RTS Games - A bit of a conceptual discussion!

M

mysticjim

Guest
Hello people.

I think this post is going to be me more thinking aloud and inviting opinion rather than asking a specific question. Which is different for me, I've not posted much on this forum and everything I've posted previously has been more to do with my own ineptitude in getting Gamemaker to do what I want rather than game design!

Just for a bit of scope on myself;

So, I'm fairly new to Gamemaker, in fact I'm returning to game making in general after prolonged absences. I dabbled in it way back in the day on an Atari ST and then an Amiga (anybody remember STOS and Amos BASIC?!!!!!!!!!!) Besides a tiny bit of Pascal and C+ coding when I was at college I didn't touch programming for over 15 years, in which time my creative spark mostly went towards music (playing and recording) and video (directing and editing). I got back into game making to make simple, little games for my young son. I initially tried out Gamesalad because I really didn't think I could hack coding anymore, but naturally I'm wanting to do more sophisticated stuff and I feel Gamemaker is a clear step up with GML. I'm not really harbouring profit making ambitions otherwise I'd probably go down the Unity route, and I really do enjoy 2D pixel graphics and am a bit of a sucker for things retro, and Gamemaker feels really natural so far. I do have ambitions of online multiplayer games so may yet hit a limit of what Gamemaker can currently do, but I'm nowhere near that stage and am loving the Gamemaker experience so will certainly be using it for a good while.

Anyway, thats me. What I wanted to talk about was RTS games. I've not been planning or properly designing much, mostly jumping straight into Gamemaker with a basic idea and learning how to create the dynamics of that - just small mini-games and proof of concept demos. I've had been working on a CannonFodder clone, but whilst just starting to get my head around movement planning and AI I began to get ideas along the lines of Command and Conquer - less shooting and more strategy, and the project is now heading in that direction.

So, I wanted to ask firstly, does anyone here play those kinds of games, and from a design point of view, what makes them good, and what sorts of things should be avoided?

I'm definitely coming at this from from a retro perspective in terms of dynamics. I really like the resource gathering balanced against building an infrastructure and creating an army scenario - but it's been very much done in that exact way to death, so I'm trying to think of new twists in the gameplay to give it a different spin. Here are a few of my ideas;

Resources.

Westwood studios really were innovative back in the day with the concept of the Universal Resource that everyone wanted and would fight over, which was implemented in Dune 2 and subsequently the C&C games. However, the concept path is well trodden now, a single resource invariably would lead to a blatant C&C clone, so I'm wondering about the player needing to gather multiple resources. I have a load of possible scenarios, but without going into much detail I'm thinking perhaps a source of fuel to run vehicles, plus a source of raw material for building structures. I'm toying with the idea of a couple more - I've got this post-apocalyptic type idea where you also have to have wells to build up a supply of water and farms to supply food to keep your troops alive, and maybe different fuels in different abundances with different properties. I'm just worried that it might bamboozle potential players because a technology tree for more than a single resource would get complicated pretty fast. But I like the idea because I want the game to be a measured thing, not just a race for all the available resources with a bit of defence in case you're attacked, while all the time waiting til you have numbers to go and wipe out the opponent. I want curveballs and setbacks, things that force the player to have to change their plans, but not feel that they're doomed purely because they didn't create a certain unit quick enough or precisely at the right time, which is how I often feel while I'm getting my ass kicked on Command and Conquer multiplayer at the moment (I've started playing it again for research purposes, of course!!!!)

I also like the idea of finite resources and renewable, both with balancing pros and cons. You will probably need to use finite resources at the start, but if you rely on them too much you'll exhaust them. So, should you start building renewable into your strategy from the off? Or do you focus on military might in order to forcefully take finite resources off of a vulnerable opponent? A misjudgement there and an eco-friendly, lentil eating hippie opponent could soon be crushing your rusting, gasoline depleted stationery vehicles into the dust!

Power (as in electricity)

C&C has it's power stations, you can build them in seconds but in reality power stations are bloody great big huge things! I envisage power stations to be big, precious and costly things - you don't have lots of them and they distribute power to a large grid - so the challenge is just as much building (and protecting) that grid that is feeding out to your buildings that are sprawling out further away from your starting point

Repair/Servicing/wear and tear

Old things and damaged things don't work as well as brand new or well maintained things. A neglected aging power station, or one damaged in an attack but not repaired, stands a good chance of exploding and causing you a catastrophic infrastructure setback!

Reconnaissance

I want more strategic emphasis on recon. Obviously finding out where the enemies are is important but finding the various resources is key too. I like the idea of units in the game with that specific purpose - either they're faster or able to cross certain terrain where others can't, but not for combat.

