RTS innovations

[Graeme Dice]

It is not wrong, it is not that important.

You see, that's where you're an idiot. If any decision in a game has an obvious correct or optimal choice, then the player should be able to completely automate that decision. There is no strategy involved in the micromanagement of decisions that always have the same optimal choice.

A game's strategy is defined by a PLAYER's input.

No, dipshit, a game's strategy is defined by a player's thoughts. A game's interface is defined by a player's input.

In this particular case, you can simply replace rifle infantry and rocket infantry with an "infantry squad" that does similar damage to both tanks and infantry. There, you've removed micro without requiring AI. The game play remains.

Bullshit. You've removed a valid strategic decision. That would be the decision of whether you wished to focus on anti-tank or anti-infantry effectiveness.

SCV mining is not a "gameplay feature" as mining is a boring event which few would want to pay attention to even if it takes strategy.

Focus firing is not a "gameplay feature" as focus firing is a boring event which few would want to pay attention to even if it takes strategy. There. That sentence is just as correct as the one you wrote. There's absolutely no strategy involved in babysitting your idiotic units so that they actually focus their fire effectively, but RTS games still make players perform this trivial task.

I'm not saying that everything have to be done in a clumsy manner, but that down the line at some point, the player has to be spending its time choosing between an set of activities which he can not simulatously fulfill.

Why are you assuming, without anything other than your unsupported assertion to back it up, that making it impossible for a player to manage everything simultaneously is a good thing? Frankly, there should be little difference in the gameplay ability between somebody who clicks 500 times per minute and somebody who clicks 10 times per minute if they both understand the game equally well. That would be a true strategy game.

A game's gameplay is defined by where the player do have to manage things.

A strategy game's gameplay is actually defined by what decisions the player has to make, but then, you wouldn't know that since you don't play strategy games. You play action games that call themselves strategy games.

Diversions and traps has most of its meaning when the person on the other side is overloaded with his own micromanagement problems.

No player should ever be overloaded with micromanagement. No player should have to perform any micromanagement whatsoever. Micromanagement is defined as repetitive actions that have obvious, trivial, correct choices, yet must be done individually due to an inferior interface.

Try playing starcraft at 1/20 its base speed for example (giving the average player 1000APM post scaling) and things like distractions no longer mean anything. Your opponent can easily deal with any distraction and everything else at that speed and it ceases being a gameplay factor.

Thanks for identifying why Starcraft is a better game, and why it's considerably more fun, when it's played at a speed far below the default speed.

Remember, the gameplay factor that defines RTS is player input.

No, that's what you've decided is the defining factor, since you're afraid of change and don't want actual strategic decisions to be the major gameplay factor for a strategy game.

You do NOT increase the range of strategy via reducing micro. Like I said, you can reduce micro VERY EASILY. It is so easy it is trivial.

More useless bullshit. I love how your the basis for your argument is so incredibly pitiful that you're reduced to claiming that reducing micro and reducing game complexity are the same thing.

When the AI takes over a factor of gameplay, it removes that from strategy. There is a choice in "whether or not I micro my machinegunners to shoot enemy infantry" while there is no choice in "my machinegunners engage the enemy.

That might be a choice, but it's not a strategic choice, since there is a single optimal solution.

The AI is good, I don't have to look at the troops."

Nor should you have to look at your troops.

The question of where, and how to micromanagement units is an dimension of RTS strategy. It is not just about clicking fast. It is about clicking at the right things.

Which, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, has absolutely no place in a strategy game.

The particular part about Age of Kings is hunting animals to boost the economy. (one gathers food faster by hunting than killing sheep, picking berries or farming) It is poorly automated, requiring the player to babysit the peasents to not killed by wild animals or other forms of stupidity.

Well yes, that's why nobody in their right mind plays those games.

When it comes down to it, that part about the gameplay does not detract from the AoK in general.

Yes, it does detract from the gameplay in AoK. That kind of ridiculous micro requirement just to play the game means that the game is utterly worthless.

Just because it is boring to you does not mean it has no strategy or is easy to master.

Would you please care to point out where the interesting decisions come into play when micromanaging units in Starcraft? Note that time pressure is not an interesting decision, it's an interface flaw.

Given that you do not play at a high level where minor map differences make the difference, I don't think you are in a good position to judge. I doubt you even really understood what different start locations on lost temple really means for combat given the different races.

And you, as the master of clickfest RTS games are obviously an authority on the subject. :rolleyes:

Also, because of all the assymetries of races, only maps of a very limited design could be balanced for every race. There is not enough leeway build into the system to allow for drastic changes in strategy.

I think most of the people on the rational side of this argument are well aware that Starcraft is a rather pathetic strategy game. You probably don't need to bother reminding us about that fact.

In a "simple" game, there is usually a set of "safe builds" that is reliable to be competitive against any other start the opponent could get. Because those builds, aka "strategy", is so consistant and reliable, it can be reused quite a bit and is not really "creative" after the few experimenting souls developed them.

Then make your game so that there aren't a set of safe builds. This is not a difficult thing to do, unless you're not actually designing a strategy game, and are instead designing an action game, like the vast majority of RTS games on the market.

Anyways, few RTS players actually "want" to think very hard about all dimensions of strategy. Even the AI fanclub have little coherent idea of what strategy actually is.

And you certainly don't have a single bloody clue about what strategic choices are, since you apparently actually believe that choices with trivial solutions are strategic.

Strategy is about the choices the player makes.[/qutoe]

Close, but no cigar. Strategy is about the meaningful choices that a player makes.

