next »

[Mattivc]

I am currently in the planning stages of a RTS. Its a Sci-Fi game and will contain both slow moving battleships and fast moving fighters.

If possible i would really like to have the gameplay happen in a 3D space. So unit can be positioned in different heights.

I am just not sure what the best way of achieving this would be. A game like this could very easily become confusing and hard to control for the player.

So far i am thinking the game would be fairly slow paced to allow the player time to input complex commands. And have a limited number of units, so it doesn't get to confusing. As well as having the smaller units like fighters not be directly controlled by the player and instead have the player direct them by using the hangar-ship they belong to.

So i am wondering if anyone here have any ideas on how to do this in a good way. Both in terms of actual game play and controlling the units.
Or if anyone know if any games out there that has already solved some of these problems.

Any ideas are highly appreciated.  

[forwardresent]

A 3D Space RTS, surely you've heard of Homeworld?





There was also Sins of a Solar Empire, but I remember that being slower than Homeworld.

Squads are a good way to manage units, especially smaller ships.

[Mattivc]

I am sorry if i didn't explain myself properly. When i say 3D RTS i mean 3D in its gameplay, not just in the graphics. In Sins of a Solar Empire you can control the x & Z position of you ships, but not the y position. They move some in the y position. But that is mostly to avoid collisions, and is not controllable by the player.

I must shamefully admit haven't tried Homeworld 2. Its been on my play list for some time, i just keep forgetting about it. But i am under the impression that it works the same as sins, that the gameplay area is more or less on a 2D Plane, but pleas correct me if i am wrong on this. NVM, it appears that i was wrong, and that Homeworld does indeed play in all 3 axis, i will make sure the finally play it to see how it works.

What i want to make is a game where you can control the position of your units in all 3 axis. And the play area is a cube, rather than a plane.

[Chromanoid]

Homeworld is a good reference. Explore it

As I remember navigation works by first choosing x/y coordinate on a plane and then moving the selected waypoint up/down. I dont remember if the 2D plane was aligned to view, ship or world. I think the height is aligned to the mother ship and the plane's normal/angles to world:

[forwardresent]

My mistake, I think I'm confusing SoaSE with another game, with so many Space themed RTS games out there it's hard to keep track.

Homeworld was the first real 3D Space RTS as far as I know, and probably still the best.

It was a little tricky to get used to to controlling units in Homeworld, and often I would just send units straight into the enemy rather than deal with any tactical advantage (if any) that would be gained by my position in space. *As said below, you chose an X and Y, then held one of the control buttons to select the Z*

The source for the original Homeworld has been released if that's any use,
http://www.fileplanet.com/137429/130000/fileinfo/Homeworld-Source-Code

Upon further digging, there's also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warzone_2100

[Core Xii]

Homeworld is not as 3D as it would like you to think (or at least Homeworld 2 isn't). It seems 3D in the screenshots and other media but 99% of the gameplay happens on the X/Y plane. Only a few multiplayer maps have anything in the Z component.

For a truly 3D RTS you need a 3-dimensional display. While current tech is heading there as of now you'll either need expensive glasses or stereoscopy (which can be uncomfortable for some).

Controls... no idea. It's easy enough to point at something but unsure about segments that don't end in points of interest (sending ships to an arbitrary point in space).

Some 3D sketching software do this by basically doing everything twice; Once from one angle, again from another - The software interpolates the intended vector. The problem is that if you draw a line on a 2D display, that "line" is actually a plane. Only by intersecting it with another, mostly orthogonal plane can you deduct the exact 3D line through space.

[zacaj]

Also check out Flotilla.  Its not high speed or anything, but I certainly make use of the third dimension a lot, unlike Homeworld where I tended not to move up and down

[rivon]

Also take a look at X3.

[s0]

Also check out Flotilla.  Its not high speed or anything, but I certainly make use of the third dimension a lot, unlike Homeworld where I tended not to move up and down

Flotilla is actually turn based IIRC.

