StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Can't you just micro-manage your force at SQUAD or platoon level(depending how big the game is)?

An AI can control how the units respond to a threat like tank assault. Most likely the force will either try to attack the tanks with bazooka, or hide and wait for reinforcements.

A squad would consist of an anti-tank infantry, machine-gunner and standard rifleman. Sure, it may seem like the AI is doing all the job for you...BUT, you can always order the squad to LISTEN to your orders and stop their actions if you don't like it.

Let's say your troops is trying to attack with bazookas, you may pull the squad further back into your lines, and MANUNALLY order them to retreat, if what the AI do will disrupt your plan.

Infantry will make full use of their ability to run circles around the tanks and hindering the tanks advance, and will not be sitting ducks. Or the machine guns on the tanks may kill them.

Tanks will also know things like WHEN to lay down suppressing fire, firing machine randomly, keeping the infantry hiding behind cover, instead of engaging your infantry.

However, you may need to have to micro-manage, but it will be how to balance your defense force between infantry and armored units. Like when should you deploy your armored units with infantry support, sniper support and when your infantry need tank support.

Also, your tanks need not target ONE tank out of an enemy tank formation you click upon, instead your tanks will engage as a tank UNIT, spreading out your firepower, unless the enemy is highly dangerous to your forces.

You want to micro-manage a tank-tank battle? Simple, you can simply direct the movement of the tanks (the tanks will still engage enemy forces while maneuvering) to gain maximum advantage. Say a tank weakness is at the back, so directing a few tanks to the rear(or encirclement) works to your advantage.


You can also do things like setting up CAP mission for your airforce, and provide air cover for some units. Some units like Attack helicopter will respond to threat level, like when there's an enemy anti-air unit around. Or they will leave the area when they run of anti-tanks missiles, and retreat. There's no use in wasting your resources, EVEN in RTS. Your units will try their best to defend their position, until it is not possible to hold on, or you order the force in the area to retreat.

Your fighters WILL know how to dog-fight (which is lacking in a lot of RTS). For someone who likes to micro-manage…simply give him a toolbar which priorities the importance of the engagement and the fighters. Whether is it to divert attention from the bombers your fighters are escorting, or intercept the enemy bombers? Or you can order what kind of formation your squadrons are using. Changing your tactics will confuse the enemy squadron, but also affect your combat effectiveness as well.

Also, how much time you train your pilots can affect the air battle as well. If you spent too little time training your pilots, even a weaker or slower planes can shoot down your superior planes, but you can build up an air force in shorter time and have a larger one. Training your pilot for quite a while, ensure they are more capable of winning a dog-fight, but your air force may be much smaller.


Also, things like units becoming shock and their behavior is important as well. When you attack enemy forces from the rear, enemy forces at the least must be thrown into disarray and confusion. That gives the player a reason to apply tactics into his command, because it is useful. Ambushing enemy force can shock them enough to surrender; depending on how successful you are in your locations, troop quality and how much alertness enemy troop has.

Also, you should be able to set your troop quality before creating them at the barracks. You have to input a higher amount of money and time if you want very good quality troop. Type in what level of troop do you want, if your troops has good quality, their ability to counter-attack in ambush, killing rates, stealth and etc will be higher. However, you will have a much smaller amount of troops. Vice-versa if you want to input less time and resources into training them.

I think MM and not doing so in a RTS can both benefit and become your disadvantage in the game.

How want a reason to micro-manage this game? Sure, it helps a lot for your troop if they were ambushed, ensuring they can hold on their position or counter-attack. You can micro-manage to your advantage, ensuring the troops follow your plans strategically. Which battle to win, which battle to retreat and regroup. Where should your troops regroup for force so that you can easily counter-attack? What focus should your infantry squad face, go for infantry or tank first? For a tank division, which should they destroy first? The infantry squad holding bazookas or the enemy tank division?

However, if you do too much micro-manage, your force ability to engage the enemy effectively will be lower, due to the confusion you are giving them. The chance of they engaging wrong target may be higher, making you even more difficult to win an engagement. Also, micro-manage may distract you from your other objective and other engagement. You may be too immersed into micro-managing a battle to notice one of your bases require reinforcement or one of your strike forces is being ambushed (or wiped out) by the enemy forces.

