Octopus Overlords

Has RTS reached end of the road?

It almost seems that RTS have added just about every feature there is available. Let's see...

Resources and basic RTS model -- Dune II
More than 2 balanced sides -- Starcraft
Seamless multiplayer -- Starcraft
Heroes / Customization -- Warlords Battlecry
Multiple epochs -- RON, etc.
Other misc stuff like night-day cycle, waypoints, destructible terrain, experience/repair-able units, and so on and so forth doesn't seem to be that special any more.

Has RTS reached end of the road? What new feature do you see that can revolutionize RTS? Or will RTS got merged into a new genre like the way MPFPS is going to merge RTS elements?

Lorax? Is that you?

I'm geeked for Supreme Commander as long as they don't remove my coveted side-build menu.

I hope they would stop with the "research the entire tree 12 times because we're too stupid to transmit our findings to the guys down the road."

killbot737 wrote: I hope they would stop with the "research the entire tree 12 times because we're too stupid to transmit our findings to the guys down the road."

I've been hoping a game would come out with a giant tech tree (so you always have stuff to research) that once you research something it stays researched. The only problem I can see with this is that some people might try to research everything in the beginning of the game and then dominate the rest of the way through. Of course you can just cap what can be researched at each level I suppose.

I'm also a fan of veteran units surviving into another mission. I don't think enough games do this. Call it the General's Guard or something like that and let you select a couple of units to go with you to the next mission with a few stat improvements for being veterans. Part of that is if you're fighting Alien Race X in Level 1, then maybe in Level 2 and beyond those veterans have a slight advantage against Alien Race X as well as general improvements across the board.

There's still plenty of stuff to be put into RTSes, the tough part is how to make the idea playable and fun. RTS will always be around though in one form or another.

I really wanted Impossible Creatures' "Make your own army" system to make it into DoW.

The feature I'm waiting for is for troops to have basic tactics programmed in. I want the artillery to know to have a priority on targetting enemy buildings. I want my rock/paper/scissors units to know which enemy type is vulnerable to their type, and to automatically prefer to shoot them first without being babysat.

Taking it even further, I want an RTS that lets me send groups on missions:

I drag a box around some units, tell them "harass enemy resources", then point them in some general area. They'll go after enemy resource gatherers, fight in battles they have a chance in, run when they're outnumbered (a slider will set their bravery threshold) and they will report back to let me know how they're doing. "Enemy harvester destroyed." "Area is ours, continue mission?"

Hit and run missions, enemy base assault mission where the units know to wait for artillery to finish taking out turrets, defensive reserve mission where my highly mobile units will intelligently rush out to reinforce troops in need, construct forward base mission where the builder escort will clear an area and defend it while basic turrets and barracks are set up.

In other words, teach the units about basic tactics that everyone already knows and only the fast clicking micromanagers can pull off, and let me concern myself with the bigger picture strategy.

wonderpug wrote: I want the artillery to know to have a priority on targetting enemy buildings.

To nitpick there, sometimes letting the artillery pound the enemy infantry is a good thing, especially if it scatters their formations and/or knocks them down. See: DoW.

wonderpug wrote:The feature I'm waiting for is for troops to have basic tactics programmed in. I want the artillery to know to have a priority on targetting enemy buildings. I want my rock/paper/scissors units to know which enemy type is vulnerable to their type, and to automatically prefer to shoot them first without being babysat.

In other words, you want SOP, Standard Operating Procedures, to be set for your units. I'll go you one better. I want to be able to designate SOP as I see fit. I want to tell my ranged units to engage only ranged units or only melee units and change that on the fly.

I also want morale to be implemented in more than just the Kohan and Warhammer 40k games. And maybe even implemented to more devastating effect - like losing control of your units entirely when they rout, for longer than they do in Kohan. Or maybe even for them to rout and not regain morale unless

1. a miracle occurs or 2. a general moves nearby and tries to rally the men.

I also want command-delay to be implemented in more RTS games. Highway to the Reich had that, and Bull Run had that as well. Bull Run is more "non-wargamer" friendly and show the command delay by having a messenger ride out from the commanding general. So at least you have a visual idea of how long it will take for your orders to reach the right units. So no longer would mouse-clicking rule the day. It would instead me more like "real-world" warfare where you strive to get inside one's Boyd Cycle in terms of decision-making and analysis of the situation.

I also want different levels of "fog of war". At longer ranges enemy units shouldn't be immediately identified other than showing that "something" is out there. As they come closer the game can resolve them into infantry, ranged-units, whatever.

So yeah, I'd say RTS games still have a ways to go before they earn that "S" .

raydude wrote:

wonderpug wrote:The feature I'm waiting for is for troops to have basic tactics programmed in. I want the artillery to know to have a priority on targetting enemy buildings. I want my rock/paper/scissors units to know which enemy type is vulnerable to their type, and to automatically prefer to shoot them first without being babysat.