AI is just a tool, it is not a wonder drug.

More longwinded bullshit from the master. Proper unit AI in Starcraft would reverse the playing field so that those players who are smarter but don't click as fast would defeat the fast clickers every single time.

The question isn't that units are stupid. The question is what is it that the player ought to be doing.

The player should be making strategic decisions. I thought that would be obvious, even to somebody as limited as yourself, from the name of the genre.

The greatest thing you fail to grasp about RTS games, is that they are not simply a black box that responds to player input. Their attraction to the gaming public is that they are a complicated system that responds to player input in a predictable and immediate way through the interaction of a variety of rules. Without this interaction, which you are claiming is unnecessary, there is no reason to play the game.

[brianeyci]

I don't see why anybody can take micro seriously after watching this. Sit back on a weekend, watch all the episodes and laugh. Or just watch episode 4.

If I liked micro, I wouldn't come out and debate it as if micro was the only right idea, but I'd say it was my personal preference. Problem here seems to be people thinking micro is absolutely the right way to do things. I happen to hate micro because it's... uh more action than strategy (duh!) can't believe some people need that explained.

[HSRTG]

It is not wrong, it is not that important.

Yes it is important. Having to tell a machine gun to fire at infantry is wrong. I shouldn't have to babysit what is supposed to represent reasonably intelligent human beings. That pisses me off and drags me out of SoD. If I wanted stupid, I'd go play a game of Lemmings.

A game's strategy is defined by a PLAYER's input.

A game's "strategy" (I'm using it in terms of your definition) is defined by nonexistent unit AI, stupid amounts of micro, and a lack of anything resembling coherent strategy other than dancing units, and throwing more advanced dancing units into the fray.

If you are willing to accept abstractions (which every RTS player is suppose to, just look at the mine and build times), one can simply remove the game play part involved.

Say what? I can accept some abstractions but poor unit AI is inexcusable today. It's retarded. A simple holdover from times when we didn't have the processing power to have every unit make some simple decisions.

Every unit, every event and every gameplay "feature" is really a black box with an "player input" and a "result output."

I dispute your premise, sir. If we went by something this retarded I would have to tell my units to fire in the first place. IIRC units automatically fire today.

What is inside the box and how things are resolved is simply irrelevant to the player.

No, they're not. A few of the ideas suggested in this thread could cut the amount of "Needed" micro today in half.

In this particular case, you can simply replace rifle infantry and rocket infantry with an "infantry squad" that does similar damage to both tanks and infantry. There, you've removed micro without requiring AI. The game play remains.

You're deliberately misunderstanding me. I want my units to be less retarded, not to have less of them. That's taking away a game-altering decision that's made at the strategic level. I made 3 rifle squads, he made a tank. He rocks my socks because he scouted and I didn't.

SCV mining is not a "gameplay feature" as mining is a boring event which few would want to pay attention to even if it takes strategy.

Ah, so you have a definition of "boring event", that you're slapping on things. I would guess that you have a definition of "interesting event" too. Pray provide these that I might understand you better.

Resource harvesting can be reduce to slapping a "mining building" on top of the resource instead of silly things like SCV running everywhere, which is mostly just eye candy.

Indeed. Which is part of why I like Total Annihilation better.

I'm not saying that everything have to be done in a clumsy manner, but that down the line at some point, the player has to be spending its time choosing between an set of activities which he can not simulatously fulfill.

Precisely. I want, however, to reduce (or eliminate) the need for some of the more retarded actions. Like telling my machine gun to fire at the goddamn infantry. The tank is fucking immune to your bullets already retards.

A game's gameplay is defined by where the player do have to manage things. The other things can just be toss out in abstraction boxes as they are just eye or ai-candy that do not define gameplay.

I want strategy in my RTS. Not something requiring FPS levels of speed and reflexes. This bullshit you're peddling basically (If I'm right) states that more automation=bad, and more manual=good.

Diversions and traps has most of its meaning when the person on the other side is overloaded with his own micromanagement problems. Try playing starcraft at 1/20 its base speed for example (giving the average player 1000APM post scaling) and things like distractions no longer mean anything. Your opponent can easily deal with any distraction and everything else at that speed and it ceases being a gameplay factor.

You don't what diversion, or trap means. I see. Well, let me provide a pair of Starcraft Scenarios that will tell you what the rest of us mean by diversion and trap.

Scenario One: Evenly matched opponents. Evenly matched armies. Player #2 builds some dropships, and puts 3/4 of his army in them. He sends the other 1/4 to attack a pair of expansions that player #1 put up. Player #1 falls for this diversion and sends half his force out to crush this pitiful raid. Player #2 drops his forces straight into player #1's base. Diversion accomplished. Most of #1's forces are elsewhere, and what remain can be crushed by the forces in his own base, then his base can be demolished. Or player #1 can recall his guys, and lose his expansions.

Scenario Two: Player #1 is raiding #2. #2's guys follow #1's guys towards the middle of the map. Suddenly, four Siege Tanks and three Battlecruisers open up out of nowhere on #2's guys. Trap.

Yes, it is difficult for the average player to execute complex battle plans, however it is difficult for them to counter them as well.

It shouldn't be difficult to execute complex battle plans. That's my point. However, trying to counter three prongs of raging enemy, while simultaneously dealing with air strikes and nuke strikes against your expansion points is always going to be hard. Let's not make it any harder than it has to be.

The goal of the game is not to have "perfect planning" but to have "plans that beats your opponent."

No dispute here.

