdemar.

I'd actually be interested in seeing some decent arguments against pre-building, because so far the only reason why I see you wouldn't want it is because you like rushing early in the game.

[Stark]

In particular cases - I'm thinking of Metal Fatigue - it allows the focus of the game to be put on teching to the units you want at the start (in MF, setting up your pilots and parts to build the mechs you want without havign to harvest, build, research and erect the robots in playtime) which allows unit complexity without making early game more of a giant clickfest. The build tree can also be made either flatter or more complex, since a player can get 'up' it faster.

Personally, I think Total Annihilation/SupCom would really beenfit from prebuild. If you prevented the player from building econ stuff, and just let them lay out units, facs, defences or whatever (or even just position these things from a fixed list) the first 20s of the game would be a lot smoother.

[GuppyShark]

I remember reading somewhere that SupCom was supposed to enable you to set a planned base structure (developed outside of the game) and have the AI automatically build it it for you from the plans.

I always thought that was a fantastic idea as it would create a neat little meta-game that you could fiddle with outside the actual gameplay.

The pre-build idea seems similar and would have made an interesting variant.

[Stark]

Yeah, I remember that. Can you actually do it? I played Supcom a bit and never noticed it, and yeah having base templates would be pretty boss. As with Metal Fatigue that sort of thing would allow a much more complex structure design to be practical ingame without stealing all the player's attentions.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Holy shit, Valdemar.

I'd actually be interested in seeing some decent arguments against pre-building, because so far the only reason why I see you wouldn't want it is because you like rushing early in the game.

The rumours about my death have been woefully inaccurate. And I chose Stark's thread as a return, because I just got SupCom for a fiver and also because I want his babies.

In particular cases - I'm thinking of Metal Fatigue - it allows the focus of the game to be put on teching to the units you want at the start (in MF, setting up your pilots and parts to build the mechs you want without havign to harvest, build, research and erect the robots in playtime) which allows unit complexity without making early game more of a giant clickfest. The build tree can also be made either flatter or more complex, since a player can get 'up' it faster.

Personally, I think Total Annihilation/SupCom would really beenfit from prebuild. If you prevented the player from building econ stuff, and just let them lay out units, facs, defences or whatever (or even just position these things from a fixed list) the first 20s of the game would be a lot smoother.

I agree. It would be nice to have the option for this feature in a lot of RTS games where you can either choose to start off building an economy from the ground up over time, or have a pre-fabricated base ready in a config of your choosing, with whatever starting garrison units you need. It'd make for a faster game, without sacrificing the element of resource management which can make for longer, more interesting games.

[Dave]

Yeah, I remember that. Can you actually do it? I played Supcom a bit and never noticed it, and yeah having base templates would be pretty boss. As with Metal Fatigue that sort of thing would allow a much more complex structure design to be practical ingame without stealing all the player's attentions.

I believe user-designed pre-set build queues are available in Forged Alliance, though I really haven't done anything other than cracked the seal on FA.
From seeing one or two FA multiplayer replays, I suspect they were usually used to build defensive structures with one click. (point defense with an "X"-design of dragon's teeth around them to trap or divert incoming ground units.)

I need to find time to play it.

[Highlord Laan]

Even barring pre-build, I'd love simply being able to bring some units from the prior mission/match forward to the next. Add in a veteran system to make it even more worthwhile.

Nowhere else have I wanted this more than in Starcraft. There was one mission where, by the end, I had six marines with over 120 kills each. They'd survived the whole mission, likely being amongst the first few units I'd created early on. Even if I couldn't bring whole structures with me to the next mission, I'd have loved to be able to have an elite group of fully upgraded veteran Marines to take with me to the next mission and beyond.

C&C has the Veteran setup, but no way to carry them foreward. I can't count how many times I've wished I could keep my squads of elite Zone Troopers.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Even barring pre-build, I'd love simply being able to bring some units from the prior mission/match forward to the next. Add in a veteran system to make it even more worthwhile.