I feel that both doing MM and not doing so can work well IF the developers put a reason to. Why you have to maneuver your troops, why you should hold on to a certain position to prevent a flanking or encirclement. What is the point of a pincer attack or attacking from the rear and surrounding a particular force.



If the developers input the *importance of using maneuvers and tactics, you don't have to depend on micro-manage or tank rush. Also, the reason why tank rush may fail when there's no infantry support, and your entire tank force can be attacked by a single squad which your tanks cannot see in their angle of view. Also, why tanks need infantry to cover their rear, as it is their weakness part and any anti-tank force being able to get behind them is very risky.

The developers should also let players know why forested area can be such a pain in the ass for your tanks, and why you should or should not mass your tank in case a helicopter squadron lay down a hell-fire barrage, or your tanks get into a trap where artillery fire upon them.

*IF the developers can give the player a reason to use ACTUAL tactics, and maneuver, players will use them. Take away things like calculating damage based solely on health bar, but on where did the shell hit the tanks, causing it to go down in one shot. And how much does it affect the morale and effectiveness of the attack force if they suddenly see one of their tank go boom.

Stark wrote: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.

This is exactly the approach that I meant is needed:
Have a game idea involving large autonomy/automation and then go and see how this can be properly implemented.

Lex wrote:God you're on stupid dumb fuck, if I may resort to your language.

The point is: you suck at RTS games and that's why you can't quit whining about them. I personally think that AoE or Warcraft series are more or less perfect, or why do you think so many people play them? Because they are all nerds right?

Yet another groundless assumption on your part, fool. I never said I sucked at RTS games; that is purely your invention. In fact, I played them for years and actually enjoyed them, until I discovered the Total War series and realized how much better a strategy game could (and should) be. I was playing the original C&C back when you were trying to figure out what your dick is for, brat.

You are the one who keeps repetating things. You just wont accept that no one but you and three or four others in this forum believe that a real time strategy game is about positioning your troops and then letting them win the fight on their own, dipshit.

Funny how I never actually said that, moron. What I was is that I want more flexibility. More options. More styles of gameplay in the RTS genre. And more intelligence from units if you want to select it, hence the combat initiative slider. You, on the other hand, are saying that all of these new ideas should never see the light of day.

All your arguements so far base on your own assumptions, nothing else. What YOU believe is correct, everthing else is obviously wrong.

Yeah, it's not as if I pointed out a series of fallacies in your argument which you totally failed to answer or anything.

Things like terrain, formations, unit stances are considered in all modern RTS games and add a formidable tactical depth.

Yeah right, units can't even see farther when they're on a hill. That's "formidable tactical depth" You have totally failed to establish this "tactical depth", and your only attempt to do ended with your laughable attempt to claim that modern computers are incapable of modeling something as simple as a LOS multiplier.

You whine about units being stupid, well, you should rather watch a movie instead of playing games, because you dont want to interact anyway. Your ideas of a "perfect" RTS are laughable, and you will be told so by any more dedicated player.

I assume that "dedicated" means "slow-witted, incapable of mounting a logical argument, and reactionary", like you?

No one, not even yourself which I'm fucking certain of, would enjoy the game you want to create for more than one hour.

And you are certain of this based on ... what, exactly?

Of course, you will answer "ydadadada dipshit yadadadada you miss the point dipshit yadadada", and thus I'm gonna leave this thread for good before I get myself banned or something alike.

Ah yes, try to walk away despite having every single point shredded. I love the way you snipped almost all of my post, because you know you can't answer it.

SirNitram wrote:

SWPIGWANG wrote:However an RTS should not equalize fast and slow thinkers.

1) Support this naked assertion.

2) Support your unstated assumption that 'Fast thinker' == 'Clickfest Whore'.

1. The assertion is an opinion. However I believe it is what it is ment by the combation of real-time time constraint with strategy. So far, this has been the defining trait of RTS games as well.

2. A fast thinker will have to execute his thoughts somehow, or else the thoughts are useless. While not all clickfest whores are fast thinkers, all effective fast thinkers have to leverage their ability to by inputting it into the game faster than slow players. If they input as slowly as a slower thinker, they do not get an advantage. (since it would be strictly dependent on the quality as opposed to the speed of thoughts)

A fast player gains his advantage by both more action and earlier action.