[gimymblert]

You could also partition space into coarse grid for faster selection an visualisation, while keeping a bit of continuous space inside the selected grid. By limiting environment feature by only one inside the grid you also allow better readability.

[Chromanoid]

Maybe a reference point/point of interest system is helpful. Why should somebody fly to an empty area. Potential rendezvous points can be projected onto the route to enable strategic positioning for potential conflicts.

[Mattivc]

I have given this some further tough, and i have come the the conclusion that i have to use some sort of plane system. I still want to allow the players to move in height as well, but the player needs to have some sort of plane the reference to. Humans have evolved to have the idea of up and down. And i am not about to try and work against billions of years of evolution.

There is however one point that strikes me. In a space fleet, the most likely plane of reference would be the flag-ship, and i am pretty sure i want to include flag-ships as a essential part of my game. And when two fleets meet in space their plane of reference wouldn't necessarily be the same. And that is what i want to use to get away from the problem of the players not using the Y axis.



So each player would keep their own separate reference plane, and the camera movement and unit commands would be based on their respective reference plane. So like in my illustration above. One player might conceive the enemy as coming from below, while the other sees the enemy coming from above. And they would both be right, relative to their own reference plane.

This might be tricky to get working, especially as i suck at Trigonometry. But i think this might work in practices.

What do you guys think? Any problems or hurdles i overlooked, or could this might actually work?

[forwardresent]

Sounds interesting, I don't know about the technical details of doing this, but the idea seems solid.

A flag ship is the logical choice for a Space combat game, you could use it as a base of operations and production also. Will the angle of the plane be quickly adjustable in combat/at all? Maybe include some sort of bearing system?

[Nix]

You need to study up on linear algebra

[Xion]

would the teams only be able to engage, then, on the line where the two planes intersect?

Maybe you could be able to divide units up into sub-divisions which each have their own flag-ship type unit, to whom they align.

Or you could use a non-flat plane? For example, put lumps in your plane for swooping guerrilla tactics on a smaller point in space, or conversely, increase the area of intersection for super large battles or something. Or you could use it to offset an important space station and make it harder to navigate to or something. It'd be kind of like terrain manipulation or something, but of a non-physical thing.

[Mattivc]

would the teams only be able to engage, then, on the line where the two planes intersect?

No, the players would still be able to move freely in 3D space. So they can meet at any point in the map. Its just that their reference plane would be different. So the direction that is up for one player wouldn't necessarily be up for the other player.


I'm still not totally sure whether the flag-ship should be able to move or not. And if so, should the reference plane move with it. Any toughs?

You need to study up on linear algebra

I most definitely do. Know of any good resource to learn from? Website, book, video tutorials or whatever?

[rivon]

I know that making a 3D scifi space RTS is really cool, but maybe you should first make a 2D one. I think you'll come up with many interesting ways to solve the 3Dness in the process.

[Pishtaco]

There is however one point that strikes me. In a space fleet, the most likely plane of reference would be the flag-ship, and i am pretty sure i want to include flag-ships as a essential part of my game. And when two fleets meet in space their plane of reference wouldn't necessarily be the same. And that is what i want to use to get away from the problem of the players not using the Y axis.

I think having two separate planes would be complicating things unnecessarily. If two space fleets ever meet each other, they will probably be inside some solar system, hence effectively in orbit around some body. The plane of the orbit is the most natural frame of reference, and unless the fleets are about to go past each other very fast, they will be basically in the same orbit.

I'm not saying that you need to include any orbits or celestial mechanics, just that it's not unreasonable to have the same frame of reference for both fleets.

[_Tommo_]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus:_The_Jupiter_Incident

This game had real 3D gameplay and I remember it was cool enough, still it was really slow and difficult to control, as everything happened everywhere.
I think that the problem here is that there's no privileged point of view from which you can see "everything" just scrolling. And depth perception that won't work.

[rivon]

It's also more difficult than it looks.

Yeah, definitely