In other words, you want SOP, Standard Operating Procedures, to be set for your units. I'll go you one better. I want to be able to designate SOP as I see fit. I want to tell my ranged units to engage only ranged units or only melee units and change that on the fly.

That would be pretty cool.

I also want morale to be implemented in more than just the Kohan and Warhammer 40k games. And maybe even implemented to more devastating effect - like losing control of your units entirely when they rout, for longer than they do in Kohan. Or maybe even for them to rout and not regain morale unless

1. a miracle occurs or 2. a general moves nearby and tries to rally the men.

Them getting back to the base (full scale retreat you can't control) and being brought back up to full strength should be an option as well. You don't want to completely lose control of the army for the rest of the game if you're general is occupied elsewhere. Of course if one unit breaks that should be a damaging effect on the morale of your other troops.

I also want command-delay to be implemented in more RTS games. Highway to the Reich had that, and Bull Run had that as well. Bull Run is more "non-wargamer" friendly and show the command delay by having a messenger ride out from the commanding general. So at least you have a visual idea of how long it will take for your orders to reach the right units. So no longer would mouse-clicking rule the day. It would instead me more like "real-world" warfare where you strive to get inside one's Boyd Cycle in terms of decision-making and analysis of the situation.

For games set in older time periods, that would be excellent. For anything now and in the future you have satellite phones and radios to get by that. Makes sense of course, battles were won and lost on a command not getting out in time, getting lost or getting captured.

I also want different levels of "fog of war". At longer ranges enemy units shouldn't be immediately identified other than showing that "something" is out there. As they come closer the game can resolve them into infantry, ranged-units, whatever.

Another good feature.

Kelric wrote:

wonderpug wrote: I want the artillery to know to have a priority on targetting enemy buildings.

To nitpick there, sometimes letting the artillery pound the enemy infantry is a good thing, especially if it scatters their formations and/or knocks them down. See: DoW.

Just set the artillery to Priority: Infantry, and they'll do just that, and know to cease fire if your melee troops enter the blast area. Or, if you're a beginner or just new to this AI system, your artillery will still be on the default setting, Priority: Balanced, and won't prefer troops or buildings over the other.

Basically, I just want troops to automatically know what they're best at, and not stupidly shoot whoeverwhatever.

Imagine a Dawn of War space marine squad with two flamethrowers, two plasmas, and 4 regulars. They're attacking an enemy squad in partial cover. The flamethrowers automatically go for the troops in cover, the plasma guys go after the enemy squad leader who has tougher armor, the regulars prefer to take out the enemy heavy weapons first, stuff like that. Don't take this example too literally, but this is the kind of basic intelligence I want my units to have.

wonderpug wrote:

Kelric wrote:

wonderpug wrote: I want the artillery to know to have a priority on targetting enemy buildings.

To nitpick there, sometimes letting the artillery pound the enemy infantry is a good thing, especially if it scatters their formations and/or knocks them down. See: DoW.

Just set the artillery to Priority: Infantry, and they'll do just that, and know to cease fire if your melee troops enter the blast area. Or, if you're a beginner or just new to this AI system, your artillery will still be on the default setting, Priority: Balanced, and won't prefer troops or buildings over the other.

Basically, I just want troops to automatically know what they're best at, and not stupidly shoot whoeverwhatever.

Imagine a Dawn of War space marine squad with two flamethrowers, two plasmas, and 4 regulars. They're attacking an enemy squad in partial cover. The flamethrowers automatically go for the troops in cover, the plasma guys go after the enemy squad leader who has tougher armor, the regulars prefer to take out the enemy heavy weapons first, stuff like that. Don't take this example too literally, but this is the kind of basic intelligence I want my units to have.

It'd be nice, definitely. It also doesn't seem like it would be that hard to implement, but what do I know.

I also want different levels of "fog of war". At longer ranges enemy units shouldn't be immediately identified other than showing that "something" is out there. As they come closer the game can resolve them into infantry, ranged-units, whatever.

Total Annihilation did that, didn't it? You could see different types of poly wireframes depending on the unit type.

wonderpug wrote:The feature I'm waiting for is for troops to have basic tactics programmed in. I want the artillery to know to have a priority on targetting enemy buildings. I want my rock/paper/scissors units to know which enemy type is vulnerable to their type, and to automatically prefer to shoot them first without being babysat.

Homeworld 2 (not sure about the original) does that.

Kelric wrote:I've been hoping a game would come out with a giant tech tree (so you always have stuff to research) that once you research something it stays researched.

I'm also a fan of veteran units surviving into another mission. I don't think enough games do this.

