puting strategy into rts...

quote: How can you incorporate the thinking, the evaluation, the strategic planning that a player does in a TBS game into RTS? This is also pretty near to being a content question, but speaking purely in the abstract I think there are some clear directions for doing this. More than that would probably be "talking about content".

so, what would you answer to this question?

[yin26]

RTS games are almost inherently designed to have a start, middle and ending within an hour to two hours at most. This necessarily limits each one of those phases, but most dramatically the start. In Civ, for example, it's the magic of that one tiny city slowly becoming two, then three that sets the stage for a satisfying conclusion hundreds of turns later.

But to make the start too long in an RTS would kill the experience in that case. So where can things be made more complex?

Frankly, the addition of civ bonuses/weaknesses in AoK was VERY well done. If two good players match up, but one plays closer attention to the differences between civs, you can guess who wins. Also, the sheer number of techs that one can research make for some crucial decisions. You can't ignore them, nor can you just research them blindly. Once again, the player who researches the right techs for the right units at the right time exerts a huge advantage.

So the simple answer is: Make the differences between civs MORE interesting and add MORE techs. Sure, the first few games of AoK leave your heading spinning trying to learn all you can do. But within a few weeks, the mind adapts and it quickly approaches that "Ho, humm" feeling.

Brian: Please don't be afraid to make the player confront a greater array of strategic choices. After all, in AoK, if you don't get certain techs, you almost assure you'll lose (range upgrades, for example). What would be far more intersting is if you had so many choices available to you that you simply COULDN'T research them all during a standard game.

This would allow not only for immensely more replay, but the strategic consequences would be immense. Instead of your standard "boom and buy everthing" scenario, which then boils down to little more than Deathmatch, you'd need to really scout well, pay attention and take some risks.

Finally, a real weakness in AoK as I see it is they overcompensated by making the TC too damn strong. Fighting should be viable and balanced from the first minute on. I realize that the testing required to work through all these combinations would be tremendous, but MS is giving you time to do it right the first time.

Best of luck.

Oh, and I forgot to mention, make the "relic" idea far more important. In addition to relics, add bonuses for % of land held, number of villagers, etc. This way you can make for more intense awareness of object/map control while building the econ. For example, if the first player to reach 50 villagers gets a +1 range bonus, you'll encourage booming. On the other hand, the guy who spends some of his resources gathering map percentage and relics could get a +2 range bonus and wipe out the pure boom. Stuff like that.
[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited January 27, 2001).]

[yin26]

O.K. Another one...regarding MP:

The ability to monitor, jam or falsify enemy communications would be really fun in team games.

And it goes without saying that the ability to record these games should be taken for granted (I only wish I could read enemy chats in my recorded games, but I realize that could cause problems with people wanting to keep certain things private...which is why a "monitor enemy communications" tech would be all the more fun).

[The diplomat]

My #1 recommendation:
Let the player adjust the pace of the game! Give the player a way to make the game faster or slower.

Starfllet Command had this option and it was great because I could slow the game down to a crawl which gave me more time to think and plan my next attack.

I think this sort of option is a must in all future RTS games. Players who like it "fast and furious" can speed the game up. And that is fine! And players who prefer a slower pace can slow the game down to suit there preferences. This sort of option does 2 very important things:
1) it eliminates the frustration from playing a game that is too fast or too slow for you. (this is often a big negative for many RTS games)
2)the player can slow the game down to have more time to plan the next move which will make strategy more important.

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[lord of the mark]

I guess it all depends what you mean by an RTS.

Europa Univeralis(a civ type game but with high historical accuracy set in real world 1492-1789) is technically an RTS, but (IIUC) speed is very adjustable, and all orders can be given when paused. So in effect you make a "turn" whenever you want. OTOH, if Brian was planning on game like EU, I cant imagine why he'd want to do it in 3D. Another possibility is a city builder(or a game with citybuilder elements), where the same feature of variable speed and full pausabilty could be applied, but where 3D would be more interesting.

[KrazyHorse]

Giving orders when paused is the most essential part of getting strategy into RTS. I know that this is difficult in MP games, but I found that the option in Tropico to do so is all that allowed me to think clearly. Otherwise, there's no strategy, just "who can give their orders the fastest".

[Narck]

Now, actually, that would be really great. Imagine a RTS game like Age of Kings where you could agree with other online players before the game starts on how many times to pause the game (for example, once a minute for 20 seconds). The computer would then automatically pause at the desired intervals. Wow, that sounds great, I would really like to play a multiplayer game like that.

[KrazyHorse]

Most RTSers wouldn't stand for it, though. They usually crank the speed up as high as it will go and play deathmatches, because all that resource gathering is just too hard.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Most RTSers wouldn't stand for it, though. They usually crank the speed up as high as it will go and play deathmatches, because all that resource gathering is just too hard.

