real RTS decision-based idea

Of the Tabletop, and other, lesser varieties.

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

usuario18013
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:31 am UTC

real RTS decision-based idea

Postby usuario18013 » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:15 pm UTC

Hello, I would like to show my idea.

Firstly, some thoughts about the actual RTS games.

I have played a lot of some RTS games, like "Age of Empires" saga, "Command & Conquer" saga, "Settlers" saga, "Total War" saga, and some others.

And I have also tryed some others like World of Warcraft.

I have played likely the first of each one, that for me, are the best ones...

So, that we can see in all that games, is that, basically, they all do the same... You have to build your base, build units, collects resources, and defend/attack.

And we are calling it RTS games. Well, have you ever thought that in the real live there's one person saying build it here and do one unit, another one, and take this resouce here? I think no...

In the real live is more like giving general orders, like attack this zone, or just build a base, not your team of 5 units go to this point, then to this one, and then attack just that unit/building.

In general terms all the actual RTS are based on it.

So, in my opinion we can call it individual orders games, because you are who have to do everything, and in my opinion, this is more like action, than strategy.

And now, why we don´t thing about how a real RTS would like to be?

Let´s just thing in strategy, just that word. Strategy it´s make a plan, it´s a procces, it´s directing all of that.

Think about, we start our game, we can take like example one of the firsts C&C games.
We have our base, and we start with some units, and it´s all about clicking places to build on or to move/attack to...

Well, and if we make some strategy with it?

I don´t want any more clicking on where to build buildings, or selecting specific units to go/do something like defend/attack.

What I want is to explain to the game how I want to have my base built, what buildings have to be more out/in the base, how I want to protect them, or the importance they have for me.

This way, perhaps I will just have to select the zone where I want my base to be in, or the direction where I want to expand it, then, the game will go on building and making an strategy to defend it.

Before of creating our base we can gave orders like:
1 > where would have it to be done. 2 > how to create it. 3 > collecting resources. 4 > where to expand to.

1 > here we can choose between building instanly or look for a better place, by sending explorers, we can love more to have an economy strategy by placing the base where we can collect a lot, or a corner where wait our attackers. Perhaps we will love more to build the base near of mountains to have a different way to attack/defend or collecting minerals, or perhaps we will love better to build near the sea to build sea army, or collect goods from the sea.
Perhaps we can be able to choose if we want to hide our base into the mountains, or create a forest around to difficult the acces, or walls to defend.

2 > I want to tell the game how the base will be build, I´m tired about clicking to start building and placing the buildings, and looking where to place them. I would like to choose the importance of the buildings, like energy buildings and exploration/radars ones to be near of the main central, and then the buildings to build units more in the external zone of the base. Here we can tell too to the game if we want to make just a wall to round the base, or different rings to protect it, also if we want to add defense towers or buildings with it.
If we start in a corner map, we can choose if we start building just in the corner to after expanding to the outside, or the way we will like our base to be build, like a L or U or T or D or I form. This way we will have our operations center more protected, or if we choose to build our main base leaving a place from the corner to the main construction we will be able to have a place in the back of the base to some special buildings or to stock our army/goods.

3 > collecting resources is allways important. Here we will choose what resources are more important for us, if we would like to collect them by stablishing collect bases near the resource or if we will love more to do the way from the base to collect them. We would be able to choose if we defend the resources we have collected, the resources we are collecting, or the resources we will collect, how we want them to be collected, and how we want to defend them, or just defend the harvester.

4 > where to expand to. I would like to choose how I want to explore/expand the map. I would like to do it with special exploration units, to explore the map around the base, in rings ways, or if I want to do it in a concrete direction, like if I have started in the southwest corner, to explore to just to the north, to the east, doing rings, or doing lines straigth the map. Perhaps I would like to send an explorer in the direction where I have received an attack, or to explore a zone where there are resources.