Warzone 2100 did both of those.

Oh, and yet another thing that I want to see more of is the implementation of supply and supply chains. Conquest: Frontier Wars was GREAT in how it implemented these concepts. I sincerely hope CFW2 has not become vaporware.

Oh, and yes, individual games have implemented one or two features described thus far. But I believe the initial point of the thread was implying that these are standard features. To which I say that these individual features are not standard. If they were, then most, if not all, of the new RTSes out would already have them implemented. They do not, therefore these are not standard.

I doubt that any of the features that make the niche RTS/TBS games different will cross over into the big sellers.

I would consider myself a hardcore gamer, but one of the most difficult game I have EVER tried was Close Combat: A Bridge Too Far.

The unit / solider dynamics were so detailed it was paralyzing to try and coordinate anything.

As you add these extra features in, you increase the complexity and the chances that it won't be a "mainstream" title.

Smoove_B wrote: As you add these extra features in, you increase the complexity and the chances that it won't be a "mainstream" title.

Funny thing is, I liked Close Combat yet I think Supreme Ruler 2010 is the uber-complexity. But, it seems to have gained a following around here. Not to say that its mainstream since I think SR2010 is not, but its got its fans.

raydude wrote:Oh, and yet another thing that I want to see more of is the implementation of supply and supply chains. Conquest: Frontier Wars was GREAT in how it implemented these concepts.

Interesting, raydude. I don't have much experience with CFW; how does its treatment of supply compare to the Kohans? When it came out I remember it was sometimes called "Kohan in space" ...

First, it helps to visualize the gameplay in CFW. Players started out in one system. Systems were connected to each other via wormholes. Some systems connected to multiple systems via multiple wormholes. Each system was essentially its own rts map.

Now, basic supply was handled sorta like Kohan. You built bases, they have a radius, and they can resupply and repair your ships. That was the other concept in CFW. Ships had limited ammo supply, and after the ammo was gone they had minimal to no firepower.

Only bases could create supply. And building a base in each system was not feasible. Not if you wanted to expand quickly. But, you can also create a chain of supply by building supply depots in adjacent systems (connected by a wormhole). Supply depots had their own stockpile of supply. As long as there was a chain of supply then the stockpile would always be full. But, if the supply line was cut by an enemy then supply depots in the unconnected systems would no longer have unlimited supply. They'd be limited to the supply stockpile they had on hand. There were other disadvantages to being in an unsupplied system that I forget right now.

Finally, they had supply transports. These would carry their own stockpile of supply and could be used to replenish ships in unsupplied systems until their stockpile ran out. Then they had to go back to base to refill their supply stockpile. Having supply transports lets one carry out raiding parties deep in enemy territory. They could go in, raid a system, and get resupplied to fight their way back home.

Oh, and one other thing that CFW had that I wish more RTSes had. Commanders that could be given mission parameters! You could group a bunch of units and put them under a commander and tell him to "Scout enexplored areas" or "find the nearest enemy" or even "find the nearest supply depot and resupply". A really really nice feature, and one that made me feel like more of a Grand Admiral of the Fleet.

SOP already exists... Warlords Battlecry II, I think. The white mages heals your group automatically without asking, and so on. However, so far it haven't been widely implemented.

To think about it, the earliest this was done was all the way back to Bitmap Brother's "Z". If a unit seeks a jeep or a tank, it will go automatically capture it and use it. If it sees unguarded territory marker, it will go after the marker automatically, and so on. However, it lacks coordination. For example, it's still possible to pick off the group one at a time if you only trigger ONE enemy at a time.

Most of this discussion talks about turning the RTS genre into a simulation genre. That'd certainly make me happy, but I doubt it'll be a widespread change any time soon. Games with complex ordering and supply procedures have never been popular in the mainstream, which is where the RTS genre has rested for quite some time.

The RTS genre as we know it, then, I think really has reached an impasse. There isn't much more that can be done with it, short of turning it into a different genre (as discussed here). I don't think it is dead - there have been some really, really good games that have come out using the classic RTS gameplay model. I do, however, think it has reached a point where the genre should fall into the background, putting out two or three solid games based on the model a year instead of a dozen.

BTW,now that somebody's mentioned it,when is CFW 2 supposed to be released?

Well, I've still got some suggested improvements that would greatly improve RTS micro-management:

1. Intelligent special attacks combined w/ an intelligent squad bar. Example: In Starcraft, if I build 10 ghosts, assign them to group 1, and hit "lockdown" I believe they ALL use their special power - yet I can only select one target for lockdown. I want the squad bar to show "lockdown, 10 charges" and have it use one charge every time I hit the lockdown special attack. Or, better yet, click lockdown, drag a box around a group of enemies, and have the computer determine how many charges need to be spent to lock the group down. If more enemies than charges then it will lock down the enemies closest to the ghosts first.

