RTS Innovations: Part II

[SAMAS]

The original thread was done way back here, but I wondered if the new and upcoming games since then have addressed any concerns or raised new ones. Sadly, my computer is still woefully underpowered now(I can't play anything bigger than Generals), so I can't say much on that myself.

Also, recently, I was thinking about how to stop early game rushes, and I was thinking about the idea of greatly slowing down construction/deployment time at the early tiers, and automatically speeding them up at certain points on the tech tree.

Another idea I had was giving sides variable tech trees. Not only by factions, but also by factors such as terrain. This, of course, would also require very uneven terrain, making certain mapsets more or less utterly unfair against certain unit types, In other words, forcing the player to alter their builds and strategies not only to compensate for their opponent, but also the terrain. For example, swampy maps would not be good for tank-rushing strategies(you might actually still be able to build/deploy them, but beware that they could end up as turrets if they leave the base), but the factions may have the option to use airboats or hovercraft instead.

So, any new ideas or feelings on the matter?

[Ace Pace]

Simple innovation, thats been around since the 90s.
No base building.

[SAMAS]

Another idea, for those who like bases:

Allow players to pre-build their bases. Either during the setup part of a multi-player lobby, or pre-set them under their player ID.

Another idea I had was for those games that allow you to capture enemy structures and build their units: Give units voices that are set to their side, so a unit from Faction A is built by a player of Faction C, it will have a different voice/quotes than their normal ones.

[Darkevilme]

I'm not sure if this is what SAMAS implied. But what about only being allowed to prebuild, i mean to let realism rear its ugly head how often do buildings get build in a tactically viable timeframe. So you set your base using X amount of points, and that's it, once the game starts this is your headquarters for the duration. Probably wouldnt be useable in a techtree sort of game though.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

It's uncommon. Since C&C and especially Starcraft, RTS is commonly stuck in the micro management and APM rut that makes alot of them feel the same.

[Stark]

Rushes? Resolved years ago - provide bases with organic defence guns/dudes sufficient to fight off low-end guys. Kohan has 'militia' that come out of buildings when attacked, some have guns on the buildings themselves, etc. This means a) a degree of early game security, but b) doesn't lead to superpowerful bases or huge armies as they can't move and are of low quality themselves.

It's really kind of shocking that people still think these issues are unresolved (or even unresolvable) JUST BECAUSE CONQUERCRAFT CAN'T DO IT. I mean, prebuild time? WELCOME TO 1998 IDIOTS.

[Darth Wong]

To be honest, I've largely given up on the RTS genre and I prefer the turn-based strategy/real-time tactics model of the Total War games. I really don't like the model of victory going to whoever cranks out units faster, and that's a general feature of RTS games.

Mind you, I understand that the latter model doesn't work too well for Internet multiplayer, but I gave up on that too. I play videogames for fun, not to feel like I've got to prove something by winning at any cost.

[Starglider]

I really don't like the model of victory going to whoever cranks out units faster, and that's a general feature of RTS games.

Though Empire at War sucked in a lot of ways, I did like the fact that the tactical battles merely captured resources, whereas (for the most part) unit production, base building and technology development occured on a much longer strategic timescale. You could lose battles without losing the whole war.

[Stark]

To be honest, I've largely given up on the RTS genre and I prefer the turn-based strategy/real-time tactics model of the Total War games. I really don't like the model of victory going to whoever cranks out units faster, and that's a general feature of RTS games.

I agree with you, and I'm not ashamed to admit I suck at most RTS's because my APM is too low.

Mind you, I understand that the latter model doesn't work too well for Internet multiplayer, but I gave up on that too. I play videogames for fun, not to feel like I've got to prove something by winning at any cost.

There are a few RTS's that are slower paced and I can play multi (like Kohan and Conquest) but playing most RTS's multi - particularly public multi - isn't something I'm a fan of. World in Conflict suits me too, as you only manage a small part of your team's stuff, usually in one place, and cooperate with your team instead of having to manage an economy, production and two or three battles simultaneously while sticking to the timetable you downloaded off zomghax.com to get super-units first.