Same for the units. I don´t want to click to create each unit, or click ten times to create 10 units. I want to stablish the type of army I want to have, like more based on ground soldiers or air attack. This way, if we tell the game: I want a ground army with one hand to defend attacks by air. So, with this order the game will make just gunners, rocket soldiers, tanks and tanks with rockets. And I will also tell him the way and how many I want to do of them. And we can think about many kinds of orders to create armys like:
1> Create army to defend the base. 2 > create army to defend the resources collectors. 3 > create an army to attack/explore

1 > create army to defend the base:
here we will tell the game how and how many units we want to do to protects our base, or if we want to use the in company of defense buildings like turrets or not. We can tell the game that to defend our base we want to have 10 units mixed about grenadiers and tanks. So if the 10 units have just been done, don't do more if no casualties, or to avoid an unforeseen have some units more like 5 reserved to be able to strengthen if cassualities. Now we can choice if we want the units just defending the perimeter, or some side of the base. If we want that the units defending will defend just his place, or they will have all the units with them. Here we can also choose if we want them to defend just the perimeter or more agresively if they see a unit around. Here we can also choose if we want to have engineers to repair defense buildings and/or the tanks, or doctors for the soldiers. Also if we like more to have a repair base or a hospital, and when we want to send them to be repaired or cured.
This way we will be able to choose how we can defend our base, more with buildings, with army, or mixing them.

2 > we all know that in a lot of games, almost all, we have to collect resources, and the important they are.
If we have a harvester and we send him to harvest, we have to be allways looking for him.
I want to tell the game that the harvester will be autonomous, he search the resources, if he don't find, he will explore, and I can tell him the resource to collect firstly.
I will tell him that if he could be under attack, just to stay working or to go to the base to be defended.
I want to tell the game to create special units to defend the harvester, and the way they have to protect them, or in the place of the harvester, have any other unit to send to look for resources, and/or defend them until the harvester arrives.
This way we will be giving orders, but we will remain quiet because we will know that our harvester will be safe, and will do a better work.

3 > I want to tell the game what kind of army I want to have, and what to do, or how to behave in different situations.
I want to have an army based on tanks and airplanes/helicopters. So the game will just build that kind of units. I would like to have exploration units to expand the map and show me the way, they can be also spyes or special killers.
When my built tanks are in the way, I want them to go alone, and, depending of what they find, by example if they are beeing highly attacked the planes will make fire cover, if it´s just a casual attack and the tanks can solve it, planes will still at the base. I can prefer having some helicopters staying always near the tanks.
I want to create battle strategies, to tell my army how they would do it. This way I will be able to have a 20 units army going the way, and tell them that if they find opposition from the north, I want a little team of 5 units to surround the zone and attack by the back.


All you have read, it´s not to be done by clicks in the maps, it´s done to take decisions of how we want it to be done, it´s not for all the same.

All decissions we are making are decissions that we take before starting the game, like if we where making our profile, based on lovings, number of units and percentages. And that we can modify after, during the game, and due to how the game advances.

Want to play an example? Go on.

Go on by choosing our way to play, economy, war, more or less agressive, love more ground, air or sea units, heavier army or bigger light army.

Imagine what we can find in a map:
Mountains, valley, sea, rivers.
Resources: food (fish, meat), minerals (gold, silver, stone), other (trees, agriculture)

Like first strategy options I will choose:

70% of resources for war and 30% for economy. I will start with a 80/20% defend/attack strategy. I choose to attack enemy units according to the number found. When the enemy base will be found, I would attack the sourroundings by waves to know better the enemy base, and when enough explored, siege mode and wave attacks. I will choose to play near the sea 30% and valley 70%. I will start with a defense strategy in the beggining to build my army. If exploring I find the map limit I will build my base with a D form, if not, I will choose a O. My explorer will explore in ring mode, going out just for 2/5 of the size of the base, and 4/5 in the way of any incoming attack. As I have choosed a 70% of war, collecting resources will be more oriented to war units build, so my harvesters will like more to look for minerals like 60% and 20/20 for food and others. I would like my base to be built in two rings, the internal with all functional buildings defensed with a wall, and the other one for the war side with defense buildings and units. I will choose to to collect resources from my base. As army I choose heavier army based in tanks 60% and air attack 40% with "in" units to repair 5%. A 20% of that army to defend harvesters and resources, 10% to defend the outside ring of the base and a 5% stored for the unforseen attacks.