Continuing w/ the intelligent squad bar example: I want to be able to select a group of units with different special attacks, put them in a group, and have ALL their special attacks show up in the squad bar. Using the Starcraft example again, I want to group terran tanks w/ ghosts and see the "siege tank" and "lockdown" special attacks together when I am controlling that group. Then I can click "siege tank" and all the tanks will do their siege tank ability and IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS click lockdown to use the ghosts special ability.

This greatly reduces micro-management and puts at least some tactics back into the frantic mouse-clicking that passes for tactics.

raydude wrote: This greatly reduces micro-management and puts at least some tactics back into the frantic mouse-clicking that passes for tactics.

But isn't that what RTS games have turned into? Building an INSANE amount of units and just overwhelming an opponent with numbers?

That's one thing that's turned me away from most RTS titles - it just seems to be about cranking out unit after unit, dragging 50 into a group and throwing them at the computer.

For me, I enjoy smaller squad sizes and more tactical play - not unlike what's seen in Jagged Alliance or the Close Combat series. I realize that they're both TBS games, but why can't the RTS titles reduce the number of units you're supposed to control and instead focus on tactics?

I guess it's strange - you want less micro management, I want micro-management that involves tactics or strategy.

Smoove_B wrote: For me, I enjoy smaller squad sizes and more tactical play - not unlike what's seen in Jagged Alliance or the Close Combat series. I realize that they're both TBS games, but why can't the RTS titles reduce the number of units you're supposed to control and instead focus on tactics?

I guess it's strange - you want less micro management, I want micro-management that involves tactics or strategy.

First, Close Combat is RTS. Its real-time and its strategy. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise .

I want less micromanagement when it makes sense. It makes sense in terms of controlling more units. Less micromanagement = more strategy. Examples: Kohan series, Conquest: Frontier Wars.

You said above that you enjoy smaller squad sizes. Thus, you enjoy games on the squad or platoon scale. Nothing wrong with that, I enjoy those too. However, I also enjoy games on the operational scale or on the strategic scale. These are terms from wargames and just describe the number and amount of units typically involved.

Now, in real-life, on the operational or strategic scale, a general doesn't personally micro-manage all the units under his command. He has unit commanders and sub-commanders to do that. The parallel in RTS is less micromanagement because of a smarter interface or commander AI, or smarter units.

Tactics exist on all scales of warfare, from squad level up to division level and higher. Flanking is still flanking, whether you do it with a squad or with a company or division. Same with envelopment, same with fire and maneuver. You may not immediately recognize it as such, but spend some time researching it and you'll find the parallels.

You're equating your experience with large-scale RTSes with lack of strategy while equating experience with small scale RTSes with tons of strategy, and that's not a good equation. It may be true now, but that doesn't mean we have to live with it, cry "aw damn" and go back to playing FPS. And similarly I could make a crap ass squad based RTS game with tons of micro-management but zero strategy.

Highway to the Reich is RTS. Its operational scale. Less micro-management. It deals with tons of units. It has tons of strategy. Kohan is RTS. Its operational in scope. Less micro-management. Tons of units. Tons of strategy. You can flank, rout, cut supply lines, whatever. Conquest: Frontier Wars is RTS, operational scale, less micromanagement, tons of strategy.

Hmmmmm..maybe the kind of game I like is out there, but I've just been burned out on the Age of Empires/Rise of Nations/Starcraft/Worldcraft RTS experience.

Yeah, I'm definately into the squad tactics - which is why I just cannot play the "Total War" games. It's too damn much for my brain. I acknowledge there is a strategy element but cannot think that way on such a large scale in real time.

That was one of the cool things about one of my personal favorites - Majesty. You didn't control any of the units directly. You only gave them incentive and resources to do certain things (protect the kingdom, explore, etc...).

I also enjoyed Warhammer 40K as well. It was perfectly sized for me and allowed for squad customization and strategy (cover, elevation, etc...).

But if that game had better commander / squad leader AI? Yeah, I could see it being more fun.

Speaking as an outsider to the genre, RTS have all looked pretty much the same to me for years and years. I bought Rise of Nations a few months ago and haven't played it yet. Maybe it will change my mind.

Ironrod wrote:Speaking as an outsider to the genre, RTS have all looked pretty much the same to me for years and years. I bought Rise of Nations a few months ago and haven't played it yet. Maybe it will change my mind.

The combat of RoN leaves me cold. I enjoy the city building and tech research portion of the game much, much more.

In fact, during LAN gaming events, I pretty much turtle myself and support friends playing against the computer. I'm the same way with games like Civ or Alpha Centauri. I just like to research and build.

I only get into combat when it's necessary.