Nowhere else have I wanted this more than in Starcraft. There was one mission where, by the end, I had six marines with over 120 kills each. They'd survived the whole mission, likely being amongst the first few units I'd created early on. Even if I couldn't bring whole structures with me to the next mission, I'd have loved to be able to build an elite group of fully upgraded veteran Marines with me.

C&C has the Veteran setup, but no way to carry them foreward. I can't count how many times I've wished I could keep my squads of elite Zone Troopers.

You mean like a league where you can basically start with an advantage in the next game assuming you had an army that didn't plaster itself all over the landscape in one almighty clusterfuck that just happened to go in your favour, just?

Sounds like a plan. Kind've like the idea of starting out with a certain amount of resources or units, then playing a league table until you run out. That sure as hell would get people thinking about how to play, like chess, rather than "I plan to build a hundred Level 1 tankies and rush the fucker. Rinse and repeat".

[Stark]

Veteran stuff is a different issue and very hard to do right; it'll always get more resistance than things that don't affect gameplay.

The CnC3 SP (while shit) could really have used prebuild. Ugh, let's build the same half dozen structures AGAIN.

[Vympel]

Personally, I find it adds more depth to the game, that is, being able to properly organise yourself prior to the epic clicking of units into attack positions can make or break a game. If you're just tank rushing with basic units and killing the opponent before they can even erect a basic economy, then you're showing no tact or gamesmanship and make for a boring experience. Far better to see how someone can utilise what resources they have and produce a better strategy from it. That requires skill to get right, not an itchy clicking finger.

That said, I don't mind games that neglect having any base building or economy in the classical sense (the aforementioned Ground Control) and to a lesser extent its sequel). But having been raised with C&C and also the spectre of tank rushes, I prefer prebuilding personally.

What are you doing back here you motherfucker! *claps him on the back*

[Admiral Valdemar]

I got over some shit. I actually miss this place. Who knew?

Sorry, Stark. Uh, back to your scheduled programming.

[Stark]

Since nobody apparently has a problem with prebuild, I'll poe another question. Is prebuilding a preferrable way of reducing base micro to simply doing away with bases/having off-map bases? Games like WiC and GC just let you order stuff (and lack resourcing) and games like WZ and Earth 21x0 let you use off-map bases to order stuff and send them in. However you lose the whole base business (although defences etc in stuff like WZ are pretty complex anyway).

[ray245]

Since nobody apparently has a problem with prebuild, I'll poe another question. Is prebuilding a preferrable way of reducing base micro to simply doing away with bases/having off-map bases? Games like WiC and GC just let you order stuff (and lack resourcing) and games like WZ and Earth 21x0 let you use off-map bases to order stuff and send them in. However you lose the whole base business (although defences etc in stuff like WZ are pretty complex anyway).

Won't it be better to remove the ability to call in new troops in the game, so that you can only build up your army before the battle on limited funds?

[Stark]

That, however, is proposing a particular limited type of game (Ground Control/Total War) instead of a general 'improvement' adoptable in much of the genre. WiC is a very tournament game built around flowing play over a match, which couldn't happen without reinforcement.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'd rather have the option for both kinds of game. One lends itself to a more tactical, kind of gameplay, while the other is more about longer term strategy. It's hard to succeed in a game where you fucked up your base's defences and economy so early on, even if you build a couple of Mammoth Tank/Krogoth clones to help you fight early on, you may have lost the war if not that first battle. With WiC and GC etc., you can get straight into the action, while still having some obvious limits on how far you can go with respect to units available down to some arbitrary limitation out of your hands. It allows you to have a pseudo-economy of sorts, but not with the baggage of being adept at building a base perfectly, lest you fail before the game even reaches decent tech levels and make full use of the game's features.

[Stark]

WiC's success is really how well the action -> reinforcement system worked; if doing stuff didn't feed back into getting your guys back into the fight it would have sucked. As it is people really resisted the baseless setup.

