Idea for rts game with different way to balance gameplay

Click here and disable ads!

So I had this idea, wonder what you think about it. The design goal was to make defense easier, and attack harder, so players won't rush, but will try more complicated strategies, like using special units, skills, spells, fake attacks, etc. I also wanted player that fell behind for a moment to have chance to recover.

The idea is simple - units can only be created in your base, are very cheap and fast to create, but use huge amount of resources per second just to keep living. So attacker has to burn huge amount of resources just to get his army near enemy base, and player that defends base can just spawn huge army for a few seconds to kill the attacker quickly, and disband his army after that, to preserve resources.

That should make the game more interesting, with fake attacks, counterattacks, etc.

The exact values are to be found, but for example:
- base produces 1.0 mana per second, soldier cost 0.1 mana to create, you can create 5 soldiers per second, and each soldier use 0.1 mana pers second just to live.

What do you think?

Buffing defence leads to long games and stalemates.

Or concentrate on building a defensive base with minimum cost at maximum defense. Play the waiting game with AI. Or other players. "Who will bankrupt first?"

OR zergrush. Build the fastest and cheapest units. Fuck power. Speed is everything. Send the horde into their lands, burn it all down. :yawn:

If you defeat your opponent with a rush they were always going to lose. All-ins aside, those are derp.

I think it's not a bad idea, but it has been done (not exactly AFAIK) before.

The main strategy would be:
1. to catch your opponent with his pants down
2. get him to needlessly create and/or keep units on the field to waste resources.

This is how Starcraft works, more or less.

Some interesting games off the top of my head:
AoE was a pretty "defensive" RTS. I don't really have much experience with high level multiplayer, though. Maybe someone can shed some light on that?
Warcraft 3 had upkeep, but wasn't really "resource oriented" RTS. It came mostly down to micro.

How would resources (besides the base) work? I assume you'd have to offer some incentives for players to use and control areas of the map? Maybe units grow stronger with time (or gain experience?)?

You should try to implement it (maybe in Starcraft 2 map editor?) and see how it plays. Shouldn't be much work (you would need to refine the design your game, if basic gameplay is worth building and iterating upon).

Introducing control points or base-less RTS-gameplay was a way to -- mechanically -- counter rushing and turtling.

It's also kind of why I think Company of Heroes was the best RTS of the 2000s (yes, I know it has bases, but they were not very important).

I advise you to try Warzone 2100 and think about how to change it to your specific design.

Games that permit come-from-behind recovery instead of snowballing also tend towards long games and stalemates. Although not quite an RTS, Netrek is a prime example of this: As you push the enemy back, it becomes harder and harder to maintain this because replacements for destroyed enemies spawn closer and closer to the encroaching front line while replacements for your units must travel a much longer distance to return to the fight. Total victory therefore rarely occurs unless there is a large skill disparity between the players.

That's a bit extreme, creation costs as little as 1 sec of upkeep?

Well, it illustrates the point: You're going to get the same kind of conquest dynamics as Netrek. Like Netrek, units only spawn from your base/homeplanet, don't really cost much of anything to spawn (player clicks join fight), and keeping them around has the upkeep cost (player consumes slot). Thus, the closer towards the enemy base you push, the more frequently the enemy can attack you. Like Netrek, this is probably going to strongly trend towards stable stalemate behavior. Taking and holding merely 3/10 enemy planets is considered to be decisive victory there, let alone actually finishing by genocide.

Line wars games also exhibit somewhat similar behavior, although in that case units have to upkeep and continuously spawn, but the reinforcement times strongly favour the defender. Instead those games are about momentum and reflection to build an unstoppable bulge of units.

Interesting ideas.

I've been sort of thinking of a weird concept for a strategy game lately - think virtual pets plus Command & Conquer. Instead of so much building units, you have to raise (and breed?) huge beasts with different attributes based on how you raise them, that your soldiers then ride into battle. The beasts themselves are sort of like base units and then the soldiers you give them give passive modifiers depending on type. The goal would be to have an extra degree of flexibility but also a trade-off - raise your monsters/whatever for longer and they are more powerful, but of course that means you're leaving yourself open to attack.

No idea if it would really work but I do think that if properly paced and given enough trade-offs, it could avoid the typical rush-heavy gameplay RTS titles are known for.

I'd love to play a RTS which would basically be a Strategic wargame like War in Russia with ten minute days.

Resources would work like this: there is 3 mana source kinds: red, green and blue. You must connect 2 different mana sources with pipes (cheap), and build extractor(expansive, long building time) somewhere between them. As long, as these pipes and extractor exist, you get one of 3 kinds of resources (RG mana, GB mana or BR mana, depending on which kinds of sources you tapped) every second. You cannot connect more than one pipe to one mana source. Different units,buildings or spells require different kinds of mana to build/live, so there are effectively 3 playable factions (like in starcraft), but determined during each game, based on which resources you extract, and you can pivot when you do expansion.