Because controls are so hard in Starcraft, things like muti-direction drops are effective as your opponent would have to struggle to move units out of traffic jams and manage not to have its units arrive in chaotic piecemeal.

Wait, are you advocating a clunky difficult-to-manage-for-no-good-fucking-reason interface? Shit. I'm gonna have to rethink what I thought of you.

Remember, the gameplay factor that defines RTS is player input.

No. It doesn't. I addressed this above.

The ulitmate factor on whether something will be done in a game is on the cost-effectiveness of the action. If one designs the game so that complex battle plans pays off heavily relative to the amount of control required, it will be the focus of the game.

Complex battle plans (By which you mean a coordinated attack [:lol:]) are always going to be hard to fight against. I drilled into this above. Let's not make it any harder to do, or fight, than we have to.

This can be done in a infinite numbers of ways, and AI is merely another factor like health points, weapon range, unit speed, unit size, but it is one that is most expensive to develop and do not necessarily do anything more than passive factors.

How expensive is it to put a unit preference for infantry into a machine gun squad? I can't think it'd take more than three or four lines of code.

You do NOT increase the range of strategy via reducing micro. Like I said, you can reduce micro VERY EASILY. It is so easy it is trivial.

So why don't we reduce it? But yes, you do increase the range of strategy by reducing micro, as you can more easily coordinate attacks.

If you've played an "RTS" with only one unit, one building, in numbers with mechanics where micro is infeasible, than you'd see that there is not more inherent strategy in that sistuation. In fact, there is no strategy beyond endless waves of units.

Wow, blatant strawmanning. You're confusing giving units some better AI and simplifying build trees. Or you aren't, and am simply trying to score points.

Strategy is NOT what your units or your forces do.

No, but having my units be smarter increases the choices I can make from a strategic level. Should I send me guys to the flank, or try to push through the middle? Should I send the airstrike to support my men, or go into his base? Reducing pointless micro where there can be only one choice allows these decisions to be made more easily.

Strategy is what YOU, as the player, do.

On a level beyond battle-to-battle. You seem to be confusing strategy and tactics. Go read some books.

Strategy comes from having a large set of choices to make at a give time. Strategy IS the choices one makes.

Indeed. So let's reduce some of the pointless "choices" (Hint: it's not a choice if the outcome is predetermined) and let the players think about more worthwhile things.

When the AI takes over a factor of gameplay, it removes that from strategy.

Ah, here you are again with "Pointless micro = good gameplay. Don't dispute this or else I'll say it again for no apparent reason". Let's get the 'Reduce Unneeded Micro' tech already.

There is a choice in "whether or not I micro my machinegunners to shoot enemy infantry"

Or instead of this, we could have something approaching strategy where you're routinely launching diversions, setting traps, and launching multifront coordinated attacks.

while there is no choice in "my machinegunners engage the enemy. The AI is good, I don't have to look at the troops."

And instead I can send those other guys on my right flank in to dick around with the enemy supply lines.

The question of where, and how to micromanagement units is an dimension of RTS strategy. It is not just about clicking fast. It is about clicking at the right things.

So let's make some of these meaningless "choices" meaningless, and introduce some strategy to the mix.

[quoteIncidentally, there are games with manual resourcing. (AoK comes to mind, as are some european offerings) [/quote]

And I don't play them. For apparently good reason.

The particular part about Age of Kings is hunting animals to boost the economy. (one gathers food faster by hunting than killing sheep, picking berries or farming) It is poorly automated, requiring the player to babysit the peasents to not killed by wild animals or other forms of stupidity.

So you agree that it's poorly automated. Great! Let's get an AI dev in there to make it better.

When it comes down to it, that part about the gameplay does not detract from the AoK in general.

Ohhh yes it does.

The reason is that it is that the player have a choice as to whether or not to micro for food or to use a less micro intensive method like berry gathering. This is a choice, and that is a good thing.

No, that's a pointless choice brought on by bad AI.

Just because it is boring to you does not mean it has no strategy or is easy to master. I found standard Starcraft boring too, and spend my time playing use map setting. However it does not mean I know or could easily learn about all the details of strategy involved in a standard game.

If the units were less idiotic do you think you'd be playing standard SC?

Given that you do not play at a high level where minor map differences make the difference, I don't think you are in a good position to judge.

I note that you aren't either.

Also, because of all the assymetries of races, only maps of a very limited design could be balanced for every race. There is not enough leeway build into the system to allow for drastic changes in strategy.

Okay. Fine. So how would more maps work?

Because in a non-total information game, much of what is going on is gambling.

Ah, so you're saying that scouting wouldn't exist. Gotcha.

In a "simple" game, there is usually a set of "safe builds" that is reliable to be competitive against any other start the opponent could get. Because those builds, aka "strategy", is so consistant and reliable, it can be reused quite a bit and is not really "creative" after the few experimenting souls developed them.

Mmmkay.

However, to build a "complex" game, there can not be a set of safe builds that the competitive against any other build, or else it would be used exclusively. As an result, the game has to be between a large set of unsafe builds and the lucky could win by guessing right.

Does the word "Scout" mean anything to you?

The players have spoken, and they've decided to stick to counterstrike until the end of time?

Meh, I don't mind leaving the fucktards to CS. Let em rot .

Anyways, few RTS players actually "want" to think very hard about all dimensions of strategy. Even the AI fanclub have little coherent idea of what strategy actually is.

I've provided my ideas above. You now know what this member of the AI fanclub thinks strategy is.

Strategy is about the choices the player makes.

Christ, you're repetitive. See above for Dog's sake.