But yeah, I'd like to think there was space for both types of game.

[Covenant]

SupCom's system did, and it also reactively did at times. Plus, it had a pre-build phase where you could say "No building/moving outside of this radius for 10 minutes" kinda like a pre-build phase. The game also remembered, with spotty accuracy, some shapes you liked to make. Occasionally it would allow me to place a + shaped group of four metal storage boxes around an extractor--a real time-saver in SupCom since you wanted to do that to all of your T2 and T3 extractors to massively multiply their output.

I will flat out state that there's no good argument against pre-build because the game always has a level of pre-building, it's only a matter of how much you've got when the game begins. In nearly every game you start with a builder of some sort, a basic structure of some sort and a local area of some sort to begin building in. Unless someone is seriously saying that the "press the peon button three times" phase of the game is actually a moment of real strategic and tactical depth, the early game is really a rote exercise.

[Stark]

Yeah, many games early game is so rote winning is about following the timetable most closely, which is appalling.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Older C&C games could be decided almost entirely based on how well you could remember a build order and how fast you could move that cursor. Map, tech and strategem differences were entirely beside the point. So long as you could get a War Factory down and plough the monies into it, since you'd have at least ten grand in terms of ore on even the most barren map, you could get a victory in under half an hour. Yeah, that requires THINKING and PATTON level understanding of how to conduct warfare and run an economy. Or not.

I remember being rushed by a guy who had, quite literally, spent all his opening funds on infantry. Sure, it was a small map, but Christ on a Segway, was that a funny sight. Funnier when my Light Tanks went squishy times.

From what I've been playing of SupCom so far, rushing early on = instant death. At least against someone who knows what the fuck to do. Oh, I'm sorry, did your squadron of light bombers get mowed down by ack ack like so many bugs? Shame.

[Covenant]

Yeah, many games early game is so rote winning is about following the timetable most closely, which is appalling.

Most of this is basic stuff too--build an SCV. Move it--fast! Hurry! Build another. Hurry up! Start a marine barracks... hope you didn't waste 2 miliseconds, or his zealot will get here first! The worst was the Zerg, where you tried to cheese the early game drone allotment via placing a Vepsene Reactor then cancelling it to get one more drone before making an overlord just to squeeze out a little more cash?

This isn't strategy, it's essentially a game of money and time flipping. I have no objection to people liking such a game, but they're specialized products. Such base-building and unit-balance should not apply to an actual strategy game.

I think base-building should start with a pre-gen base that you've designed out of game. Let it be a base of X squares around a central structure with a buildable radius of Y. Depending on the things you put in those X squares, you'll have a different allotment of forces available, and until you actually expand outside your base with new buildable radius expanders, that'll be your base. You'll start with funds and a handful of units depending on your base layout.

You can even make it so some things are more or less specific. Not just "You get 1000 minerals and can make what you want," but slotted, so each time you start you have 2 factories of whatever type you chose, 4 generators of whatever type you chose, and 1 special structure. If you have multiple options for each that's not only a game about strategizing the early game (scouting, adjusting to what your opponent is fielding) but also encourages you to expand (to get more buildable radius) especially if you can only expand to areas of strategic importance (area control).

In any case, I like pre-build since it removes needless grind, and reduces the micromanagement of economy while allowing you to increase the complexity of it. Supreme Commander is a great example of a backwards econ model. Why are the early power plants tiny, while the end ones are huge? Shouldn't the early ones be big, and make space the mitigating factor (larger generators = less yield per square kilometer = wider perimeter, weaker defensive cannons, and thinner shielding) and have the advanced ones be smaller, easier to spread out, and easier to defend?

Ah well.

[adam_grif]

Some people like having to establish an economy from the ground up. It's really that simple.

[Stark]

You're still establishing an economy from the ground up. You're simply not doing so to a fractional-second timeframe whilst raiding and microing at the same time. The game is otherwise exactly the same, with the same need for management.