Take a few other RTS for example, such as again, Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, Total Annhiliation, even the C&C's. Your 'micro' there is largely maneuver, with at worst an ability button you click rarely, such as calling in a superweapon strike. In these games (the first three especially), maneuver is your form of Micro.

And no, you don't need 90 clicks a minute to do it even.

If you aren't clicking and doing things fast, you aren't playing hard enough.

I'm reminded of juggling flash rushes so that no wreckage gets left, micro-ing hawks to be always shoot and scoot with 2 screen width distance to the enemy, and all the rest of crazy micro stuff. There is also the problem of managing bigger bases and more units than almost every other game, and having to think and act fast enough to control everything before the game runs away from you.

In old C&C games, there is even more crazy stuff like shells evasion, infantry crushing/counter evasion, and such.

DoW and CoH have its own set of "spells" and massive dancing from the grenade, the bar-pinning, the sticky bomb evasion of Puma, to the controlling dancing of guardsman from berzerkers and the hellhound to the berzerker while calling for earthshakers, soul stripping that pred, while controlling the sniper to kill it and deploying heavy weapon teams at the right spot, sometimes all at the same time.

SWPIGWANG wrote:

SirNitram wrote:

SWPIGWANG wrote:However an RTS should not equalize fast and slow thinkers.

1) Support this naked assertion.

2) Support your unstated assumption that 'Fast thinker' == 'Clickfest Whore'.

1. The assertion is an opinion. However I believe it is what it is ment by the combation of real-time time constraint with strategy. So far, this has been the defining trait of RTS games as well.

Then why did you state it as fact?

Oh, right. Because you beleive no one would ever call you on your bullshit.

2. A fast thinker will have to execute his thoughts somehow, or else the thoughts are useless. While not all clickfest whores are fast thinkers, all effective fast thinkers have to leverage their ability to by inputting it into the game faster than slow players. If they input as slowly as a slower thinker, they do not get an advantage. (since it would be strictly dependent on the quality as opposed to the speed of thoughts)

Bzzzt! Fast thinking does not == 'Rapidly clicked pre-defined and constantly repeated sequences', which is what all of the RTS' you prefer enter into within a few months on the top ranks.

You tried, but pathetically, you don't realize that rote-memorization will produce a clickwhore; not fast thinking.

A fast player gains his advantage by both more action and earlier action.

By this braindead assertion, Samurai warriors are the best thinkers on the planet, because their technique's devolved into 'who can unsheath and strike the fastest'.

Your ideas of a "perfect" RTS are laughable, and you will be told so by any more dedicated player.

Oh god, I can't belive some idiot just said that.

Dedicated players are worth percisely jack shit unless you're a pro gamer making money out of playing games. Infact, it would seem that pro gamers are a giant minority, with the majority of gamers playing RTSs preferring games that have some sort of unit independence, as evidenced by the massive sucess of the total war series and other RTSs that include less 'clicking' then other games.

Infact, it's generally a giant industry trend towards less direct control and more independent AI. Looking over the list of blockbuster RTSs lately, we get Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, Total War, Age of Empires 3, SW: Empire at War, Supreme commander(may I bet it'll get large sales?). Out of those, only AoE3 really fits the mold of your click happy RTSs and that less so.

SirNitram wrote: Then why did you state it as fact?

I used the term should. I did not use the term "is" or "must be."

Bzzzt! Fast thinking does not == 'Rapidly clicked pre-defined and constantly repeated sequences', which is what all of the RTS' you prefer enter into within a few months on the top ranks.

You tried, but pathetically, you don't realize that rote-memorization will produce a clickwhore; not fast thinking.

The game design should be made to make thinking fast useful. It should not favor merely clicking fast or playing slow.

The games are not perfect like that, but what some people are trying to do here is just as mistaken.

A fast player gains his advantage by both more action and earlier action.

By this braindead assertion, Samurai warriors are the best thinkers on the planet, because their technique's devolved into 'who can unsheath and strike the fastest'.