So when you have R, G and B mana sources nearby, you must decide on macro strategy, connect 2 of them to extractor, and build up defences around your pipes and extractor). Scouting should be important, because which resources you extract determine your possible units and strategies, and it's slow to change that.

Factions:
- RG is unit based faction - various strong close and short range units (swordman, axethrower, exploding kamikaze), some spells like "illusion" that clones unit to peruade enemy that this push is for real when it isn't, "wings" that makes unit permanently able to fly
- GB is building based faction - only unit is worker that build buildings, but they can build many defensive buildings so should have strong defences. Spells like "dig" that allow your worker to dig underground, get out near enemy base and build canon near enemy base. Attacking is very hard, you must expand your base slowly to crush the enemy with your defensive buildings.
- BR is magic/special forces faction - has weak long range units (archers), healers, spells like "teleport" and "magical barrier" to keep enemy army far away to destroy them slowly

Having expansions should be very important, because it allows you to use more strategies, because having 2 kinds of mana for example you can use more units and spells and new combinations of them (like spawning archers and giving them wings when you have RG and BR extractors).

You're right that there should be some incentive to attack, otherways it would be a very boring game, and units gaining skills with XP may work.

How about an RTS without that retarded balance shit? What is this? 90s?

Combat Mission

Supremely stupid view of the problem with an equally bad attempt at a solution. Feel free to try and prove me wrong, but you can't.

Interesting. You should change the colors of the mana. Make it primary colors (red, blue, yellow), so that mixing will result in secondary colors (purple, orange, green).

Maybe even allow for single color extractors (R, B, Y), that produce basic units, which can then be "upgraded" by connecting them to a different node (even another node of the same color) to make stronger basic units or advanced units (by mixing colors). So you could hoard just the R nodes to produce really strong swordsmen and risk being "countered" by air units or you could mix it up with different colors and be more versatile.

Now go mess with Starcraft 2 editor and let us play it.

You could also make units start out weak, grow stronger as they "live", then peak to their full potential, and then start decaying til the point they become useless and start requiring upkeep (pension). Combat-hardened veterans could require special homes, too, and killing them off would slow down creation speed of new units.

That's just minor details and off the discussion.

If you want to make it interesting, establish the logistic concept.

Creatures/unit must operate inside field of effect to get low cost of maintainance.
Creatures/unit can operate outside field of effect to get high cost of maintainance.

Field of effect is largest from a structure named "base of logistic", "outpost", etc... as you will.
Certain Mobile units can have this field of effect but it's much smaller. "Logistic trains", "packhorses", whatever.

Log units must be assigned from a log structure, and cant go farther than certain distance. Log units has certain amount of supplies that will get replenish continuously while the link is intact. If it's cut, by go farther than that distance or the bases are destroyed, the supplies will last a certain times before consumed entirely, unit and all.

The log structures will and must link to warehouse that collecting resources. If the link is cut, their own supplies will last for awhile before consumed entirely, cutting all links with their subordinate log units.

Resources is entirely depend on your design. You can make a chain of resources, or just single one, no matter. As long as they get stored in the central warehouses, it's all good.

You can try to eliminate your enemies' field of effect to make their cost of maintainance go up exponentally, lead to bankrupcy and revolts. Assassinate their logistic trains, Raid and Run their outposts, kinda things.

Of course, this make attacking is a matter of logistic protection, and fast hits-and-runs. If you are fast, you can hit anywhere at will with reasonable cost, since it's not easy enough to cut your log links. Scout all over to find the weak points. If they protect log bases, that mean field units are weak and can be hit at will. If they maintain good log units, that mean destroy log bases will have strong effect on their armies.

On the other hand, they can play baits. Show a weak base to invite raiders. Then encircle the exits with your own raiders to chase runners and close the trap with slower units. As long as the base survive at the end, you will fight at optimum logistic links.

Winner will be the one move forward with most care. You choose resource area, you move forward with enough protection to build up resource gathering structures. Mind you, split your force into building new bases and protecting old ones will mean a sufficient strong attack can crush one of them.

I believe Rise of Nations featured that laclongquan, enemy cities had an attrition radius in which you would take damage unless you were adequately accompanied by supply wagons. It was also a very good game.

Never play it before.

No. It's a tactical scale game and it's not real time. RTS wargame would be if you'd take a strategic scale wargame and turn it into "real time". Or rather accelerated time.

Company of Heroes works well as its resource system means you have to constantly have your men capping, defending and taking points. If you play passively and try and bunker down you will simply be outresourced. You cannot rush due to bases starting with defences. Thus both players are forced to sally forth and jockey for control of supply points. Only the British can play the traditional turtle game due to their very powerful fixed defences and artillery.

I think forcing both players to attack and constantly duel and spar is much more fun than 'turtle until you can assemble an army large/advanced enough to sweep the enemy away' or 'sacrifice your economy on the gamble of an early attack and victory'.

Something like this?
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/377/details/Command.Ops:.Battles.from.the.Bulge.

Haven't played it myself, but there's some gameplay videos on the site.

Yes, but on strategic scale. You know, with production and creating new units and stuff like that.