The objective a game designer is to give the player a set of carefully crafted, non-obvious but still important, choices at every moment in the game. The rest is just eyecandy.

Do I have to get into this again? Having to tell my machine gunner to not retardedly waste bullets on the tank is not a fucking feature. It's a goddamn pointless waste of time I could've used more productively elsewhere.

AI or no AI, that is the truely critical part of the game that is the engine behind the game. AI is just a tool, it is not a wonder drug. It can be used to remove, alter or create new choices, but that does not good without guidence. Gameplay is build by having a plan. IF one has a plan, than all else is just tools. The important part is having one.

Are you a politician? I never disputed that a bad game engine would make a bad game. Or that no plan would make you lose. Talk about those Red Birdlike Things much.

Gameplay is not build be reducing unit stupidity.

It partly is, certainly.

Stupid units are like badly render lego units and fugly terran. Annoying, but it is not by itself an driving factor.

For the record, I don't give much of a shit about graphics. At all. Bad graphics do not annoy me. Stupid units, though, are a sign of stupidity. Downright retarded is the scary insistance that stupid units are a critical function of RTS though.

The question isn't that units are stupid. The question is what is it that the player ought to be doing.

I've answered that fucking question above. Damn you're repetitive.

Once you have a complete answer on what sort of management tasks you want the player to follow, it is not to hard to trivialize all other parts of game dynamics to make it unimportant to the player in terms of management.

Good. Let's make something like Starcraft, only without the pointless micro of units.

Well, depending on the game, it is possible to seriously develop killer AI by focusing on the AI's greatest strength. Infinite APM and perfect execution. In long, complex and ambigous games, AI development becomes quite difficult and expensive.

Mmkay. Define ambiguous please. Starcraft isn't ambiguous for a start, all you have to do is build a mix of units, then combine unreasonable amounts of micro while simultaneously building another group of guys to throw into the guns.

[Edward Yee]

There are four possible move choices I can think of.

Move somewhere, but don't engage under any circumstances: Used for setting up hidden bases, or ambush zones, or something that requires quietness.

Attack things, but don't pursue: General harassment of patrols/resource spots.

Attack things and pursue for a limited distance: I'd use this for interceptors and the like.

Attack things and destroy them no matter what: Base assault. Or similar.

Would you in turn leave the normal Attack button solely for targeting specific units, as I thought of? As for melee units... admittedly that second move option seems useless except versus other melee units, if even, but in an RTS where we've still got formations of melee units coming up to one another and having at it, I can see this working.

Btw, I didn't think of the limited pursuit option that you did.

I'm in favor of having more options to pursue my goals.

Ditto here. I'd like to be able to micro, not to have to due to no unit initiative at all, or unit initiative used poorly (aka friendly AI stupidity). If it's to be a strategy game, then the strategically advantaged player should be the eventual winner (through attrition) as long as that position's maintained -- so that only the disadvantaged one needs to micro (so as to turn the tide).

If I'm gonna have to manage at such a low level more often than that, then let the AI can go manage the strategy/resource gathering, or outright automate that, and call this "real time tactics" instead since that is where the player's relevance (in terms of decision-making) will be.

Frankly, there should be little difference in the gameplay ability between somebody who clicks 500 times per minute and somebody who clicks 10 times per minute if they both understand the game equally well. That would be a true strategy game.

QFT - the problem (and lag) is actually why I stay away from online real-time games (not just RTS) most of the time. At least with Total War (I've only played Shogun: TW), it divides the two elements offline and has the real-time tactics only for online.

I want, however, to reduce (or eliminate) the need for some of the more retarded actions. Like telling my machine gun to fire at the goddamn infantry. The tank is fucking immune to your bullets already retards.

I'd allow the machine gun AI to choose armor over infantry only if the armored vehicle's HP is low enough, assuming that there's no "0 damage," but otherwise prioritize infantry (always the weakest if multiple infantry are in range).

[HSRTG]

Would you in turn leave the normal Attack button solely for targeting specific units, as I thought of? As for melee units... admittedly that second move option seems useless except versus other melee units, if even, but in an RTS where we've still got formations of melee units coming up to one another and having at it, I can see this working.

EDIT: If a player wants to tell his guys to all attack one unit, he should by all means be able to.

The second move option is for when you want to move your units, while having the turrets of said units track and fire. It could also be used to make a fighting retreat.

If I'm gonna have to manage at such a low level more often than that, then let the AI can go manage the strategy/resource gathering, or outright automate that, and call this "real time tactics" instead since that is where the player's relevance (in terms of decision-making) will be.

Amen.

I'd allow the machine gun AI to choose armor over infantry only if the armored vehicle's HP is low enough, assuming that there's no "0 damage," but otherwise prioritize infantry (always the weakest if multiple infantry are in range).

You have a point there.

[Edward Yee]

EDIT: If a player wants to tell his guys to all attack one unit, he should by all means be able to.

Agreed; I too am in favor of focus fire... would you want it to be automated though? (Ex: Two MGs find two infantry, one with half HP, so both automatically choose to focus fire until it dies, they die, or it leaves their allowed pursuit range; they ignore the full-health infantry until it fulfills the desired criteria better than the half-HP would -- even though the full-HP one might be focusing throughout on the same MG.)

The second move option is for when you want to move your units, while having the turrets of said units track and fire. It could also be used to make a fighting retreat.

Ahh. Didn't think of the fighting retreat, but I see that this option would allow both offensive and defensive uses.