We start a map with 1 IA opponent.

We have choosed to do a fast sightseeing of the zone by our exploring unit/s, if it find a valley it will explore a little to open the map, it it find sea, he will explore a little more the area near the sea who finds the valley. If there's just mountais he will look for an opened area like a valley.
My explorer have done the work, and there´s an area whit mountains, and near a valley. So the base will expand in O form leaving a place from the mountain.

The game starts building, energy builds near the main building, communications near, and collect buildings in the main ring closed by a wall. All that while our explorer looks for goods and expands the map.
The sooner the explorer finds minerals in the mountains the harvesters go on, beeing defended with the firsts units created.
While the first resources arrives, the outside ring it´s being built with defense towers and turning units. When all base units have been done the next production is to be stocked.

Meanwhile, before starting to stock units, I have received an attack from the north of the map, they have been neutralized, the lost units have been replaced by the ones in the stock and the rest repaired.

Instantly my explorer have advanced a little more to the north to monitor the area to have the map opened in that way i have been attacked.

Like random attacks arrive to the base, new units are build and/or repaired, and harvester is allways beeing defended. The map goes more and more expanded due to the ring exploration and specially to the way attacks have came.

As I have chosen a 80/20% defend/attack strategy, my units have just defend the base, and attacked some unit in the sorroundings of the explored map.

Now I think that I have a good army, I change my strategy to a 30/70% to attack, and my units got dispersed by the known map, and a big group is going with the explorer.

The soon as they find any enemy they fight with, and continues to explore the way they have find, just to arrive to the base and start attacking to explore the surroundings of the base. When they have finished of discovering almost all the base, they will get in siege mode to undermine their defenses, and then it will be arriving attacks in waves just to defeat the enemy.

So, those are just examples of how the game can be. In my opinion it's a new way of strategy, that can be done by making decissions by %, events, or personal decissions, no more need to click each unit and building yourself every build.

It can be done by fast menus with different choices, separately by genre, like defending, resources, war, and beeing called according to the trajectory of the game, having more or less priority.

If it's taken as a big project, it can be better implemented to playstations like PlayStation or Xbox, because there's no pointing to something... We all know that strategy games in playstations are not so good with the gamepad. Allways better in PC, but now it can be good to in a playstation.

It can be done to for mobile phones and tablets in a lighter way, but also full of choices.

And something important to, yes, it's about taking decissions more than the normal action of RTS games where you have to be cliking all the way. Now, that you have taken a lot of decissions, and the game will take care about your decissions, you will be able too to control some of your units, like a full squad, just an assassin/snipper/special unit, or simply the harvester, or the team defending it.
So, as te game goes on you will be able to take care about the things that you will love, same if you want to go on with all the war matters, or collecting resources, or just defending your base will your taken decissions defeats the opponent.

I don't have the knowledge to do a game like it, nor the money, ressources, etc, but I have encore a lot of ideas to add to, and imagine while you are reading, if you are just thinking to in things to add.

If someone wants to go on with it, it's to you, I just wonder that perhaps one day I will be able to play a real RTS game, based on strategies, made by decisions.

I am posting this text in different forums and web related.

Thank you for reading, I think at least that you have entertained.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 25660
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: real RTS decision-based idea

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:51 am UTC

So something like the Gratuitous series? Gratuitous Space Battles, where you set your fleet up, give the ship's priority weights for targeting classes, then watch them fight?