Strawman. It is not about the fasted effective action, not fastest random movement. An click-whore will make lots of inputs, but because they are not done in an intelligent manner, they will not improve his game. (in properally designed games)

What, are you claiming that it is impossible to have alot of intelligence choices to make in a game with in relatively short periods of time?

What's truly stupid is how prideful these little kiddies are of their 'Do twenty things at once' routine. Because they can micro hectic battles we're supposed to be impressed? I suppose I shouldn't mention even in the heat of battle I tend to alt+tab out of DoW and IM and read posts; they might get jealous of me....

Amazingly, a little primitive mod-work solves so many of the issues. RA2 was easy to twist so that GI's would ignore tanks and rip through infantry. DoW is easy to tell to execute special abilities automatically; it has some hilariously un-intended side effects sometimes(The Space Marine Hero calling down orbital fire on his own position because there's a melee around him is fucking awesome to watch), but it works well.

Shockingly, these aren't causing anyone to hate the games, or give up after an hour. But little kiddies are proud they read someone's build-order and can click fast, so they will defend it unto death with every fallacy they can grab.

SWPIGWANG wrote:

SirNitram wrote: Then why did you state it as fact?

I used the term should. I did not use the term "is" or "must be."

Thank you for hairsplitting, kiddo.

Bzzzt! Fast thinking does not == 'Rapidly clicked pre-defined and constantly repeated sequences', which is what all of the RTS' you prefer enter into within a few months on the top ranks.

You tried, but pathetically, you don't realize that rote-memorization will produce a clickwhore; not fast thinking.

The game design should be made to make thinking fast useful. It should not favor merely clicking fast or playing slow.

So thinking fast should be rewarded, and clicking fast should not. So you should only need to micro a squad if they need it, not to get any usefulness out of them.

Irony, sweet irony.

The games are not perfect like that, but what some people are trying to do here is just as mistaken.

Yea, your pathetic arguments are mistaken, but you'll never admit it.

A fast player gains his advantage by both more action and earlier action.

By this braindead assertion, Samurai warriors are the best thinkers on the planet, because their technique's devolved into 'who can unsheath and strike the fastest'.

Strawman. It is not about the fasted effective action, not fastest random movement. An click-whore will make lots of inputs, but because they are not done in an intelligent manner, they will not improve his game. (in properally designed games)

A draw-strike is the fastest effective action in a duel; such can be seen from the number of people killed in it. But drawing and slaying in one slice is not going to make you useful at anything more; it just proves your reaction speed is faster.

Thus, it is a perfect parallel.

What, are you claiming that it is impossible to have alot of intelligence choices to make in a game with in relatively short periods of time?

No, I'm claiming that memorizing someone else's build order, micro'ing stupid little 'dancing', and obsessing over anything more complicated than 'Shoot' are not indicative of intelligence, just rote memorization and sheer reflexs. Your pathetic arguments, mostly reliant on strawmen, demostrate this beautifully.

No, I'm claiming that memorizing someone else's build order, micro'ing stupid little 'dancing', and obsessing over anything more complicated than 'Shoot' are not indicative of intelligence, just rote memorization and sheer reflexs.

What is intelligence?

SWPIGWANG wrote:

No, I'm claiming that memorizing someone else's build order, micro'ing stupid little 'dancing', and obsessing over anything more complicated than 'Shoot' are not indicative of intelligence, just rote memorization and sheer reflexs.

What is intelligence?

Ah, the last resort of the beaten, try and blur the terms. Let's hear your definition, then.

By the way: Concession Accepted on all other points.

How hard is it to imagine that better RTSs in the future would actually model strategy? Strategic decisions aren't anything to do with "throw grenades now! Use stim-packs!" Strategic decisions are "seize this bridgehead", "encircle this enemy formation", "fall back to this river".* How would it be possible to micromanage anything if you're in charge of multiple divisions?

This is not to say that strategy games of that scale would appeal to everyone, but they'd certainly be more deserving of the name "RTS" than anything we've had so far.

*What I think would be neat would be a WW2 game where you could control an Army Group during Operation Barbarossa, for example. Could you halt the German advance faster than the Soviets did, or at least avoid running an entire tank corps into a swamp? (I'm looking at you, N.N. Vashugin!)