If I'm gonna have to manage at such a low level more often than that, then let the AI can go manage the strategy/resource gathering, or outright automate that, and call this "real time tactics" instead since that is where the player's relevance (in terms of decision-making) will be.

Amen.

Incidentally, I just came up with an idea for affecting the genre... if focusing on strategy and having the AI do tactics, what about having "strategic" units?

I'd allow the machine gun AI to choose armor over infantry only if the armored vehicle's HP is low enough, assuming that there's no "0 damage," but otherwise prioritize infantry (always the weakest if multiple infantry are in range).

You have a point there.

Admittedly for AI, I'd have it be able to judge risk (to itself) and target value, chess-style, in addition to its relative effectiveness against its possible targets. In this example, if current health doesn't affect damage dealt, then the armor's damage dealt is more important than the infantry's weakness. If the armor's HP is low enough, the MG would stop the greater threat by going against its default tendency, and if the MG has enough HP left by then it might win by attrition against the less-threatening infantry as well. Such decision-making could also be used if the tank's accompanied by more than one infantry as well; if the MG survives its fight with the tank it can move on to the weakest infantry.

A potent combination, the AIs' reactions that we've discussed...

(Disclosure: A good bit of this idea as understood by me now is based on a PDF I read about Killzone AI.)

[HSRTG]

would you want it to be automated though?

Depends on the game. If units can be suppressed, like in Close Combat, then probably not. If it's like Total Annihilation, some automation of that sort would help.

Ahh. Didn't think of the fighting retreat, but I see that this option would allow both offensive and defensive uses.

Indeed. I'd mostly use it for harassment of outlying regions. I'd take some tanks, and have them do some drive by shootings of the enemy's metal extractors, or similar.

Incidentally, I just came up with an idea for affecting the genre... if focusing on strategy and having the AI do tactics, what about having "strategic" units?

I thought that was what ICBM silos were for.

Such decision-making could also be used if the tank's accompanied by more than one infantry as well; if the MG survives its fight with the tank it can move on to the weakest infantry.

It would depend on the infantry and tank types too. (E.G. another machine gun, tank destroyers, etc.)

[Hobot]

I can kind of see where Dendrobius and SWPIGWANG are coming from. It's true that if you implement the type of automation this thread is calling for, most of the existing strategies and tactics in games like Starcraft will no longer be as effective or even viable. However, that doesn't mean they will be devoid of strategy.

I think that a game like Natural Selection, where the troops are human, demonstrates that the strategy implemented by a commander can make a huge difference in how a game is played despite the skill of the individual troops. Yes your mind is freed from the intricacies of the individual firefights, but that leaves you with time to devote more effort to overarching strategy. This also leaves your enemy in the same position, so it's not like it'll be a cakewalk.

You'll still be left with decisions like "what should I research?", "what units should I produce", etc. However, when it comes to battles, even novices who have some kind of strategic leaning will be able to pull off flanking maneuvers without needing months of playing in order to develop the speed, reflexes and familiarity needed to guide units at every turn.

[Stark]

Yeah, like that unplayable game called Rome: Total War, where even novices can pull off flanking maneuvers and without micro the game is unplayable. Wait, that didn't happen. Turns out there's more than one way to make a 'real time' 'strategy' game.

Frankly, everyone who confuses automation with autonomy (two distinct ideas) and thinks if you have a tiny bit of either you're left with 'what should I research' and 'what should I build' are just not thinking about it. That box you're in? Think outside it. Does strategy mean 'click on medic power, click on Yamato cannon'? No, it does not. Does strategy mean 'speed, reflexes, familiarity'? No, it does not. Should units be mindless proxies or representations of actual vehicles and soldiers? This is actually worth discussing, instead of kneejerk 'DON'T CHANGE MY PRECIOUS CLICKFESTS YOU MEANIES'.

I know we're not allowed to talk about it, because we don't play ranked 1v1 games, but still.

[Darth Wong]

The problem with the basic argument of the "stand pat" crowd is that they are neglecting the simple fact that the games they want ALREADY FUCKING EXIST. Asking for games which break this mould does not mean that the "old standard" will be obliterated and no more games will be made in that style, so what the fuck are they complaining about? We who want a different kind of game have a right to complain, because the games we want ARE NOT BEING MADE. If they're happy with the existing RTS games, fine. But why the fuck do they have a problem with us wanting something different?

Put simply, we have the right to complain, they don't. I would personally love to have my combat initiative slider for units, especially if I also have the option to have an engineering initiative slider for construction/repair units. Maybe I'd like to play an RTS game where an AI builds my base for me and constructs a steady stream of combat units while I concentrate on battle tactics. Or the next day, I'd switch the sliders and build my base while the AI handles combat for me. Whichever way I go, I'm looking for more options, not less. PIGWANG et al are looking to restrict the options available: a position which has no conceivable justification other than pig-headedness.

[Stark]

Or how about the 'it's possible with heaps of micro and attention to perform this simple task, so why make it easier this will ruin the game' attacks? I mean, do these people even read what they post? Oh no, we want *better* UIs and *better* immersion, but that might interrupt THE ALMIGHTLY LADDER STANDINGS.

EDIT - At least everything I've ever said about RTS players being hugely conservative and not *wanting* anything new has been vindicated.

[Hobot]

Stark, I think you're a bit confused about what I was saying.

It's not my assertion that games with smarter units would be unplayable, far from it, I was saying that different kinds of strategy and tactics would fill the void left by less micromanagement. I also meant it as a good thing when I said novices with strategic mindsets wouldn't requires months to become familiar with a game in order to pull off basic maneuvers.

