next »

[Mikademus]

The first of those problems seems like it's a problem with realism but not a problem other than that. I mean, yes, it's unrealistic to build marines from a barracks out of crystals you collect, but games are usually a layer more abstract than reality. It's also unrealistic to jump several times your character's height in a platform game, but it doesn't make a platformer *bad* if you can jump several times your height, just unrealistic. Similarly, I don't think it makes an RTS bad to build units out of buildings, just unrealistic.

I disagree. The ability to mass-produce units leads to unit spam. I'd like to see more games focus on commanding a small but varied army rather than massive amounts of monotonous units.

I sadly can't remember it's name, but there's this RTS I used to play that started you off with a small tribe, and required you to build housing, where females could get pregnant and get children, and if you wanted something other than a generic farmer you needed to take one of your inhabitants and train them to do that.

--

Awfully slow compared to most RTSs (mostly due to the time it took to build up a decent army), but it did incorporate things like this.

Populous (I think the 3rd incarnation was a pure RTS)? Settlers?

[Traveller]

Hmm.  Are there any RTSes out there that have strategy, but no economics?  In general, resource management is what seems to turn an RTT into an RTS, but doing the resource management always seems like I'm playing a minigame called "see who gets to build the most units".  And that can be fun, especially against AI players--but just like the player with the most actions-per-minute will usually win a match, the player with the best build order will also usually win.

It's all well and good to worry about how many units you can support, and have a sense of whether you should boost your economy or your military, but take two players who have the same general strategy in mind, but one person has honed their build order very finely and pays obsessive attention to their home base is just plain going to have more soldiers.  Witness micromanaging your SCVs in Starcraft, or fussing with villagers in Empire Earth--there's a very specific optimal order for "okay, I put the 22nd villager onto the resource, then I have the next three join the city for the percentage harvest boost, then I put the next two on the resource" etc.  And winding up with resources for four less soldiers over five minutes, just because you put your harvest site diagonal to the resource instead of orthogonal?  Those things just aren't strategy to me.  It would be nice to see games with strategic elements (what units do I choose to build?  what parts of the map do I want to capture?) but no micromanagement of the economy at ALL.  Heck, even games like TA where you build solar power plants that give you a constant income without micromanagement suffer from that.

[magnum_opus]

the game refuses to run on my computer at the moment, but i seem to remember I of the Enemy (and it's free demo/game thingy Ril Cerat) was basically that, can't remember how much map control it involved though.

There's also the previously mentioned Z, and Z: Steel Soldiers, though in that the "what unit do I build" is pretty much the same as "what part of the map do i control"

[Mikademus]

Hmm.  Are there any RTSes out there that have strategy, but no economics?  In general, resource management is what seems to turn an RTT into an RTS

That would be the unholy bastard of the two genres that none of the other relatives talk to at family gatherings. A RTT game is partly defined by exclusively dealing with operational stuff (no economics, research or production in-game) and partly by being a realistic or believable battle simulation. Warhammer: Mark of Chaos was one of those abortions where they simply took a RTS game and removed base-management but kept the vanilla unit system (threw on some half-assed "formations" that weren't solid or stable during movement). "Real" RTT games have very advanced combat mechanics.

[Ina Vegt]

Hmm.  Are there any RTSes out there that have strategy, but no economics?  In general, resource management is what seems to turn an RTT into an RTS

That would be the unholy bastard of the two genres that none of the other relatives talk to at family gatherings. A RTT game is partly defined by exclusively dealing with operational stuff (no economics, research or production in-game) and partly by being a realistic or believable battle simulation. Warhammer: Mark of Chaos was one of those abortions where they simply took a RTS game and removed base-management but kept the vanilla unit system (threw on some half-assed "formations" that weren't solid or stable during movement). "Real" RTT games have very advanced combat mechanics.