3rd Impact wrote:How hard is it to imagine that better RTSs in the future would actually model strategy? Strategic decisions aren't anything to do with "throw grenades now! Use stim-packs!" Strategic decisions are "seize this bridgehead", "encircle this enemy formation", "fall back to this river".* How would it be possible to micromanage anything if you're in charge of multiple divisions?

This is not to say that strategy games of that scale would appeal to everyone, but they'd certainly be more deserving of the name "RTS" than anything we've had so far.

*What I think would be neat would be a WW2 game where you could control an Army Group during Operation Barbarossa, for example. Could you halt the German advance faster than the Soviets did, or at least avoid running an entire tank corps into a swamp? (I'm looking at you, N.N. Vashugin!)

Agreed! I like giving broad, sweeping orders. Like "Go here and take this ridge" and such. The AI can handle basic combat, we KNOW that. If we handle the movement orders and let the AI do some of the other things (with a Lt's rating in Discipline, Experience and so on defining how well and accurately it performs our orders) it becomes more like a game of leadership and knowing how to train your men to do tasks. That's way more strategic than a game of realtime checkers.

I want it to be a game where I'm a general on a horse. I can go to my Big Board With Map and move the little wooden horsies around to say "Send the 3rd Cavalary up this side and slam into the Visigoth's flank while the archers pin then down" or I can ride up to the front (increasing morale) while also giving me the ability to give direct orders to whomever is command up there. If you add in fantasy stuff like giant towering rock ogres and such, then you get a better sense of 'scale' than you do in a top-down game, which is an added bonus. It really would be about who the better strategist is, since you can't constantly micro things. You'd plan ahead, come up with a strategy, and run it. The actual gameplay would revolve around trying not to get killed and trying to put this plan into action by keeping your forces in line.

Add in some time-based reinforcements procurement and there you go! A real strategy game. Like a tabletop wargame strategy simulator but in realtime and with you in the role of a commander instead of godlike overseer.

SWPIGWANG wrote:

No, I'm claiming that memorizing someone else's build order, micro'ing stupid little 'dancing', and obsessing over anything more complicated than 'Shoot' are not indicative of intelligence, just rote memorization and sheer reflexs.

What is intelligence?

The ability to spot the irony in this question.

Vendetta wrote:

SWPIGWANG wrote:

No, I'm claiming that memorizing someone else's build order, micro'ing stupid little 'dancing', and obsessing over anything more complicated than 'Shoot' are not indicative of intelligence, just rote memorization and sheer reflexs.

What is intelligence?

The ability to spot the irony in this question.

Heee.

Of course, what is intelligence, in the context of a strategy game, is ultimately the ability to utilize the ancient lessons of strategy effectively.

Consider:

9. Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs.

In Dawn Of War, this would be best demonstrated by seizing the enemy's strategic points: You deny them resources, yet fuel your own machine. In Ideal SDN RTS, this is laying traps to capture your opponent's supply shipments.

6. Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.

Here's one I'd like. The ability to capture units who knows they can't win, and the ability to retrain/rearm them, or execute them and lob their skulls at your foes.

Finally, I end with the great Sun Tzu's thoughts on clickwhores.

21. Ponder and deliberate before you make a move.

3rd Impact wrote:How hard is it to imagine that better RTSs in the future would actually model strategy? Strategic decisions aren't anything to do with "throw grenades now! Use stim-packs!" Strategic decisions are "seize this bridgehead", "encircle this enemy formation", "fall back to this river".* How would it be possible to micromanage anything if you're in charge of multiple divisions?

This is not to say that strategy games of that scale would appeal to everyone, but they'd certainly be more deserving of the name "RTS" than anything we've had so far.

*What I think would be neat would be a WW2 game where you could control an Army Group during Operation Barbarossa, for example. Could you halt the German advance faster than the Soviets did, or at least avoid running an entire tank corps into a swamp? (I'm looking at you, N.N. Vashugin!)

Funny. I was just thinking about this stuff. But since I like C&C/Starcraft/Warcraft style of resource gathering (although I know you could do it differently, and model real logistics more accurately), I'd like to see the following:

You play a map pretty much the same way you do in those games--build a base, gather resources, attack the enemy. You may have micro, or you may have the combat initiative discussed above (and for what I'm proposing, you're probably going to need it).