I've not played the Tank one, but I believe it's similar.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

DavidSh
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:09 pm UTC

Re: real RTS decision-based idea

Postby DavidSh » Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:14 pm UTC

A real "real time strategy" game that involves construction of buildings should take months to play out, if construction workers around here are representative. Maybe the Sea-Bees can work faster.

I've only seen one real-time video game where you can send out orders one day, then next day start up the game and see how they were carried out. But it was in Japanese, and my language skills were insufficient.

usuario18013
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:31 am UTC

Re: real RTS decision-based idea

Postby usuario18013 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:43 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:So something like the Gratuitous series? Gratuitous Space Battles, where you set your fleet up, give the ship's priority weights for targeting classes, then watch them fight?

I've not played the Tank one, but I believe it's similar.


Hi, thanks for your answer!

Well, I have look at the game you told me. Gratuitous Space Battles 2 seems well, but there's not construction or resources, and you gives orders just one time... so it leaves an static game... based just in war.

Gratuitous Tank Battles is just another tower defense game, and there's no base, no resources. That's not like my idea.

But, Gratuitous Space Battles would be like a way to start a game, you will construct or already start with some troops, and you will be able to give orders before starting, but also during the play.

I think my idea is a lot more ambitious at all. It could be a mix of Age of Empires and C&C, and you can add the way Gratuitous Space Battles makes to send trops to fight, but dinamicaly to be able to modify the way they react.

What do you think?

DavidSh wrote:A real "real time strategy" game that involves construction of buildings should take months to play out, if construction workers around here are representative. Maybe the Sea-Bees can work faster.

I've only seen one real-time video game where you can send out orders one day, then next day start up the game and see how they were carried out. But it was in Japanese, and my language skills were insufficient.


Hi, thank you for your answer.

When you play any StarCraft game, or AoE or C&C it don't takes months to play. Same a game with Settlers siege that is slowers, it can take just some hours...

I am meaning like. You goes on playing a C&C game, and it will take how many time for you like in a 3 players game in a medium or huge map? It will almost take the same time with the decision-based mode. It depends on you the time the game will go on. Building, collecting resources and attacking will be almost the same, but intead of clicking all the way to control everything, you will decide how it would be have to be done.

It wouldn't be a tower defense game, its just an RTS game, but with real strategy decisions, more real, because think about one thing: in real life, a city/base and a war is not controlled by every unit/building that you are clicking, they are really controlled by a master, or a colonel, that gives more general orders, he is not in the place to say in every moment what to do (like we do in actual RTS games by clicking everytime...)

For me it's a very interesting idea, because it will foce you to take more important decisions, at the same time that you leave the game go on looking how good/bad are your decisions.

What do you think?

Thanks

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4384
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: real RTS decision-based idea

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:10 pm UTC

I think the genre of games you're talking about are often called "god games", with the canonical example being the Populous series--basically, an RTS where all of the individual units are AI controlled, and you give them high-level objectives to complete in whatever way they feel makes sense, or try to influence their behaviour by causing natural disasters or whatever.

User avatar
Koa
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:20 am UTC

Re: real RTS decision-based idea

Postby Koa » Sat Feb 25, 2017 5:24 am UTC

I think I've considered this idea before, way back when I had very few RTS hours. It's a natural thought over the normal inability or unwillingness to manage a base or army, and maybe it would be interesting as a sort of idle game. But damn does it take out all the magic out of RTS for me. Gratuitous Space Battles is a good microcosm of how it would probably play. In the beginning it seems neat and the pretty effects are dazzling, but by the time I was trying to complete challenges I spent most of the time minimized and my interest rapidly disappeared. While in GSB there is zero input to do during a battle and you could argue that with this game there would be a constant potential need to move a bunch of esoteric sliders, I think the result would end up roughly the same. A game that collapses when it presents challenge.