[RazorOutlaw]

Anecdote time: Speaking of people who want to win at any costs, even in games like Rome: Total you had people angling themselves at the edge of the map as to avoid being flanked. Then they'd use Spartan Hoplites on top of that, which are the heaviest hand-to-and unit in the game aside from berserker's.

A great "innovation" for people who hang around the edge of the maps in Total War games would be to just have a bunch of fucking cannonballs come flying out of nowhere to smash up their formation, kind of like how the Battlefield games would punish you for going outside the bounds of the map for too long.

[Sea Skimmer]

I’m not a big fan of base building in terms of resource collection and unit production, but I’d damn well love a game which let me build and man realistic fortifications, rather then just plopping down absurd gun turrets with unlimited ammunition all over. If I have to defend any kind of resource, it should be supply lines that come from off the map.

[Darth Wong]

It would be cool to have a certain fixed amount of time for your workers to build fortifications before an army of known size arrived. Sort of like knowing that an enemy army is en route to your position and will be there in one week, so you've got to get cracking.

[RazorOutlaw]

Hmm, I'm still on the Total War tangent but I could see that working before you engage the enemy on the field. Depending on how far away the enemy army is on the map (maybe a grid system could work here) you could have the chance to put down emplacements after you end your turn (and assuming the enemy attacks you).

The chance would depend on terrain, your general's ability as a commander, and how far away the enemy really is. If I remember my history correctly this would be especially relevant for Empire: Total War where earthen works were put up by both sides until advancements in artillery nullified the practice.

Now there's nothing to go off of but a question, but the poll that comes up with Medieval 2's launcher asks what fans would think of a real-time campaign mode. Lords of the Realm 3 tried this idea of a real-time map, although with real time battles that played out as you managed and could take over if you wanted. Having X amount of time to set up defenses against an attack army would be great especially if the game could give you an ETA or something.

[Stark]

It would be cool to have a certain fixed amount of time for your workers to build fortifications before an army of known size arrived. Sort of like knowing that an enemy army is en route to your position and will be there in one week, so you've got to get cracking.

This'd be great even in games like Rome: if you attack someone they get x amount of those 'seige points' to build palisades or traps or prepare strategems or whatever, or they can give up movement points on the map to pre-emptively get these points. As an added bonus there could be some chance they'll show up unexpectedly that increases the closer to your budget you get.

In modern games, the whole idea of automated, unsupplied turrets with a tiny range is pretty useless. Particularly since most games have units that outrange them...

[Coalition]

One option, for Supreme Commander, for the Cybrans:

Upgradeable power and mass fabrication, possibly even defenses. Factories for all factions can be upgraded, the Cybrans get an upgradeable shield generator. Why not have power plants and mass fabs that can be upgraded instead of having to build new facilities? The upgrade requirements would make it less efficienct, but by making them all the same footprint, you can better plan a base.

This is already done in other games, where you can produce upgraded units, so why not extend that?

The key would be a semi-AI routine that allows you to ignore details, so you could let the game play for a minute, and think, rather than micromanaging everything.

One option might be decreasing performance based on hit points. If you take a Galactic Colossus down to 1% of its hit points, why would it still be able to move and fire at full power? You can also set squads to either concentrate fire (guarunteeing a kill), or disperse fire, trying to reduce enemy effectiveness.

[Shinova]

Variable-size squads, squad AI, and squad leaders.

You pick a bunch of units in any number with any combination and create a single, distinct squad-based unit out of it. At every 10 or so units you have a squad leader, say sergeant level. For every 100 or something you have another, stronger squad leader, and so on. On top is the overall squad leader. All squad leaders are based on any one unit type within the squad, and units that become squad leaders have many individual and area-based bonuses. The overall squad leader also gives automatic squad-wide bonuses.

Units within the squad will tend to congregate around squad leaders, and those squad leaders will tend to congregate and operate around and with higher-ranking squad leaders, all the way up to the highest squad leader. When a squad leader unit dies, any area-based squad leader bonuses are lost to units that were around that squad leader, and those units after some time disperse themselves throughout the squad and attach themselves to different squad leaders.