Incidentally, I decided to watch some professional level of Starcraft on youtube (they were from some Korean tournament) and even at that level the strategies weren't too impressive. It seems that even exceedingly fast players have to devote so much effort to micromanagement that they're still rather limited in the kinds of strategy they can employ.

[Stark]

No, I know some people who play on some crazy ladder in AU, and it's (as Dendrobius says) all about how fast you work, not any kind of realistic strategy. This shouldn't be surprising, since most RTS's have little in common with realistic warfare, and the player is fighting the interface shortcomings as much as the other player. Player time is the most limited resource of all, so forcing them to do 8 things at once makes it 'harder'.

In my response I was more responding to the constant claims that it would a) destroy conventional RTS play instead of supplementing it or making it less fiddly and b) the game is fine if something is *possible* regardless of how fiddly or difficult it is to perform. The obsessive RTS players are clearly a conservative lot.

[SWPIGWANG]

Damn, lost my post...... I'll be short-ish than.


1. About Micro
One claim you people have rasied here is that a micro-intensive game have no "Strategy." Strategy is planning and thought. It is not exclusive to things like grand maneuver. Look at an standard starcraft opening and look at the timing of the scouting probe/scv. Now that is strategy as it is an important tradeoff decision between economy and information, but most here would not consider it one.

The thing here is that you have an preconceived notion of "what is strategy" and denies other action takes any thought.

If you seriously think about it, what is it that makes that makes some people have high APM. It is a stronger fingers and better developed nerve system? Don't be joking, it is faster thinking and training. The difference between RTS and TBS on a function level is the constraint in time, and it makes sense that those that thinks faster can do better.

I don't understand why is it that flanking an army is "smart" while flanking a group of troop in a short string of mouse movement in under half a second isn't. It is very much the exact same thing, except compressed in time and scale.

Micro can take serious creativity and intellect beyond fast clicking and mouse movement. Consider the classical marine vs lurker micro in starcraft. To be good at it, one needs to take into account terrain, pathfinding, unit targeting rules, relative strength and time-coordination. There is only one optimal way of positioning, movement and attack that allows marines to take on lurkers, their counter unit. In under 5 seconds that is the typical engagement time, there is enough information processes to exceed what many considers in an entire match.

For some reason people are mistaking retarded units with "retarded players." The truth is that it takes alot of intelligence to handle retarded units. It is a rapid knowledge of all the properties of the units, including their failings and how to correct that. Micro hardly makes the game less intelligent or easier to intellectually grasp.

It feels like there is just a irrational disrespect to everything that does not conform to the desired scale of management. When everything is abstract, I believe it is only a stylish difference.

I'll just toss up a quote:

Micromanagement is defined as repetitive actions that have obvious, trivial, correct choices, yet must be done individually due to an inferior interface.

That is FALSE. Micromanagement is define as management of the minutest details of various game interaction. Some micromanagement is indeed trivial. Others are far from it, as classical problem of out-micro-ing one's opponent to gain a tactial advantage is never trival or simple, as one is up against a human and all his intelligence to counter.

-------------------------------------
2. About APM and RTS

If you think that better interface and better unit AI will make APM irrelevent, think again. It will not realistically happen without reducing everything to autonomy.

Think of it this way: If you can think 10x times faster than you do now, can you gain an advantage in RTS games? Yes, absolutely, you can always execute ever more complex plans. You can find each and every weakpoint in every controllable factor in the game, and there is almost always something there to do.

The only way to kill "micro" is to have so much autonomy that the only thing the player is worth doing comes once in a long time. If something is automated to the point where the player needs no input, it is effective the same as autonomy.

-------------------------------------------
3. Reply to posts

There is no strategy involved in the micromanagement of decisions that always have the same optimal choice.

There is never an universal optimal choice, as there is not micro that does not take player time. Player time is a finite resource and has to be controlled. It is a resource. When there is 50 things a player could be micro-ing at a time, it is a non-trivial problem.

Frankly, there should be little difference in the gameplay ability between somebody who clicks 500 times per minute and somebody who clicks 10 times per minute if they both understand the game equally well. That would be a true strategy game.

A player that thinks and acts 50x times faster should have an edge. If you want to remove the time axis constrain, isn't there this thing called turn based strategy.

Nor should you have to look at your troops.

If you don't need to manage your troops, might as well replace them with a butten on the barracks that says" attack enemy with $1000 gold worth of stuff." Every aspect about a RTS game exists so that management is required on some level.

Yes it is important. Having to tell a machine gun to fire at infantry is wrong. I shouldn't have to babysit what is supposed to represent reasonably intelligent human beings.

Think of them as 50 hp point "unit" with 15 small arms damage taking 1/3 of a tile, if you are playing a game that has real time mining and unit construction.

Scenario One: Evenly matched opponents. Evenly matched armies. Player #2 builds some dropships, and puts 3/4 of his army in them. He sends the other 1/4 to attack.....

Scenario Two: Player #1 is raiding #2. #2's guys follow #1's guys towards the middle of the map. Suddenly, four Siege Tanks and three Battlecruisers open up out of nowhere on #2's guys. Trap.

"Strategy" works better when your opponent is time contrained by micro.
1. If you opponent has spare time, he can counter the number of drop ships your bring and correctly asset the amount of units dropped, sending counter of the right size. If your opponent does not, he could be in a frantic unit sending execise having to deal with traffic jams. The latter makes diversions effective.
2. If the player is paying attention to his units, he'd get hit by one seige tank at max range and retreat all his units, avoid the trap. If he is not, he could wave his entire force into the trap and lose alot of units. A trap is most meaningful in conjunction with player time constraints.