But we still should expect from BHG games of real strategy, with a bit of action too. At least I'm counting on them...

[KrazyHorse]

I really hope so.

[Urban Ranger]

"RTS" is not just an oxymoron but a badly mangled phrase as well.

The real world we live in is in real time. Having some hypothetical setting in your computer that goes 1 minute = 1 month is not real time. It's accelerated time.

Now, there's no way to implement strategy when the time is going at 10x normal speed on your computer. Strategy requires deep thought, which is a slow process. The only way to have any sort of strategy is to pause the game, which more or less turns it into - behold! - turn based.

[death_head]

I can understand how most of you would not be able to understand the beauty of real time strategy, but as a lover of both RTS and turnbased, let me explain the strategies involved.

The key is time. All players are making their moves at once, and there is no time to sit back and consult a strategy guide on what to build next. The games should be designed so that players who simply turtle up in their base will be defeated in the end, thus encouraging expansion, fighting over resources, etc.

Take, for example, Starcraft. The "simple" early game offers a very difficult decision: rush or power? Obviously, the more workers built early on, the more resources yielded, etc. However, if one waits too long before starting an army, they risk getting caught with their pants down. And so the game progresses. Does one go for powerful seige units and hope the enemy doesn't build air? Does one build air and hope the enemy doesn't build appropriate defense? Does one attempt an expensive, but potentially devestating covert operation and hope their opponent isn't paying good enough attention?

Real Time is for quick thinking. It is completely different, and while some may not enjoy it, it is certainly no less deep than Civilization. (Unless it was not made very well, obviously)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
"RTS" is not just an oxymoron but a badly mangled phrase as well.

The real world we live in is in real time. Having some hypothetical setting in your computer that goes 1 minute = 1 month is not real time. It's accelerated time.

Now, there's no way to implement strategy when the time is going at 10x normal speed on your computer. Strategy requires deep thought, which is a slow process. The only way to have any sort of strategy is to pause the game, which more or less turns it into - behold! - turn based.

but without some of the absurdities introduced into combat by advantages from "going first" and with some greater degree of suspension of disbelief.

I am no fan of "classic RTS" but i think the future lies more with pausable RTS, hybrid (a la Shogun) or simultaneous turns than with classical TBS.

LOTM

[tniem]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
but without some of the absurdities introduced into combat by advantages from "going first" and with some greater degree of suspension of disbelief.

I am no fan of "classic RTS" but i think the future lies more with pausable RTS, hybrid (a la Shogun) or simultaneous turns than with classical TBS.

LOTM

Most definetely. Even the greatest AI created to this point pales to comparison to a flexible and learning human opponent. Therefor, yes you want to build a great AI for a strategy game, but you must remember that MP is going to be a primary way for the gamer to play your creation.

That said, the classical TBS game is just to slow and time consuming for the average gamer to play. Sure PBEM is a good option and solution to the time suck, but this type of game just takes way to long for a completed game to happen. So that leaves us with simultaneous turns and more real time games.

[death_head]

The answer is simple: Think faster!

I get the impression that most of you here have never been in a RTS situation where you've got about 10 different options and about 2 minutes to decide what you're going to do to gain control of your opponent, who is coming at you with a force of unknown makeup.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Maybe some of us are slow thinkers...

[death_head]

I wouldn't say that...the stereotypical RTS player is a 14-year-old kid whose conversations go something like this:

haha gay faggit ur so ****ing stupid u sux0r bad

and so on and so forth...the Civ community tends to be a little more intelligent and mature...but if they can analyze these situations, then we should be able to also.

Note: To any 14-year-olds posting on this board, I am not discriminating against you. I appreciate the way you manage to act normal and not make anybody hate you.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by death_head
I wouldn't say that...the stereotypical RTS player is a 14-year-old kid whose conversations go something like this:

haha gay faggit ur so ****ing stupid u sux0r bad

Unfortunetly, you're right. At least on battle.net, they're just a bunch of bullys.

[death_head]

Which is why I am trying to reverse the stereotype...

*acts noble*

[J Bytheway]

There's plenty of strategy in RTS, I am also a fan of Starcraft, and agree with death_head, but I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that Starcraft is a game which was written insanely well.

There are three races which are as utterly different as possible, and yet they are almost perfectly balanced. The game must have been playtested to exhaustion, because the bugs present in the release were few, minor and all fixed very quickly in a patch. The map/scenario editor is the best I have ever used, and the AI (most notably in the Brood War expansion) is extremely good, using all the units available in some really cunning and obscure tactics. There is no tactic that is unstoppable or 'best', and no defense that can stop everything thrown against it. These are all features I would look for in any RTS, and they all contribute to strategy. The 12-unit selection limit is deemed ridiculous by some, but I think it represents the problems of command fairly well, and forces you to let your units use their initiative somewhat. Of course there are also things I dislike and would change like the lack of order queueing, but that will always be the case.