However... your map is not the entire game. The maps are tiled--there's a map ahead, a map to your right, a map to your left... Those maps may have nothing, or they may have other players (friends or enemies).

You can move troops into a neighboring map (and then you can switch between maps by hotkeys). If you run out of resources on your map, you can go elsewhere, and continue fighting your enemy. You can outmanuever your enemy by going through a neighboring map and surprise him--but you're risking taking a longer time than usual to get back if you're attacked, and you're risking bumping into another enemy. And of course, the same thing can be done to you. If your base is on the border, you better pay attention to what the heck is going there.

This will require real strategic decisions (especially if there are things like bridges, roads, and airstrips to worry about. Here's a simple example:

The complete mapset is composed of 16 maps arranged in a 4x4 square. There are 4 players on each side, and they start on opposite sides of a square.

Now, you can play "safe" and set up in the back maps, or you can move forward. Naturally, forward may be a better choice, since you're securing resources, but it allows the enemy to outflank you on the neighboring maps. With the fog of war, the enemy might even fly in and set up in the map behind you. And if you try to play this like a regular RTS... then this happens:

You moved forward, set up in the third (from your "home" location) row, and are destroying enemy bases with your big-ass high-tech army. And then, just as you've cleared the map, a force invades from the left and from the right (and you concentrated too much ont the map you're in to know about it--to avoid it, you must scout in neighboring maps even if you're only playing in one) You ask allies for reinforcements... They try to send it from the home row, but it turns out that the enemy set up defenses on chokepoints in the map behind you. Your allies lose troops and time levelling these defenses, while you're wiped out. Then the victorious armies move on to your allies.

The strategy aspect can be further enhanced by (probably on a bigger than 4x4 mapset) placing a "capital" in one of your home territories, and giving one player the role of "supreme commander". The commander has some advantage (say, units produced in the capital base are cheaper, are made faster, or the food cap is bigger). However, loss of the capital is a loss of the game.

The commander can use his forces as a strategic reserve, to reinforce other players at a critical moment. And this is where strategy comes in--all the players must coordinate their activity.

When assessing points (for ladder, and the like), we judge players not only by how much they lost or killed, but also by the degree of coordination. For instance, iIf an allied army got wiped out in your sector, you should be penalized. A commander should be penalized more heavily than the rest in case of a loss.

This innovation should reduce clickfesting, while at the same time not making a game that will take days or weeks to complete (as a "realistic" strategy game would).

D.Turtle wrote:

Stark wrote: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.

OH WOW

YOU'VE JUST DESCRIBED COMBAT MISSION!

SirNitram wrote: DoW is easy to tell to execute special abilities automatically; it has some hilariously un-intended side effects sometimes(The Space Marine Hero calling down orbital fire on his own position because there's a melee around him is fucking awesome to watch), but it works well.

Not to de-rail this oh so interesting argument, but how would one go about doing this?

MKSheppard wrote: OH WOW

YOU'VE JUST DESCRIBED COMBAT MISSION!

But haven't you heard such a game is *impossible*! It's outside convention and standard, thus it will destroy both fun and the entire genre!

*makes note*

Combat Mission. I'll get right on that.

I just went to Battlefront.com, and they've got some really interesting games there. I've pulled down a few demos already.

Of course, all us people thinking about different types of real time games should just go play a TBS. Because we want an interesting real time game, but RTS isn't it, so we should just give up and go and play something we don't want. Real time inevitably leaded to Blizzard-esque games, this is like a law of physics or something.

SirNitram wrote:DoW is easy to tell to execute special abilities automatically; it has some hilariously un-intended side effects sometimes(The Space Marine Hero calling down orbital fire on his own position because there's a melee around him is fucking awesome to watch), but it works well.

I wasn't aware that this was possible, where would I find such a mod?

Graeme Dice wrote:

SirNitram wrote:DoW is easy to tell to execute special abilities automatically; it has some hilariously un-intended side effects sometimes(The Space Marine Hero calling down orbital fire on his own position because there's a melee around him is fucking awesome to watch), but it works well.

