next »

[Stargoat]

An idea I had just before, is an RTS where commands are not given explicitly (ie, selecting a bunch of units, and giving them a direct order to move or attack), but rather, an implicit method... for instance, you give your troops a general objective, and AI controls them in a team-like fashion to accomplish it as best as they can. The player would be able to alter slightly the behaviour of a group... for example, give the order to approach with stealth or aggression. Ultimately, each unit would be its own entity, with personal objectives aswell as those of the team; a unit would want to preserve its own life at the same time as completing an objective.

Tactical FPS games such as Battlefield and ET:QW sort of have this already, but moving it into a strictly RTS/RTT format could have some interesting results. What do you guys think?

[Farbs]

Honestly? I'm of mixed opinions about this sort of thing. It's super cool and fun watching AI units scatter around trying to overcome an obstacle, but then it's super frustrating watching AI units misinterpret your directions or fail to find a solution to a trivial problem. The second time Superfly McJohnson gets lost and runs the wrong way it stops being funny and starts being incredibly annoying.

All this said though, the best way to know is to build it and see what it's like.

[Stargoat]

yeah, that would be a major hurdle for this type of game... it would need some seriously awesome AI.

[William Broom]

The next major hurdle would be you would need a lot of different options to have any kind of depth. If you just had, say, Sneak, Attack, Retreat and Defend, then it would soon get pretty predictable. Still not a bad idea though, IIRC Darwinia is kind of like this?

[Stargoat]

It's been quite a while since I played Darwinia, but i think it may have been related to this... valid points, though.

[alphasmart]

apparently this idea is not as original as you think, and apparently it works quite well

[increpare]

Reminds me of good old Populous's hero system (you had one...was it an idol?  that you could place; an appointed lead would head directly to that idol, and everyone else free would follow them).

And: what about liquidwar for a good implicit control system? 

[Mitchard]

This is always how I thought the Total War games should have panned out. There is a already a camera option to restrict your view to around your general, but I'd like to take that even further and place you in the battlefield as the general, possibly from a first person perspective. Commands issued would be vague, with the actual logistics delegated to the AI commander of each unit.

[Stargoat]

Hah, good old liquidwar, awesome game, that.

Might look into this "EndWar" thing...

I haven't played the Total War games yet. Should I?

I think there would still be room for this style of RTS... If there can be thousands of Dune 2 archetypes, why not a couple like this?

Edit: Reading about this new Tom Clancy game, it seems very interesting. I wonder how it'll turn out...

[Mitchard]

I haven't played the Total War games yet. Should I?

The last crop of Total War games had totally broken AI, so it's pretty hard to recommend you spend money on them.

They have a pretty excellent and unique concept though.

[difficultman]

To work well I think the units would have to have a chain of command as well as an organizational structure(i.e. brigades, platoons, squads).  You'd give an objective to a commander and he would in turn order his troops to act accordingly.  This kind of thing would make infantry a lot more than the tank fodder that they usually are in rts games. 

[Robotacon]

Reminds me of good old Populous's hero system (you had one...was it an idol? 

I thought about Populous too. It's a great idea and it could work again.

[Stargoat]

To work well I think the units would have to have a chain of command as well as an organizational structure(i.e. brigades, platoons, squads).  You'd give an objective to a commander and he would in turn order his troops to act accordingly.  This kind of thing would make infantry a lot more than the tank fodder that they usually are in rts games. 

Yeah, that's an awesome idea.

[increpare]

To work well I think the units would have to have a chain of command as well as an organizational structure(i.e. brigades, platoons, squads).  You'd give an objective to a commander and he would in turn order his troops to act accordingly.  This kind of thing would make infantry a lot more than the tank fodder that they usually are in rts games. 

Yeah, that's an awesome idea.

ditto

[Arne]

I've had this idea too. Generally what AI's suck at is macro tactics, like attacking a base from the right direction or choosing what units to build. This is also what I'm interested in doing as a player, because it's creative.