While I'm on the subject of AI, it's interesting to note that the one of the biggest differences in RTS vs TBS (IMO) is the inherent advantage an AI has in RTS because of its ability to be 'everywhere at once', and recent improvements in the user interface (try playing Warcraft (that's the original) after playing Starcraft or another more recent RTS and you'll scream - trust me, I did) have attenuated the problem, and you can also help by playing in teams, it will never go away. And - in a way - I wouldn't want it to, because it's better than giving the AI some other more 'artificial' advantage like faster units or more damage.

Perhaps all these points have been made before, but I was just passing by this forum, and I thought I'd give my penny's worth.

John

[The diplomat]

I would say that the best way to put strategy into RTS is to reduce the micromanagement. So many RTS games lose the strategic element simply because the player has to focus too much on clicking real fast on units/buildings etc...
For example, AoK has some great strategy but a lot of it is lost because you have to constantly worry about those idle villagers, rush tons of units against an enemy, build new units just in time to ward off an enemy attack etc... You don't have time to think because you are so busy clicking!

Here are few ideas that I had to reduce uneccessary micromanagement in a game like AoK:

1) Automatic population growth.
Instead of forcing the player to create new villagers manually, have the new villagers be created automatically.
You could have the game automatically create new villagers if certain conditions are met.

2) No more idle villagers.
There could be an option that if a villager is idle for X number of seconds, that the game would automatically give the villager something to do, like go collect ressources or build houses.

3) Action shortcuts
The game would create little icons in the corner of the screen that the player could click on to jump directly to something happening on the screen. For example, let's say that I am busy creating new buildings or a wonder. I am making sure that my workers are collecting ressouces and I am monitoring the progress of my wonder. Suddenly the AI attacks a part of my city that is
off-screen. There would be a small popup icon that I could click on to jump directly to where the fighting is happening. Also there would be a small pop up icon that I could click on to jump back to my wonder production. I could click on either icon to jump between the battle and the wonder. This would save scrolling time as well as help the player avoid missing important events.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by yin26
But to make the start too long in an RTS would kill the experience in that case. So where can things be made more complex?

Eliminate building altogether. Make the game purely tactical: Gettysburg++.

Say you have all the colourful units of AoE or AoK, and more, BUT with realistic formations, tactics, command control, morale, facing, ammunition, line-of-sight, terrain, weather,... everything a tabletop game would have.

You use one of, say, 30 historical army lists to buy your troops, then slug it out. Mmmmm.

[Velociryx]

I would respectfully disagree with the notion that there's plenty of strategy in RTS-type games.

There's plenty of tactical decision making in the RTS genre, but in the end, it amounts to He-Who-Is-The-Fastest-Clicker-With-The-Mouse, wins.

That has little to do with strategy, IMO.

Of course, one could argue that the inclusion of a tech tree/upgrades and so forth fosters strategic choice....and it could.....it could. But, as Yin pointed out in AoK, without certain upgrades (ranged attack), your goose is pretty much cooked, so there's no real strategy there....it's race for the key upgrades with breakneck speed....whoever can click their way to that the fastest gains the upper hand for a while.

I suppose then, I would be firmly in the camp of those who long for a pausable RTS. This would allow for much greater micromanagement a la turn-based games (which could be done during the paused times), and more intelligent AI routines built into the units when in real time (such that I can set a groups formation and orders and not necessarily have to worry about them....they *should* be smart enough to at least defend themselves intelligently if I"m off tending to some other hotspot.....one of the biggest failings of the RTS genre is that automated units, if left to their own devices, are utterly helpless when confronted by hostiles. This, more than anything, is what turns RTS games into nothing more than frantic clickfests.

I have high hopes tho....and I'm very curious to see what sorts of games come from this group....

-=Vel=-

[moi]

Originally posted by J Bytheway
...Of course there are also things I dislike and would change like the lack of order queueing...

John

um, dood, RTFM, you can queue orders in starcraft

[Comrade Tribune]

Vel, I think we cross-posted.

What about my great idea of a purely tactical RTS without building, covering in detail single-battle events such as Zama, Gaugamela, Trasimenus, Agincourt,...?

[Velociryx]

Hail Comrade! You're prolly right....lol...I have a tendency to compose my replies in an open reply window sometimes, rather than in word/notepad, and if work gets busy, I can sit here with an open window for upwards of an hour (more sometimes).

Speaking of Agincourt and tactical simulations, you may be interested in checking this site out....a largely undiscovered gem, but a fine game! (when you get to the site, check out Medieval2)

ISI

True, it's tbs and not rts, but I think you'll enjoy....

-=Vel=-

[Comrade Tribune]

Yes, that looks good, and will be definitely considered.

Just now I am pondering EU2; my store has got the US version; not sure I can resist much longer.