Sabotage

I've always been interested in guerrilla warfare - defeating a much larger, better equipped opponent with small tactical alternatives. A badly planned power infrastructure could leave you open to crippling sabotage, no matter how many power stations you have. And what about distraction tactics. What looks like a sizable attack on one flank turns out to be a merely a distraction for a lone unit to blow up your prized power station or cut the power supply to your whole food production network on the other flank!

Capturing Territory and buildings

There are times when simply blowing something up is required, but what about capturing? I can envisage a situation where you might be able to capture some outlying buildings without your opponent noticing. Maybe, if you're stealthy about it for a while you get away with benefiting from the products of that resource whilst it's still running off their power grid!

Combat

With all this talk of other thinks you could be forgiven for thinking that I'm planning a management game like Sim City rather than a combat RTS. While It's true that back in the day I was much more into management games, I do love the idea of conflict being at the heart of everything in equal measures too! For sure, if you're better at the infrastructure management you should be rewarded with military supremacy and the opportunity does exist that if you come up against someone who can't manage as well as you that you could eventually march a big army in and slaughter them!

Right, I think I'll stop there before this becomes a thesis rather than a casual post on the forum! Be very interested in what you good people think. What do you like the sound of or hate. With all those management options, would it put a lot of players off? Would it still be fun to play? Be very interested to hear opinions, suggestions, etc.

cheers

Jim
 
C

ConsolCWBY

Guest
...on an Atari ST and then an Amiga (anybody remember STOS and Amos BASIC?!!!!!!!!!!)
Yes and no. I remember hearing about it, but after I gave up my TI99-4/a and went to a C64 - I couldn't leave that damned machine! lol Iirc wasn't Flight of the Amazon Queen originally programmed with Amos? Anyway, good to see another "old-timer" here. I was beginning to think I was the only one! :)

So, I wanted to ask firstly, does anyone here play those kinds of games, and from a design point of view, what makes them good, and what sorts of things should be avoided?
Wow. That's actually alot. I used to play RTSs back in the 90s to early 2000s - most of them (I still have fond memories of getting a 3DFX card and playing Battlezone). But I bored of them - usually because of bad design. Anyone can make a "zerg-rush" type of game, but balancing is the trick to a RTS. Too often, devs forget about the S (Strategy) and it becomes the T (Tactical). The best games I played usually required:
1) Use of terrain (not just using it for pathing)
2) Combined Arms (not just 1 million weak units to overcome defenses - I mean, is this where Tower Defense comes from, or what?) A bit tricky if your not a wargamer. Basically the fact that no one unit should act alone but together creating a formidable force covering each other's weaknesses.
3) Upgrading - I'm not a fan of insta-upgrades, but depending on the complexity of the user interface it has it's place. Just not a fan of it.
4) Something new, not "OMG! IT'S JUST LIKE <insert name here>! BUT WITH DIFFERENT GFX!" This is probably the reason why I became disinterested in the genre in my old age. I always feel like I've played something before, so I'm jaded as all hell. BUT - it can be done. No real advice though lol.
5) A pure military games shouldn't have exploration - especially if the debriefing stated it was reconned. An exploration game shouldn't reveal the entire map and only use fog of war - especially if the briefing stated you are entering an unknown area. I have to state this. A few AAA games got this wrong.
That's just off the top of my head.

I have a load of possible scenarios, but without going into much detail I'm thinking perhaps a source of fuel to run vehicles, plus a source of raw material for building structures. I'm toying with the idea of a couple more
Here's an idea: CATAN or any other type of eurogame boardgame design. I don't know if you're familiar with the concepts presented by these, but unlike ameritrash, the mechanics ARE the game. Here's what I'm talking about.
The idea of combining resource management and a simple supply/demand economy, along with using resources combinatorially would be something that would interest me - instead of 1 resource = 1 thing, etc.

I've always been interested in guerrilla warfare -
here are times when simply blowing something up is required, but what about capturing?
Sounds to me like a peanutbutter cup - 2 great things which taste great together! Combine them - let the player(s) decide when they've gotten enough, and then BOOM! I'd look at how MOO does it's sweeps - simple and elegant with a known chance of success but MAY be a waste of resources! I love your ideas here!

For sure, if you're better at the infrastructure management you should be rewarded with military supremacy and the opportunity does exist that if you come up against someone who can't manage as well as you that you could eventually march a big army in and slaughter them!
Be careful on this one. It sounds good, but the focus on combat should be on combat - not just management. Management can and should provide a great defensive bonus, but a great mix of units should always destroy a "zerg-rush". See - this is why I got bored with this type of game! :(

Good luck on your endeavor!
 
Top