The whole squad is operated by an AI. The player can give general commands such as move, attack, and so on and the squad AI will direct its members in the best manner in which to carry out that order, depending on a number of player-set variables that dictate things such as squad movement style, fighting style, and so on.

Say, the game has infantry and armor units. You can select a mix of infantry and tanks, and make it into a squad. If you make it into, say, an infantry company, the squad leaders will be made out of that squad's infantry units, and the squad AI will conduct combat by using its infantry as the main fighting force and its armor as support, and the entire squad will gain infantry-based bonuses.

If you make it into an armor company, armor units will become squad leaders, and the squad AI will also change, using armor as the main force and infantry as support.

The larger the squad, the more squad leaders there are, and the higher-ranking the overall squad leader is. For example, an Armor Colonel in charge of an Armor Battallion is a much deadlier unit and gives more bonuses to the units under its charge than an Armor Lieutenant does to a smaller squad. However, squads can only act as single distinct units with single orders, hence you need multiple smaller squads to conduct more complex maneuvers.

[Hawkwings]

The common complaint with too much AI is that the game turns into a movie instead of a game. Personally, I'd love a game like that, but make the scale massive, like the smallest unit being a platoon of infantry or tanks or whatever, and go up from there.

[Stark]

I love you, D13. You'd think game design would use the processing power of a computer to model things in a more sophisticated, inter-related way rather than pen-and-paper style '3-6 damage per second' stuff. Indeed, in the scenario Shinova posted, bonuses due to the 'squadding' behaviour are unnecessary as loose groups will always be worse than clumped 'squads'.

[RogueIce]

It would be cool to have a certain fixed amount of time for your workers to build fortifications before an army of known size arrived. Sort of like knowing that an enemy army is en route to your position and will be there in one week, so you've got to get cracking.

I rather like the Total War style where you get a certain amount of money, points, or whatever, and you've got to build your army from there and hope it's got a shot at killing the other player(s) (who have the same amount of money and will make their armies as they see fit).

I think something like that, where you premake your base and army, would be good. In order to compesnate for losses you get some reinforcements, but not to put yourself above where you were. For instance, say you lose four units of infantry, the game gives you three more. Lose another four, you get two. And so on. That way losses won't totally leave you screwed, but you can't afford to just suicidaly send off your forces to go rush the enemy's fortified positions.

Another thing is, which kinda goes along with terrain making a difference, is to have some way to make it unique each time. You know, random placement of hills, chokepoints, resources, whatever. This would I hope prevent all those competetive or ladder players who seem to dominate from simply selecting from a few maps that they know by heart. Since the major features will change each time you start it up, you can't memorize it and plan accordingly. You have to recon because it really is unfamiliar terrain to you.

And of course the usual better AI, no strict rock-paper-scissors (oh sure some units may be better at killing other units, but they shouldn't be totally invincible outside of silly stuff like...spearmen vs tanks? ), and all that good stuff.

[Laughing Mechanicus]

I've only had time to skim read the thread as I'm about to go out but a little idea I've been toying with recently was this:

Assuming you've implemented enough AI in your units so that they know which kinds of units to attack, which to avoid and generally how to behave in combat I think you could actually do away with the unrealistic "attack this specific unit" order you normally issue by right clicking on a specific enemy. In it's place I would have a triplet of different move commands, perhaps triggered by holding down modifier keys when issuing move orders.

The standard command would be "Advance" whereby the units assume a combat formation and head towards the point you specified, stopping to destroy enemy units on the way. They would also be given free had to automatically use their 'special abilities' (tanks popping smoke, infantry launching AT missiles or whatever) and would use their weapons not only to engage the enemy but also to suppress them (hence using up a bit more ammo than normal).

The second command would be a 'March' command whereby your units form up into a fast moving formation (infantry into blocks, tanks into columns) and seek to move via high speed means (so use roads). In this mode they would only fire back at the enemy unless directly attacked, and even then they would act defensively and continue to their target.

A third command could be 'Infiltrate' or 'Recon' by which your units would move to the point specified and hold fire and try to act stealthy. You could perhaps have the units automatically try to bypass enemy contact on the way to their objective.

