I'd like to chip in that the reason I hate RTS games is because the units are so stupid. The game that gets the most right that I've played is the original Rise of Nations. The units are smart generally enough to not get killed pointlessly (they react to attack somewhat intelligently) and they're stupid enough to do what you tell them.
For me, the balance is having priorities right. Following my orders shouldn't be a unit's top priority; that's unrealistic and idiotic. No, my orders should be second and preservation of self should be first. (Then after orders, defending structures and other units should be third.)
There are a lot of RTS that run when badly injured. But they didn't catch on for some reason.
Personally, I don't think of a RTS as a strategy game. They're games where you memorize build orders and 'tactics'. People play them as twitch sports, just like people would play basketball or ping pong. They're pretty much games where winning and losing is the whole point.
If I wanted a strategy game, turn based strategy works a lot better. Something with a much slower pace like Neptune's Pride or Supremacy strikes a great balance between TBS and RTS at the downside of being something you check all day.
I'd like to clarify my stand.
AI has come a long way since RTS games like the old CnCs, Dune, the original Starcraft, etc.
So go and play the original Command and Conquer then play a modern RTS. What's different? Nothing! Maybe it's prettier, maybe it's better balanced, but the core is exactly the same. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Even though we have modern 2D platformers with smooth and responsive controls (Super Meat Boy is the best example I can think of at the moment) racing games with more realistic and responsive cars and opponent AI, and numerous improvements in other genres, it's still fun to go back to a genre's roots and enjoy the older styles. But the RTS genre has remained largely the same - unchanged and, for the most part, unimproved.
I think the biggest problem is that RTS games seem to be treated too much like a TBS, where you can sensibly have that level of micromanagement of units because you get enough time to both strategize and to issue orders. The two types of games are drastically different, so why does the AI act almost exactly the same between them?
There are people who want to play high-speed twitch-based RTS games. I get that. But I don't, and I think the majority of gamers share my opinion.
So I've stated what I think is the problem. Pick that apart as much as you like, but I've given you what is in my mind the most significant flaw - the RTS has failed to evolve. But what could I possibly propose as a solution? I'm no game designer, but I'm wiser on the subject of AI than most others and have had some experience writing various forms of it. (Neural nets, chatbots, cellular automata, and a few game AIs)
First, I'm going to analyze what I do enjoy in playing an RTS.
- The building-up aspect. It's very gratifying to make an impenetrable fortress and watch the enemy attempt to get in with no success. Conversely, breaking into an opponent's well-established defenses is also satisfying.
- In a TBS, strategies are like that found in Chess. They have to be executed perfectly with little room for error. As soon as the enemy becomes aware of your presence, you must be very careful to ensure your force is superior. Victory in a skirmish is almost always determined by a simple list of advantages and disadvantages plus some dice rolls. In an RTS, strategies are more comparable to those found in sports like football and soccer. Though cooperation of the force is still a key factor, the performance of each individual unit (or on larger-scale battles, sizable forces) becomes more substantial than that of a TBS.
- Resource management is a vital component in RTS games. It's perhaps the most strategic element; availability of resources can determine which faction has the upper hand, and creates the opportunity to execute sieges against the enemy by picking off their resource collection hotspots.
What I don't like:
- Micromanaging orders for my units. I don't want to have to specify to each small group precisely which unit they should be attacking. With the rock-paper-scissors formula found in most RTS games, they ought to be intelligent enough to choose their targets on their own. When I summon an army of infantry combined with a smaller cavalry force, I expect the infantry to go fight the artillery (assuming that's who they're advantageous against) and the cavalry to fight the enemy footsoldiers (again assuming that's how it works), but in every RTS I've played, attack priorities never belong to anything more complex than the closest and most available unit.
- The inability to have my production facilities automated. Civilization and only a few RTS games allow you to set a governor to a city or something similar that controls the less individually significant characteristics of an establishment. Again, this is unnecessary micromanagement in my opinion.
- Units have no individual intelligence. They can pathfind. That's it. No self-preservation, no intelligent defending of vital objectives, etc. They're just stupid and can't do a single thing on their own.
- Units have no swarm intelligence. They are totally incapable of acting as a group.
So now, the specific improvements I want to see in RTS games.
Units are inevitably going to receive orders you know are going to result in their death. They're disposable, and I'm not saying they should go out of the way to stay alive. But when my army is being slaughtered by an ambush on its way to a key point, I don't want it to go down because it didn't bother to retaliate. If my units can't outrun the enemy, I fully expect them to at least try to stand against them. But what if their objective is so absurdly important that you don't want that? AI can be smart. Your units should automatically recognize that they're being moved to someplace where their timely arrival is of the essence. This shouldn't even be difficult - simply check for the movement order's proximity to a vital structure under attack, etc.
When my soldiers are idle, I don't want them to run all over the place, but when they're being fired upon, I don't want suicide, either. Unit AI should include basic evasive and defensive maneuvers without me having to notice the threat and make twenty orders to get everything working correctly.
Groups of units should be capable of functioning as a unified force without me having to simultaneously micromanage upwards of fifty units in the average army. When I order them to attack an enemy fortification, I don't want them to get themselves surrounded and slaughtered, I want them to understand the concept of infiltration - disposable units, not fast units, on the front line, powerful units on the flanks, etc. Trying to do this manually is hell.
I don't have the answers, I'm sure my vision isn't a perfect system, but something needs to change regarding the AI in RTS games.
Developer