And then there are games that are Strategy and transform in a sort of limited Tactics game when a battle occurs. (Example: Age of Wonder series [While the units are mostly vanilla, the battle system is definitely much more tactical than normal strategy games])

[Core Xii]

I'd say that removing the skill components from an RTS would just make it less fun. It's one of the fundamental parts of the RTS genre. If you decide to remove all the skill-based components from an RTS game, you just end up with a TBS with bells on. At which point you might as well just make it turn-based, because people who play turn-based games are still going to be frustrated by the real-time aspects of any RTS.

I see your point. But again it needn't be a binary distinction, i.e. either StarCraft-style extremely micro-management or none at all - There should be a nice middle ground.

I suppose what I want is kind of like what Team Fortress is to Counter-Strike. CS is extremely heavy on reflexes and precision where TF relies more on teamplay and tactics, yet both games still have both things, just in different quantities. Comes down to personal preference I guess.

Also, consider the fact that the keyboard hotkeys are necessary for effective control in games like Starcraft. You can still technically control everything with the mouse; it would just take a drastically longer time to do the things you need to do.

This is my gripe. My question is, why does it have to be necessary? Why can't we reinvent the RTS interface to something more intuitive, in the wake of FPS controls? As it stands, RTS controls rival flight simulators in complexity.

(that's actually a dumb question, because that's exactly what I'm doing. I guess I'm just wondering why no-one else seems to be doing it)

[5parrowhawk]

I can see where you're coming from. Even skill-based combat is "tactical" to some extent.

What I mean is that RTS games are "time-constrained" tactical, whereas TBS games are "Non-time-constrained" tactical. The distinction between the two are still fairly serious, though. There's a literal restriction on what you can do when you're time-limited, which is why RTS games are more skill based (players seek to maximize the things they can do within their restrictions, which is why there is a physical training aspect to increasing skill, as opposed to the purely mental training required for TBS games).

Granted. However, I think there's still something missing. Part of the interest of "real-time" comes when you need to make these very tough snap decisions on the fly, which is why I suggested limited freeze time rather than unlimited pausable orders. Strategy is about setting objectives; tactics is where you make decisions on how to achieve each objective, and skill (as you define it) is how you carry out those decisions. For instance, in Starcraft, I may decide that my strategic objective is to take out the enemy's resourcing capability. Hence I formulate the tactical plan of dropping a Templar off via shuttle to psi-storm my opponent's mineral line. After that the skill part comes in, where I have to simultaneously manage my base and expansions, as well as keep an eye on the shuttle and get it to the objective undetected, drop off the Templar, select him, hit the psi-storm key and target the workers - before the other player sees the shuttle and gets them to run away.

Now this is all fine and dandy - too fine and dandy, in fact. I believe that the real meat of RTS is not how fast a player can perform the skill actions, but how fast he/she can formulate the strategic and tactical plans, and how accurately he/she can make snap judgments when the plan goes awry. Say I'm a canny commander and remembered to send an Observer to scout the mineral line before my shuttle goes in. I see one missile turret defending the minerals, and a patrolling Wraith fighter is approaching my shuttle's location from the side. Do I send it forward to drop the Templar, sacrificing the shuttle and potentially jeopardizing the operation, or pull it back and allow my enemy to continue his resourcing unmolested (which could be considered a defeat at the strategic level, since I have invested quite a bit of time, resources and attention in this operation)? There's only so much time to decide before the fighter spots my shuttle - that's the point of it being real-time; it wouldn't be as tense, or as challenging, if turn-based. And there's very little to do with action skills in this situation.

I guess my point is that using time constraints simply to test the player's action-game skills is fine, but it's not really using the whole idea of time constraints to their full potential.

This is my gripe. My question is, why does it have to be necessary? Why can't we reinvent the RTS interface to something more intuitive, in the wake of FPS controls? As it stands, RTS controls rival flight simulators in complexity.

Um, because RTS is generally a more complex genre? If you want to simplify the controls, it might help to simplify the game. Also, try playing an FPS without using the keyboard.