The real 100% decision-based RTS game could maybe be a neat framework for exposing other systems like complex diplomacy or trade, or even a MOBA metal gear thing, but by itself I don't think it sounds interesting at all as a game to play. I'm not sure that I will ever find AI vs AI actually fun to play no matter how much I'm given the illusion of control. Well, maybe there is a point where I would be satisfied with the illusion of control but I have never come close to experiencing it yet.

usuario18013
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:31 am UTC

Re: real RTS decision-based idea

Postby usuario18013 » Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:01 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:I think the genre of games you're talking about are often called "god games", with the canonical example being the Populous series--basically, an RTS where all of the individual units are AI controlled, and you give them high-level objectives to complete in whatever way they feel makes sense, or try to influence their behaviour by causing natural disasters or whatever.


Hi, thanks for your anwer.

I have to surrender a little in your post...

I have to say that I am one of the lovers of Settlers siege, I can say that I love Settlers 2, and smoth playing... Sorry.
But this game is one that makes me thing, in Settlers you have just to build, and sent your trops to fight, you don't control them, neither your workers, you just give them priorities.

This idea of playing is totally compatible with other games like StarCraft, obviously a game like StarCraft will give him a higher speed, seen that Settlers was pretty slow to play...

A game running with my idea don't have to be boring, you won't be all the way clicking, but you will hace to take a lot of important decisions that can make you win or lose.

Koa wrote:I think I've considered this idea before, way back when I had very few RTS hours. It's a natural thought over the normal inability or unwillingness to manage a base or army, and maybe it would be interesting as a sort of idle game. But damn does it take out all the magic out of RTS for me. Gratuitous Space Battles is a good microcosm of how it would probably play. In the beginning it seems neat and the pretty effects are dazzling, but by the time I was trying to complete challenges I spent most of the time minimized and my interest rapidly disappeared. While in GSB there is zero input to do during a battle and you could argue that with this game there would be a constant potential need to move a bunch of esoteric sliders, I think the result would end up roughly the same. A game that collapses when it presents challenge.

The real 100% decision-based RTS game could maybe be a neat framework for exposing other systems like complex diplomacy or trade, or even a MOBA metal gear thing, but by itself I don't think it sounds interesting at all as a game to play. I'm not sure that I will ever find AI vs AI actually fun to play no matter how much I'm given the illusion of control. Well, maybe there is a point where I would be satisfied with the illusion of control but I have never come close to experiencing it yet.


Hi, thanks for you answer.
I have to disagree with you about that it's about inability or unwillingness...
Why? because the game will allways be dynamic, and the idle time will be just the time you want. Also, I repeat that there are allways the option to controll what you want, so you can leave your base and resources for the IA, and take care of fighting with your troops, for example.

Also, I am talking about a huger idea, all I have said is just a sketch. I am talking about not only decisions, also by creating attack strategies or defense, by showing your troops how to do it, to afer, send them to the action.

How many times have you thought about how boring is creating your base or defending it constructing a wall around? When it can be the IA who can manage it for you according to your willings.
Or by clicking all the time to create and create one and another troop, when you already know how many troops of each you want to have. What about just setting the kind of army you want or how many of each you want?

For example, if you let the IA do this two things, base construction and creating the army, you will just have to care about clicking your troops to fight with them.

Imagine the opposite, you don't care about fighting. But you want to go on with researching of new upgrades, by creating your base and collecting resources specially for just giving your troops special shields.

You are talking to about diplomacy and trading, it's a huge idea, and more complex, but it can be done to (also that two options all we know that are almost decisions-based, and IA controlled yet, basically we chose if we want allies or not, and with trading it´s just chosing what goods and with who we want to trade)

Thanks all for your answers.
Last edited by usuario18013 on Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:22 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Koa
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:20 am UTC

Re: real RTS decision-based idea

Postby Koa » Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:00 pm UTC

usuario18013 wrote:Also, I repeat that there are allways the option to controll what you want, so you can leave your base and resources for the IA, and take care of fighting with your troops, for example.