Combine these with a few specialised standing orders you could give your units such as:

Sentry - When this mode is switched on the unit will wait in the specified area and then give a clear warning to the commander when it spots enemy units and it would then skedaddle back to the nearest defensive line. The idea of this is you could leave a few scout cars scattered ahead of your defences to give advanced warning of enemy attacks.

Rest - This would cause your units to become inactive to stop them using supplies and regain some health, morale etc... (depending on what kind of systems like that you implemented in your game) but would of course make them vulnerable to attack, so you would need to keep them protected from aircraft or whatever.

The general idea would be you would command your forces in the way a real commander would, instead of micromanaging the choice of target, when to fire special weapons, when to use supplies etc... for every unit their AI would do that for them. The advantage of using an AI system would be you could also invest in additional 'training' for your troops to have them become more effective simply by improving the AI system controlling them. Things like having individual tanks hand off targets to other vehicles around them become possible.

Anyway, that's my few disjointed thoughts, now I have to go.

[The Jester]

I think it wouldn't be too difficult to implement unit based AI using fuzzy logic. Units could then be programmed to behave reasonably intelligently. They won't win any prizes for ingenuity, but at least they won't act like the complete retards that present RTS games are recruiting.

[Lord Revan]

Anecdote time: Speaking of people who want to win at any costs, even in games like Rome: Total you had people angling themselves at the edge of the map as to avoid being flanked. Then they'd use Spartan Hoplites on top of that, which are the heaviest hand-to-and unit in the game aside from berserker's.

I've found that best weapon against heavy infantry is achers/siege engines using flaming ammo as causes alot of morale damage especially if your opponent hugs the edges that should work (been a while since I've played R:TW)

as for the OP personally I'd all units to have some funtion in even late in the game.

[Alferd Packer]

Anecdote time: Speaking of people who want to win at any costs, even in games like Rome: Total you had people angling themselves at the edge of the map as to avoid being flanked. Then they'd use Spartan Hoplites on top of that, which are the heaviest hand-to-and unit in the game aside from berserker's.

I've found that best weapon against heavy infantry is achers/siege engines using flaming ammo as causes alot of morale damage especially if your opponent hugs the edges that should work (been a while since I've played R:TW)

Artillery is a great way to go, because chuds who anchor themselves in the corners don't have any room to manuever. Another effective way to beat such an arrangement, I've found, is to send the bulk of your forces against one edge of his units. If you're up against phalanges, send them against your left, his right. Several things will happen:

The flanks of the units you're fighting will begin to expose themselves. Hoplite combat rotates counter-clockwise, so they'll start turning their non-shielded (right-hand) side into your units, which puts them at a defensive disadvantage.

Now, you can chose to have skirmisher units engage the rest of the line, if you like, but what your opponent will probably do is attempt to roll up your densely-packed army with the other side of his army. Insodoing, he'll de-anchor himself from the edge of the map, leaving himself vulnerable to cavalry charges. If he doesn't, you'll eventually shatter the troops on the left side of the battle line and you'll have enough room and begin rolling up his line.

Even if his cavalry is outside his wedge and it has free reign over the map, it's not going to be enough to rout your army. Similarly, his missile troops are going to exhaust their ammo before causing a rout. He's basically pitted his infantry against your combined force of infantry, cavalry, and missile troops. If you play the above strategy, you'll win consistently.

The only scenario where it might get dicey is if you were playing as, say, Parthia and had an all-cavalry army. In that situation, I'd probably abuse my cataphracts and elephants against the enemy's corner until I broke a gap wide enough to squeeze some horse archers and elephants through. I would then disrupt the infantry all down the line. But, like I said, this scenario may fail, because heavy hoplites can withstand repeated cataphract charges without breaking.

...hmm, didn't mean to turn that into an essay. Anyway, to the OP, I'd say that like DW and several others, I now prefer strategy games like the Total War series. But, one RTS thing I would like to see is the ability to easily construct scripted orders for your units. As an example, I'd like to be able to instruct units to guard a structure or area until the amount attacking enemies exceeds X, at which point they would stage a retreat to a fallback defensive position. Then, another script would trigger, wherein reinforcements would be summoned to fallback position to repulse any pursuers. Maybe such features exist; I don't play enough RTS' to be an expert.