Your bog-standard FPS uses all the functions of the mouse, plus at least 6 keys on the keyboard, and each additional feature is usually an additional key. I hardly think FPS is the poster child for intuitive interfaces. Dawn of War 2 can be played perfectly well (at least in single-player) with just the mouse, and can be played fairly optimally in single-player with 8 or 9 keys - less than Call of Duty 4, I believe. Starcraft and Warcraft are not good examples here because of the interface convention they use, with abilities mapped to letter keys rather than to "Q: primary ability"/" W: secondary ability"/etc like in Codename: Panzers (if I recall correctly).

Which brings me to a point: are we talking about single-player or multi-player games here? There tend to be significant differences in the pacing; it's entirely possible to tweak a single-player or skirmish AI to simulate the use of mouse control only, as a handicap. Also, the focus on multi-player has tended to encourage more complex game systems and interfaces which appeal to the "expert player" - if you want to simplify the interface, focusing on single-player might help.

[Core Xii]

Um, because RTS is generally a more complex genre?

I think this is a heavy misconception. An RTS isn't fundamentally much more complex than an FPS, say, Counter-Strike. Both games have big strategic elements, including resource management, scouting, deception, purchasing weapons, terrain advantage, etc.

The idea that RTS' are more complex is in my opinion an illusion caused by the overly-complicated control scheme. In both cases you aim and click fast, press some keys fast and have to think about multiple things simultaneously, to outplay your opponent.

Games that stray away from the traditional index-based hotkeys and towards more intuitive, WADS-style controls are far easier to micro.

If you want to simplify the controls, it might help to simplify the game. Also, try playing an FPS without using the keyboard.

Like I said, unit AI needs to be improved. You shouldn't have to manually move them in every situation.

And when did I say there should be no keyboard? What's up with all this god damn binary division of black and white in this thread? There exists a gray area too, where the keyboard is still present and utilized, just in a more intuitive and effective manner.

I hardly think FPS is the poster child for intuitive interfaces.

I'd like to hear about your alternatives to the widely-accepted WASD.

Which brings me to a point: are we talking about single-player or multi-player games here? [...] Also, the focus on multi-player has tended to encourage more complex game systems and interfaces which appeal to the "expert player" - if you want to simplify the interface, focusing on single-player might help.

Multiplayer. I don't understand this idea that more complex is better if you're an expert. In fact I'd argue the opposite. Pro players in FPS games for example actually tend to simplify and automate most of the controls via scripting. Simplifying the interface, contrary to what you're saying, does not detract from the gameplay in any way, but in fact the complete inverse, by allowing the player to concentrate on more interesting things than finger movement.

[Soulliard]

Like I said, unit AI needs to be improved. You shouldn't have to manually move them in every situation.

I haven't read the whole thread, but have you ever played Majesty? That was an RTS where you had no direct control over any of your heroes, so you had to find other ways to get them to do what you wanted (such as offering rewards, or casting spells on them). Different types of heroes had different personalities- rogues were greedy, paladins were heroic, barbarians were brave but stupid, wizards were powerful but cautious- so you had to choose the right types of heroes for each job, and the right methods of motivation.

[Valter]

Has anybody here heard of Titan? It's a board game where you build armies by recruiting units along a tiled board. When armies meet, though, you move to a secondary board where you do the battle.

I think it might be interesting to split an RTS into specific "management" and "battle" modes, with the game effectively pausing for the duration of battles. That way you could focus on one thing at a time, instead of multitasking and missing things that you really shouldn't have missed.

[Paul Eres]

I second the idea that FPS controls are more complicated than RTS controls. It really depends on what you're used to. I find RTS controls intuitive and easy, and FPS controls cumbersome and nearly impossible to use. Really, think about it: Strafing? Jumping? A button for each weapon? It goes on and on. How can anyone remember or use all that stuff? But that confusion for me probably because I've played maybe 3 FPS games and maybe 30 RTS games, and spent roughly 10,000 hours on RTS games and 100 hours on FPS games. Many people are the opposite, many people probably spent far more time playing FPS games than RTS games, and for them it'd feel that RTS controls don't make sense and that FPS controls are intuitive. It's all a matter of what you're used to, their complexity levels are about equal.