I wasn't aware that this was possible, where would I find such a mod?

Original DoW Auto-Ability Use

I have no idea if this will work in Winter Assault or Dark Crusade. But it was worth pointing out, and should be possible to modify it. It just proves the seeds are there.

Just be aware you might blast yourself with orbital fire.

SirNitram wrote:

Graeme Dice wrote:

SirNitram wrote:DoW is easy to tell to execute special abilities automatically; it has some hilariously un-intended side effects sometimes(The Space Marine Hero calling down orbital fire on his own position because there's a melee around him is fucking awesome to watch), but it works well.

I wasn't aware that this was possible, where would I find such a mod?

Original DoW Auto-Ability Use

I have no idea if this will work in Winter Assault or Dark Crusade. But it was worth pointing out, and should be possible to modify it. It just proves the seeds are there.

Just be aware you might blast yourself with orbital fire.

I suppose it has no way to set a minimum distance? (i.e: the trigger doesn't activate if the enemy gets within a certain radius of the "caster")

Dont give me all this BS.

BTW, I commented on Combat Mission before. Combat Mission is TBS, not RTS. (still, a good game)

HSRTG wrote:But haven't you heard such a game is *impossible*! It's outside convention and standard, thus it will destroy both fun and the entire genre!

Because it is not actually a RTS!

Given the number of commands it requires to play a large-ish engagement with mutiple companies, it would require impossible micro if played in real time.

That said, the tac AI isn't so bad.

So thinking fast should be rewarded, and clicking fast should not. So you should only need to micro a squad if they need it, not to get any usefulness out of them.

A squad should need micro at some point of the game or it is just wasted detail.

SirNitram wrote:Of course, what is intelligence, in the context of a strategy game, is ultimately the ability to utilize the ancient lessons of strategy effectively.
.....

So you are appealing to authority. How fun. I can play the same game too. For example:

Though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War

But really, enough with this quote nonsense.

------------
Intelligence is processing information and producing the correct decisions. The complexity of the processes required is what defines whether or not it is intelligent or not.

If you played speed chess and is only given 3 seconds between moves, the game do not become any less intellectual. It just becomes taxing on the mind in a different manner. Are you telling me that by adding a time constraint, the rules of the game have somehow changed so that it becomes stupid? That is absurd. It is the system that defines the intelligence requirement, not the speed which it is played.

However some of the slow pokes here can not even imagine any decision that takes less than a minute to come up as being intelligent.

I will not waste my breath on those people, since they lack even the imagination to realize that the time axis is just another abstraction that could be scaled to anything.

--------------
I would say this: those that constantly whine about lack of "strategy" are the least mentally flexible, least creative people that can not think their way out of a wet paper back but instead wants everything else to conform to their views their limited view what strategy ought to be. While there is certain irony in this statement, I'll still stand by it as strategy is defined by the environment it is suppose to cope, it is not suppose to be a set of rules to apply to environments.

Strategic decisions are "seize this bridgehead", "encircle this enemy formation", "fall back to this river".* How would it be possible to micromanage anything if you're in charge of multiple divisions?

I've just watched a game of starcraft in the computer lab today. (it is the game that my gaming community plays, thus I've been taking it up) All those strategic opitions have came up over the game, and alot more.

In the terran vs terran match, there was attacks to size critical roads, attacks on the economy, flanking, fall back delaying action, out manoeuvring by means of mass dropships, deception by hiding and entire base, fighting for recon information, use of hills and choke points for tactical advantage, surprise attacks and alot more. And this is coming from two average players at around 120APM.

Infact, it's generally a giant industry trend towards less direct control and more independent AI. Looking over the list of blockbuster RTSs lately, we get Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, Total War, Age of Empires 3, SW: Empire at War, Supreme commander(may I bet it'll get large sales?). Out of those, only AoE3 really fits the mold of your click happy RTSs and that less so.

That is incorrect. I'm unfamilar with the SW game, but all other games on the list is know to require micro. In DoW and CoH, "spell casting" micro is common, and the gameplay is more Real Time Dancing than anything else. Dance, Dance the Wrapspiders away from the Berzerks. Dance, Dance the M10 in 20 revolutions around the stug.