So why don't we reduce it? But yes, you do increase the range of strategy by reducing micro, as you can more easily coordinate attacks.

It is easier does not mean it is more intellectual or interesting. When it is "hard", people have to spend their player time resource and think hard to solve the problems involve. When it is easy, it is just spammed like everything else.

No, but having my units be smarter increases the choices I can make from a strategic level.

You should always be thinking on the strategic level in every game, even in a micro-intensive one. Even micro should be part of the strategic plan so one does not get sucked into useless micro.

Ah, here you are again with "Pointless micro = good gameplay.

Micro is not pointless as it effects the game and is a decision made by the player.

[SWPIGWANG]

Incidentally, I decided to watch some professional level of Starcraft on youtube (they were from some Korean tournament) and even at that level the strategies weren't too impressive. It seems that even exceedingly fast players have to devote so much effort to micromanagement that they're still rather limited in the kinds of strategy they can employ.

I wonder what you mean by "kinds of strategy." There are no hidden moves in strategy games, as in chess there is no new moves that is allowed only to grandmasters. Skill in strategy games comes from knowing when to do what.

Simple action, complex interaction and judgement behind it.

Put simply, we have the right to complain, they don't. I would personally love to have my combat initiative slider for units, especially if I also have the option to have an engineering initiative slider for construction/repair units. Maybe I'd like to play an RTS game where an AI builds my base for me and constructs a steady stream of combat units while I concentrate on battle tactics. Or the next day, I'd switch the sliders and build my base while the AI handles combat for me. Whichever way I go, I'm looking for more options, not less.

Okay, it is probably a wrong to to say that choices are a bad thing.

However I just don't share the love for it, as I've seen those things (sans AI). I've played RTS "games" where units are self generating. I've played RTS "games" where controls are as rough as "send all forces to attack player 1" with no micro allowed. I've played general-subcommander mutiplayer games. All of that is implmented in the wonderful map script system that blizzard game have for their RTS games that allows just about anything conceviable under the engine, with no development time.

Personally, my favorite RTS-style game type is Zone Control marines as an "UMS map" for starcraft. It has only 2 units, bunker and marine. Nonetheless, winning one can prove tricky and there is alot of strategy for a sub 5 mintue game in a standard FFA setting.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Actually, I really do want to see what a super-autonomous RTS game will play like. You could get rid of commands like "move" or "attack" and use more high-level commands such as "assault area" or "secure perimeter". Then instead of relying so much on microing units, you could focus on new and different facets of gameplay such as combat readiness, troop morale, and the unit's creativity in solving problems. You could have these things be affected by a unit's combat/downtime exposure, veterancy level, terrain, surroundings, etc.

[Stark]

I've mused about a realtime game like squad-level wargames for some time - where you give orders down one level of command (in this case, squad leaders) and they have an AI that determines how that 'squad leader' approaches it and responds to events. You'd be keeping an eye on everything, still nursemaiding, but not forced to say 'soldier #442 step left'. The squad AI would manage everything a squad of soldiers would do without interference, like finding cover, tactical movement, weapons prioritisation, etc.

Choosing leaders and coordination, responding to limited information and reports and prioritising limited resources would be interesting. Ironically, back in the 80s and 90s there were many more 'experimental' genre-blurring games of this type - things like Rules of Engagement, which gave total control of your unit/ship and other units/ships had their own commanders that responded to your orders. There were even games where units could be disconnected from your control: in the above example, without the squad leader the squad would be disorganised, less responsive to orders. The idea of 'fog of war' not being some lame black graphical effect but actually being the result of your distance from the action and events being filtered through sensors and reports would just be great - are inexperienced commanders exaggerating opposition, or do you need to deploy the reserve? Lt X hasn't reported on his progress - is he maintaining radio silence, or has he been compromised? What's the best way of finding out, without forcing units to reveal themselves?

Oh wait, did I just describe a 'real time' 'strategy' game that is different from genre norms? Surely that's impossible without destroying the genre and the fun!

[Vendetta]

(Ex: Two MGs find two infantry, one with half HP, so both automatically choose to focus fire until it dies, they die, or it leaves their allowed pursuit range; they ignore the full-health infantry until it fulfills the desired criteria better than the half-HP would -- even though the full-HP one might be focusing throughout on the same MG.)

That would be the sensible way of doing it though. Your two MGs would spend 33% of their battle time killing the half health unit, and reduce the enemy's fighting power by 50% for that time. A clear win for you.

[Stark]

That's another 'game convention', not specifically RTS - units that function fine with 1/4500 hitpoints. With suppression rules it wouldn't be so necessary to apply the n-square law. You're not always better off with 5 dead/5 alive enemies rather than 10 seriously injured/broken/suppressed enemies.

[Vendetta]

Micro can take serious creativity and intellect beyond fast clicking and mouse movement. Consider the classical marine vs lurker micro in starcraft. To be good at it, one needs to take into account terrain, pathfinding, unit targeting rules, relative strength and time-coordination. There is only one optimal way of positioning, movement and attack that allows marines to take on lurkers, their counter unit. In under 5 seconds that is the typical engagement time, there is enough information processes to exceed what many considers in an entire match.

That's the fucking problem! There's only one way for that engagement to be successful, so why the fuck do we have to do it manually?