My idea was to have AI 'generals' which you could assign units too, and each general could be set up in a certain way. It would be like unit bank accounts. Some would be used defensively, other more aggressively, some might save up units to a certain threshold, and so on. There could be a whole bunch of complex behaviour settings.

Then I would couple that with a behaviour map which could be painted, kind of like those heat weather maps on TV. They'd affect pathfinding weights and so on. Certain enemy units would affect this map as well, so some of your units could be taught to stay the fuck away from enemy turrets, whilst other could be attracted to certain enemy installations, or friendly installations, or friendly units, or whatever.

[Stargoat]

There are definitely alot of possibilitys for unit behaviour... Not all of them would work, it'd require alot of trial and error to get it to work effectively. Having the "generals" or field commanders, whatever, make the descisions entirely on their own would be a huge challenge in its-self... perhaps there could be a number of pre-programmed tactics that they could follow, based on the current situation? I guess that could lead to predictable behavior, which might not be in the best interest of this sort of thing.

A major field of robotics is the study of animal and insect behaviour, and the implimentation of said behaviour in the robots. Perhaps this sort of system could be used... each unit class would have its own set behavioural patterns, which could be affected by the generals in terms of tactics, and in turn by the player, through the generals.

So, lets say they player has a group of soldiers under his command. Each solider works on its own unless given an order by a general (through the player)... they will use personal tactics such as cover and supressive fire in a battle, but won't, for instance, advance upon a position unless ordered to. Ultimately, units won't behave as fodder as in most RTS games, but will attempt to preserve their life as best as they can. Would they  disobey orders to advance? I think not, that would just get frustrating, but they'd attack intelligently in order to overcome the obstacle.

This would be a nightmare to program.

[AdamAtomic]

Sins of a Solar Empire does a lot of nice micro for you as far as I can tell!

[Alevice]

This got me thinking for an RTS concept:

You start your match with a fixed (and rather large) budget. Before actually playing, you have to pick your "roster" (much like an sports game), selecting a set of squads of different types, each with a cost (and perhaps a cap) associated to it.

You can set their moment for arrival - transporting your squads to the battlefield has a cost, that varies depending how long should it take said squads to arrive; the sooner, the more expensive.

Once in the battlefield, you really can't control directly your squads - to order them, you can deploy a sergant/general who will lead these squads upon an established strategy. Rather than ordering to move, you will just set a bunch of node accross the map that will serve as reference as to where should they move towards, during their existence on the map. You can define a behavior upon a set of given scenarios: if they find enemy camps, you can chose to werther order them to attack, evade, merely capture and arrest, look for hostages, etc., all of them under a set of criteria: proportional squad sizes, morale, whatever.


Please note that you really can't give all these orders real-time. You chose all of this before actually starting the match. If you want to change order, you must send an informer, who will attempt to meet the squads and update them on their given orders. You could also send them by radio, but the opponent may try to intercept the signal, and know about your plans, which might prepare them for a counter move. This also adds the option of hiring spies, who will serve the same purpose than intercepting radio signals, only that he can join opponent's squads, and keep you constantly informed.

Squads also have an associated expense due to supplies over time - the longer their time in the battlefield, the longer they keep draining your wallet. You can reduce (but not dissapear) this effect by setting up encampments accross the map (where hosteages can also be held, unitl you send them to HQ). Please note that encampments can be captured by enemy squads and take advantage of whats available there, including information.

Day and night also effect the battlefield, other than just line of sight. Your squads have an associated, and will try to rest at night when possible (unless otherwise specified), with a single member keeping watch. This is when they are at their weakest, for a sniper can kill the watcher and kill the other ones while sleeping. You can equip your squads with certain items, like tents and night lens to prevent such situation (and also others i have not thought about).

There is no way to generate an economical income, so you must spend your money wisely on your strategy.

Man, I really wish I had a bunch of slave game programmers at my disposal to make this game.

[Hideous]

Don't we all?

[Annabelle Kennedy]

Don't we all?