[Gainsworthy]

LONG POST IS LONG - In summary, Dawn of War II's approach is one well aligned with my tastes. Starcraft is still fun, though. I agree that RTS games are similar to Fighting games, and have been musing on the fact for a while. Most RTS games make my brain freeze over.

Majesty

I've heard of that only this week, and I must say I'm intrigued to see it mentioned once more. It sounds like a very interesting game. I think I'll pick up the sequel.


Now, this thread is huge. I've read it, but I can't say I've absorbed it. I'd still like to put in a comment, though! Because it's the internet, hooray. Wish I could respond to the first post, but it's all been said.


I've often thought that a good RTS shares a lot with a good fighting game. Nice distinction of character, similar mechanics skewed in different ways. The ability to prepare, retaliate and surprise with a certain level of... thought. And, hopefully, a chance of recovery. Sorry for the poor words, I'm tired at the moment.


I'd love to see more consideration put into terrain and unit placement. I think Relic is doing a brilliant job of moving towards my perfect kind of RTS, actually - rushes are impossible, I can take my time actually considering up the battlefield and the environment, and then USE that environment to help stem the onslaught. Also, ever since... ooh, Day One of RTS playing I've felt some affection for my hordes of units. They're all so cool and... they're nothing but fodder. I used to try and give preferential treatment to my veteran units. 'Cause they've seen enough for this battle. Again, Relic seem to be similarly aligned with my thoughts. Sure it's been done before, though.

Sheesh, this is kind of turning into "why I love Dawn of War II", isn't it?


USLESS BITS:

Lastly, on complexity. I've noticed that, well, I've never been any good at RTS-es. I really like them, but whenever I play against a real opponent I get destroyed. It seems I can only really process what's going on in front of me - using Starcraft as an example, if I go scouting with a squad of Zerglings, my production will suffer enormously. As graphics improve, and the amount of "things" increase, I get worse and worse. Watching pro-Starcraft players play makes me feel genuinely ill, as if I've had to think very, very hard about something for a long time.


Moreso, the consideration that I'll have to learn all these macros and micros and production tricks to work efficiently is slowly turning me off the genre. I can't mechanize like that in order to play a game. I just can't.


Dawn of War II is great for my noggin, though. Squads you can count on two hands, slow pacing, valuable units which can survive on their own. Rates of production I can deal with. I can continue the praise! But really shouldn't. Ah, cover systems.

[Soulliard]

Majesty

I've heard of that only this week, and I must say I'm intrigued to see it mentioned once more. It sounds like a very interesting game. I think I'll pick up the sequel.

I have to say, I'm not looking forward to the sequel. The gameplay videos so far are little more than uninspired heaps of bloom lighting, and the quality of the website doesn't exactly inspire confidence. They can't even spell the names of the heroes correctly. It's rogue, dammit! Rouge is a color!

That said, the original is one of my favorite PC games (and my favorite RTS) of all time. Pick it up if you can find a copy.

[Mikademus]

Now this is all fine and dandy - too fine and dandy, in fact. I believe that the real meat of RTS is not how fast a player can perform the skill actions, but how fast he/she can formulate the strategic and tactical plans, and how accurately he/she can make snap judgments when the plan goes awry.

There should be a way to do this in a strategic game, though I do think the RTT genre is most amenable to this. Say that you have a confrontation of units, and where your split-second decisions are rather choices between which operational tactics (stratagem) to employ (outflank, pliers, retreat-end-envelop, etc). Something like a constant-time Chess/Go amalgamate. That is, fast microing but the micro is employing and responding to actual tactics.

[Core Xii]

Really, think about it: Strafing? Jumping? A button for each weapon? It goes on and on.

You've probably played those overly realistic shooters with keys for leaning around corners and sprinting and switching firing modes and stuff, it's pretty ridiculous. :D

The more intuitive shooters though like Team Fortress 2 cut down on the complexity considerably. Through scripting, so much in fact that most classes don't even require you to reload manually.