Part of the problem is that you're using Starcraft as a reference, where there frequently is an optimal solution at any given point in time, due to the constrained nature of the possibe unit behaviours, the way that terrain only affects pathing, rather than providing cover or concealment, and the overall simplicity of the game.

A game where there is only one critical path and you happen to know the recipe for it and can click through it faster than your opponent is not strategy.

[Darth Wong]

That is FALSE. Micromanagement is define as management of the minutest details of various game interaction. Some micromanagement is indeed trivial. Others are far from it, as classical problem of out-micro-ing one's opponent to gain a tactial advantage is never trival or simple, as one is up against a human and all his intelligence to counter.

The fact that something can be difficult does not make it worthwhile, fucktard. The problem is that it's tedious. Some of us want to be field generals, not click-fest micromanagers. Do you think a field general walks around to all his soldiers saying things like "move two feet over to the right so you can shoot around that obstruction?"

[Vympel]

Not sure if it's been brought up yet- but on the tactical side of things- isn't it high time terrain meant jack shit? How much tactical depth can you possibly have when the terrain is basically meaningless eye-candy? If forests, different elevations (ie. tanks in hull-down position vs tanks out in the open) and such were actually implemented, the opportunities for actual creative play are much increased.

And further- what the fuck is it with these games where none of them allow infantry to entrench (ie. trenches, foxholes, dig bunkers, etc)?

[Darth Wong]

Not sure if it's been brought up yet- but on the tactical side of things- isn't it high time terrain meant jack shit? How much tactical depth can you possibly have when the terrain is basically meaningless eye-candy? If forests, different elevations (ie. tanks in hull-down position vs tanks out in the open) and such were actually implemented, the opportunities for actual creative play are much increased.

You really notice that when you compare RTS games to something like M2TW, where terrain elevation is a huge element of gameplay.

And further- what the fuck is it with these games where none of them allow infantry to entrench (ie. trenches, foxholes, dig bunkers, etc)?

Red Alert 2 allowed US soldiers to entrench. It was pretty cheesy, though.

[Graeme Dice]

The difference between RTS and TBS on a function level is the constraint in time, and it makes sense that those that thinks faster can do better.

Excuse me while I laugh at your baseless assertion that faster clicking speed implies that a person is smarter.

Micromanagement is defined as repetitive actions that have obvious, trivial, correct choices, yet must be done individually due to an inferior interface.

That is FALSE. Micromanagement is define as management of the minutest details of various game interaction.

It's FALSE, is it? Then I suppose you have an official definition of the term? Oh, you don't? Thanks for supplying us with more unsupported assertions.

Think of it this way: If you can think 10x times faster than you do now, can you gain an advantage in RTS games?

Please stop conflating thinking speed and clicking speed. That you do so betrays your bias.

The only way to kill "micro" is to have so much autonomy that the only thing the player is worth doing comes once in a long time. If something is automated to the point where the player needs no input, it is effective the same as autonomy.

And so what? Some of the best strategy games on the planet remove most player control from the battles except at long intervals.

There is never an universal optimal choice, as there is not micro that does not take player time.

And why, praytell, is limiting player time a holy grail of game design? I'd think you'd be championing interface improvements that let people play the game instead of fight the interface.

A player that thinks and acts 50x times faster should have an edge.

A player that thinks 500 times faster should have an edge. A player that clicks 500 times faster should not. Please stop trying to confuse the issue.

If you don't need to manage your troops, might as well replace them with a butten on the barracks that says" attack enemy with $1000 gold worth of stuff."

Thanks for providing more red herrings.

If you opponent has spare time, he can counter the number of drop ships your bring and correctly asset the amount of units dropped, sending counter of the right size.

More bullshit. If it takes time for your units to respond, then you will not be able to necessarily respond in time. You seem to be trying to convince us that player time limits add strategy, and the lack of them removes it, when any person who's ever played a turn-based game would tell you otherwise.

If your opponent does not, he could be in a frantic unit sending execise having to deal with traffic jams. The latter makes diversions effective.

Thanks for admitting just how deep your stupidity goes. Now you're telling us that not only are units not allowed to have good AI, they aren't even allowed to have proper pathfinding. I suppose that Dune 2 must be your favourite game of all time, since you have to click individually on each unit.

2. If the player is paying attention to his units, he'd get hit by one seige tank at max range and retreat all his units, avoid the trap. If he is not, he could wave his entire force into the trap and lose alot of units. A trap is most meaningful in conjunction with player time constraints.

For the audience: The easiest way to see the bullshit in this statement is to think of any turn-based games you may have played against other human players. Were you ever trapped? Of course you were, yet this person would have you believe that without time constraints such things are impossible.

[Darth Wong]

For the record, the term "micromanagement" originated in the business world, and its definition looks like this (Ref: Merriam-Webster):

"to manage especially with excessive control or attention to details"

Anyone who claims that micromanagement gives you the correct amount of control obviously does not know what the term means. It is literally excessive by definition. And in business, it doesn't mean you are a superior manager; it means you don't have any faith in your employees to be competent. And that, ultimately, is what causes micromanagement in RTS games; retarded soldiers. In effect PIGWANG is saying that RTS games are better when you have retarded soldiers, because you have to do all kinds of work to make retarded soldiers function. Perhaps, in order to add even more "skill" to the game, we can force players to use complicated sequences of keystrokes rather than simple ones; this adds even more pointless non-strategic difficulty. Perhaps, instead of clicking on a unit and then clicking on a point on the map, you could be forced to hold down ctrl-F12 while clicking on the mouse with your other hand and tapping on a special foot pedal. Yay, more tactile difficulty!