When challenge is introduced there's a conflict. Either controlling troops manually is ideal and so you should do it all the time, or the AI does it at least just as well which makes manual control unnecessary. Very difficult to intentionally strike a balance. I feel like the idea is an RTS simulator which can't possess any challenge as-is, which is fine I guess but it's an important thing to note.

I also don't think I've been bored building a base and I would guess it's because I feel like I am making decisions. It's mainly because of the 'real time' part in RTS. A lot of people do play RTS kind of funny, getting every building and researching everything, building unnecessary defenses, essentially playing the game on their own time. I can see how someone would find that boring to do over and over again, even though they still like the idea of playing a RTS, so they might consider automation. I used to play that way myself though I don't see the appeal of it anymore, and it's because I find it much more interesting to play on the game's time.

The first few seconds of the game are the most important, because every subsequent second is built upon them. If you don't build a villager in AoE in the first second of the game, you're delaying your whole economy with every moment. The same concept applies to buildings. The faster you build it the quicker the investment will pay off and the more likely it will be successful at its deliberate intention. I'm always looking forward to affording the next thing I want or need and eagerly getting it, and it ceases to be boring in that way. There are often ways to split hairs for time if I really feel like it.

I think time is more important to RTS than strategy. I think strategy can't be defined as anything other than a plan set out for an intended result. People who would find strategy to be more important than time are the only people who will sometimes declare whether some action is or isn't strategic in RTS, because they treat strategy as if it were some aethereal golden idea rather than how it has always been throughout history: incredibly messy and defined by the rules of the environment.

usuario18013
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:31 am UTC

Re: real RTS decision-based idea

Postby usuario18013 » Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:35 pm UTC

Koa wrote:
usuario18013 wrote:Also, I repeat that there are allways the option to controll what you want, so you can leave your base and resources for the IA, and take care of fighting with your troops, for example.


When challenge is introduced there's a conflict. Either controlling troops manually is ideal and so you should do it all the time, or the AI does it at least just as well which makes manual control unnecessary. Very difficult to intentionally strike a balance. I feel like the idea is an RTS simulator which can't possess any challenge as-is, which is fine I guess but it's an important thing to note.

I also don't think I've been bored building a base and I would guess it's because I feel like I am making decisions. It's mainly because of the 'real time' part in RTS. A lot of people do play RTS kind of funny, getting every building and researching everything, building unnecessary defenses, essentially playing the game on their own time. I can see how someone would find that boring to do over and over again, even though they still like the idea of playing a RTS, so they might consider automation. I used to play that way myself though I don't see the appeal of it anymore, and it's because I find it much more interesting to play on the game's time.

The first few seconds of the game are the most important, because every subsequent second is built upon them. If you don't build a villager in AoE in the first second of the game, you're delaying your whole economy with every moment. The same concept applies to buildings. The faster you build it the quicker the investment will pay off and the more likely it will be successful at its deliberate intention. I'm always looking forward to affording the next thing I want or need and eagerly getting it, and it ceases to be boring in that way. There are often ways to split hairs for time if I really feel like it.

I think time is more important to RTS than strategy. I think strategy can't be defined as anything other than a plan set out for an intended result. People who would find strategy to be more important than time are the only people who will sometimes declare whether some action is or isn't strategic in RTS, because they treat strategy as if it were some aethereal golden idea rather than how it has always been throughout history: incredibly messy and defined by the rules of the environment.


Yes, you can't define ir better. It's because you love have everything under control, like almost all RTS games, and that's the real base of all.

Well, but, in an way what I am proposing is the same you are talking about, but differently controlled, I still thinking that it can run for some kind of RTS gamers, but, I think that it would be more oriented to people like have loved Settlers for example, games that are slower to play, not like StarCraft, that are full of action. Anyway I think that the way I would like to play like my words, can handle to some expectations.

Thanks all for your opinions. Happy for sharing my words with you.


Return to “Gaming”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests