Making an RTS, what do YOU want?

[SHW]

Hello everyone!

I am making an RTS game. And I am trying to find out what features people love and hate.
Currently I am making the very core. Which is a lot of programming haha.

The game takes place in the (near) future.

I have a basic idea of the main factions. More factions are possible (note: these are NOT their names, but basic descriptions):
- (Normal) Humans
- Religious mass murdering acolytes
- Stealthy rogue AI-implemented bad guys

I have some ideas myself. Please let me know what you think of these.
- A Research tree (faction orientated, minimal "common-type" research)
- A Unit-Creator (Create your own unit to throw into the fight)

More information is coming, but this is a free-time project.So I work on it when I have the time.

I would love to know what you people would like to see in an RTS. Or better yet, what you do not want to see. So I know what to work on and what to drop. Any feedback is welcome!


____________
I am new here, so if I made a (fatal) error in some way. Please do not throw tomatoes at me! Please?

 

[Mutant1988]

A unit creator to me doesn't really match that well with a RTS. I've seen that concept used successfully, but that has been in turn based games (Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri) or otherwise very slow paced games (I think the Earth series did that). I do believe the Dominion games did that too, but I haven't played those.

Really, it all comes down to how interesting you make the world. With an RTS, you don't really need to re-invent the wheel, but you need to frame it in an interesting manner. So I would suggest you sit down and write a short history on the world and the conflict the game revolves around. You might get more concrete concepts for the factions in doing so as well.

I'm not really an RTS player myself, much preferring the real time tactics sub-genre. That is to say - No base building, only strategic manoeuvring and skilful tactical decisions. That said, I still love Red Alert 2.

I am new here, so if I made a (fatal) error in some way. Please do not throw tomatoes at me! Please?

I don't think you have done anything wrong. Seeing how there's no actual product, I don't think anyone could argue for you advertising or anything like that. So you probably don't need to worry.

Discussing game design is very interesting regardless and I think there is a merit to the topic for that reason alone.

 

[SHW]

Thank you for your reply.

I shall work on the history that took place in the game.

 

[Danny Dowling]

keep the mechanics simple and easy to pick up so that the mastery of the game is in the application and strategy, rather than learning the intricacies of standard deployment etc.

Also, just because I'm speaking to a game creator right now and I don't often get the chance to speak to one seriously: Could you ever consider creating a game that plays like the first 2 Advance Wars games but built to push more PvP? It's a simple working game with deep technical play and is overall just awesome.

Sorry, back to the RTS.

 

[Barbas]

Units that physically combine with other units to create a super-unit that is greater than the sum of its parts! Those are always cool.

 

[SHW]

Also, just because I'm speaking to a game creator right now and I don't often get the chance to speak to one seriously: Could you ever consider creating a game that plays like the first 2 Advance Wars games but built to push more PvP? It's a simple working game with deep technical play and is overall just awesome.

I could look at it, but I don't know if I am actually going to do it. Can't promise anything. I am not really into PvP.

Units that physically combine with other units to create a super-unit that is greater than the sum of its parts! Those are always cool.

Lol, Command and Conquer tiberium wars style hehe?

 

[Barbas]

Units that physically combine with other units to create a super-unit that is greater than the sum of its parts! Those are always cool.

Lol, Command and Conquer tiberium wars style hehe?

That game's all right, but the series now sadly blows dogs for pennies. I was thinking more along the lines of Starcraft, but you've got the general idea!

 

[Danny Dowling]

Also, just because I'm speaking to a game creator right now and I don't often get the chance to speak to one seriously: Could you ever consider creating a game that plays like the first 2 Advance Wars games but built to push more PvP? It's a simple working game with deep technical play and is overall just awesome.

I could look at it, but I don't know if I am actually going to do it. Can't promise anything. I am not really into PvP.

Cool man. Basically I just think that Advance Wars could have been a huge huge game but due to the time and platform and other things just never got the limelight it could have gotten. Either way if you wanna touch on the strategy market AW is definitely a series to look at. A lot of people that have played it sing its praise.

Also what I said about gameplay still stands. Not sure where I stand on Starcraft style of having to mine etc., but keep the learning of the game fairly simple.

As for aesthetic I think you may as well play it fairly safe. Aliens, sci-fi, or fantasy is definitely going to be more likely to draw players than going for some sort of real life inspired war setting. At least, at the moment.

 

[SmugFrog]

I think playing many other RTS games and finding out what they did right (or wrong) is important.

I love the idea that you could create your own units (ala something like how Starmade, Galactic Civilizations, etc works) - but that's really going to put a tight wire on trying to balance that. Also, you would likely want to consider adding an editor outside of the regular game (from the main menu or separate program) for that feature as trying to design units on the fly in a real-time game is going to be a pain). That depends on what type of customization you're going for though, but either way - having a way to edit units outside of the game and set them up would be great.

I think Command & Conquer has always done well with its balance of Rock-Paper-Scissors. The units are clear about their strengths and weaknesses, and it makes it fun trying to break your opponents defense with your units.

I also love base building. Supreme Commander (the 1st one) is my go to game for that, and I absolutely love the plethora of units presented for use and the massive map sizes and believable super weapons (a nuke is devastating in that game). While it allows great methods for defense of your base (shields, anti-missile defense), some downfalls are that the units are all pretty generic. There doesn't feel to be a real rock-paper-scissors strategy, just mass a swarm of units and run them at the enemy.

World in Conflict is one of my favorite games - I love the line of sight concept, used really well in that game for all actions (like a sniper in a building or a forest, needs that LOS to shoot his target). The ground craters, troops and vehicles can hide in those and avoid LOS. This game was different from the typical RTS that you don't just want to rush your units in and get them killed; you want to protect them, repair them, heal them, level them and use them effectively. Especially since you couldn't just continually crank out more units; you were limited by your resource income. If you lost all of your units in play, you were at a big disadvantage to your team or, in singleplayer, it was pretty much game over. The ability to call in off map support was excellent, and the nuke, fuel air bomb, and carpet bombing were excellent.

Wargame has emulated the feel of World in Conflict, but the LOS doesn't feel the same and the game seems to go more into tons of weapons firing effects/explosions/graphics more than some of the bits of gameplay. World in Conflict just had a more realistic warfare feel to it, while Wargame tends to LOOK more like a war taking place.

StarCraft, while I don't love it the most, you can't deny the gameplay has been refined to an art. SC2 is a great example of perfecting the rock-paper-scissors gameplay, but I feel it is too similar to old RTS games and doesn't really push the envelope with anything new (World in Conflict LOS, Supreme Commander zooming the map out to see THE ENTIRE MAP and symbology).

Speaking of space type games: Sins of a Solar Empire. This game took aspects of Supreme Commander and put it in space. The original was lacking in a few ways (proper defenses) which the expansions corrected. The firefights are amazing, and the unit AI is great enough that you can just take your fleet, throw it at the enemy fleet, and watch the insanity happen as you manage your capital ships (leaders) and debate whether they should fall back. Truly, no other game has made it where you can have battles and pull your force back and attempt a retreat with covering fire while you try to save your important ships. Also, the leveling system was included which was really a boost to your advanced units. SSE also has a wonderful tech tree to it and a pretty good resource implementation, with the trading system in there as well. The pirates are an annoyance, and I wish they had included more planet types and exploration (as is improved on by Uzi's planet mod - 16 or so more planet types and MANY random planet effects). I also love that SSE lets you have a battlespace as big an insane as you want it to be. Want an insane game with 500 stars? Have at it. The ability to save-load multiplayer games has really changed our ability to have drawn out games with friends.

Graphics don't always make the game. Take Atom Zombie Smasher. Not a true RTS in the way of thinking, but it is a type of RTS that does what it does with just blocks representing enemies and your troops. A wonderful game that you can get lost in for many hours; also offers mod support so you can play it differently.

That's my 2 cents. Captcha: Without a doubt.

 

[AlouetteSK]

Definitely make clear what part of the game you're trying to emphasize. Here are some questions:
What resources do players have to manage?
How long will it take for the average player to set up a base?
Is destroying your opponents the only way to win?
How much variety are you putting into the factions? Is it just the combat units, or will the entire faction be unique, including base building and resource collection?

Comments on your ideas:
Research Tree - How much variety is going into the tree? Is it just stat upgrades for units, or will there be upgrades that change the mechanics for a unit, like giving one an ability or trait?
Create-A-Unit - This only would work for something like an end-game unit. Think Giant Mech or Kaiju. Having every unit be customizable would take too much work, I'd think. But being able to make it to the endgame stage where you bring out your giant robot with plasma flamethrower to fight another mech wielding an energy chainsaw would be interesting to watch.

 

[Gray-Philosophy]

I'm not much of an RTS player, but I've definitely had some good times playing them!

I remember that Warhammer 40.000 Dawn of War let you customize your own army by making your own colour scheme, banner and logo for your units and buildings, and I absolutely loved it. It allowed me to put my own personal touch on the units which I thought was great!

I also really like it when you're able to use the environment to your advantage somehow, like higher ground that lets ranged units shoot farther (although this would probably only make sense for archery-like weapons in a fantasy setting). Walls and craters that provide partial cover, or shrub that you can walk through but blocks FOV to set up surprise assaults and such.

Another thing I've often found fun, but rarely seen, is long ranged artillery weapons that can shoot outside of their own FOV. Combined with scouting troops these can be deadly, but should ideally be vulnerable when attacked somehow I figure.

Good luck creating your game sir!

 

[renegade7]

A story-driven campaign that also serves as the tutorial like in StarCraft. I don't like when RTS games (Sins of a Solar Empire, looking your way) just drop you off in a lobby and tell you you're on your own for learning how to play (such games also tend to be the most complicated) and figuring out what to do with the game.

 

[Evil Moo]

My personal pet peeve with some RTS games out there is that they seem to place too much emphasis on time and resource efficiency rather than combat tactics and strategy. If everything can be reduced to a few rigidly over-optimised orders of operations which must be performed as fast as possible for the best results, then any competitive play gets too heavily weighted towards the fastest players who use the predetermined 'best' strategy templates figured out by the community, rather than someone who can adapt to the unfolding situation using their own initiative.

Something I think might help with the over-optimisation problem would be procedurally generated maps that require scouting to discover the layout of the area, unlike something like Starcraft where you know the layout of the map from the start (and most of the accepted competitive multiplayer maps are variations on the same old template every time anyway). Some of these generated maps might favour certain unit compositions over others based on the terrain and the available resources (and indeed different parts of single maps might be advantageous or not for different units also), thus encouraging adaptability based on the available information. Giving the environment a bigger role in the mechanics would be an interesting way to add depth to the strategic elements of an RTS I think.

 

[Gray-Philosophy]

...snip...
Something I think might help with the over-optimisation problem would be procedurally generated maps that require scouting to discover the layout of the area, unlike something like Starcraft where you know the layout of the map from the start (and most of the accepted competitive multiplayer maps are variations on the same old template every time anyway). Some of these generated maps might favour certain unit compositions over others based on the terrain and the available resources (and indeed different parts of single maps might be advantageous or not for different units also), thus encouraging adaptability based on the available information. Giving the environment a bigger role in the mechanics would be an interesting way to add depth to the strategic elements of an RTS I think.

This is something I never even considered for an RTS, but I'm going to have to commend the idea of generated maps instead of premade default maps. The replayability would be amazing!

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Make the normal speed somewhat slow paced. I like StarCraft, but I hate how fast the game often is. It feels like an arcade game more than a strategy game.

Multi-functional infantry units: In a lot of strategy games, once you get access to tanks and artillery, infantry become almost useless. Make infantry able to take cover, hide in buildings and forests (and I mean hide, as in not be seen by the enemy, not just get a cover bonus) be able to supplement squads with anti-tank or anti-air weaponry, set ambushes and mines, etc. It would also be cool if they could move through certain terrain that vehicles couldn't (notably heavily forested or rough ground areas), albeit slowly.

If you're going to have weapon/armor upgrades, have them cause visual changes to units. It doesn't have to be too crazy, but it would be a nice touch.

Also with infantry units, have them be created in squads instead of individually.

That's really all I've got for now.

 

[Bad Jim]

A unit creator to me doesn't really match that well with a RTS. I've seen that concept used successfully, but that has been in turn based games (Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri) or otherwise very slow paced games

I love the idea that you could create your own units (ala something like how Starmade, Galactic Civilizations, etc works) - but that's really going to put a tight wire on trying to balance that. Also, you would likely want to consider adding an editor outside of the regular game (from the main menu or separate program) for that feature as trying to design units on the fly in a real-time game is going to be a pain). That depends on what type of customization you're going for though, but either way - having a way to edit units outside of the game and set them up would be great.

Create-A-Unit - This only would work for something like an end-game unit. Think Giant Mech or Kaiju. Having every unit be customizable would take too much work, I'd think. But being able to make it to the endgame stage where you bring out your giant robot with plasma flamethrower to fight another mech wielding an energy chainsaw would be interesting to watch.

I don't think a unit creator needs to be excessively time consuming. Turn based games like Galactic Civilizations 2 are built on the assumption that you have time on your hands and that you'd love to burn an hour or more adding doodads to your new ship design and deciding whether to use laser or missiles. But a game I've played to death, which also features a unit creator of sorts, is Hostile Waters.


Here I am beating a level in less than a minute and a half. An easy level yes, and I am speedrunning, but I still managed to build two different types of unit in about six seconds. You just select the type of vehicle from the top left menu, the weapon from the top right, then add various items like armour, shields, a cloaking device, etc from the bottom left menu. The bottom right menu selects AI personalities, which probably wouldn't apply in an RTS, and doesn't make much difference in Hostile Waters actually.

I'm fairly sure this kind of system could be made to work in real time with a few tweaks:
1) Everything reduced to small icons to fit on the screen at once. No scrollbars or tabs.
2) It should create a design, not a unit. You get an icon you can click on to make units. Designs are editable and also clonable, so you can create a copy of a design and tweak it to make a number of different designs.

 

[OneCatch]

I would love to know what you people would like to see in an RTS. Or better yet, what you do not want to see. So I know what to work on and what to drop. Any feedback is welcome!

This might be rather ambitious, but I'd love an RTS which was built from the bottom up around the actual communication aspect of real-life strategy. It would be more about maintaining effective control of subordinate AIs than actually fighting the enemy yourself.

So for example if units were cut off from friendly units the AI would 'improvise' and do the best job it could, but you'd be unable to directly order it or receive intelligence about the enemy from it until you re-established contact. And it would be unable to work with other friendly forces nearby. You'd probably have to have a company or battalion scaling - I think the smallest single unit would have to be a platoon or something, else you'd be going too micro for the idea to work.

Orders would take time to be relayed to units via messenger or radio (and could be intercepted by the enemy), units would take time to prepare and respond to them, communication lines could be targeted by both you and the enemy.

You could have unit experience which would result in units doing better jobs independently of your control, or have some kind of 'commanding officer' mechanic, where as units took casualties they'd gradually lose cohesion and discipline. Total War does the whole morale thing, but I'd envisage this as more of a control issue. So a unit which lost it's commanding officers might remain aggressive and effective, but could wander off objective or be more prone to making mistakes, or be sluggish to confirm orders from the player, if at all.

You could have doctrinal research trees which allowed you to encourage small unit cohesion and individual command, or rigid command structures which were powerful but brittle. Or heroic vs pragmatic emphases for AI unit commanders - the former allowing greater morale and more impressive tactical moves (by the AI) but risking loss of valuable commanders, the latter preserving officers but not offering the bonuses. I'd envisage something like the British officer units from CoH, but organic to the units rather than bolted on.

You could even have some kind of battleplan mechanic (think the planning stage from the original Rainbow Six but large-scale) where you could order your AI subordinates to complete certain actions in the coming battle. And the more effective your communications and control, and the more experienced the subordinates, the better they'd cope with inevitable departures from the plan.

 

[lechat]

I used to be a huge RTS fan back in the day but i just can't anymore.
Since I've always been a turtle it just isn't fun to me anymore to sit there for an hour or two gaining 90% of the resources on the map hiding behind an impenetrable shield of defense and then rolling over the enemy in a few minuets.

What i did like in the odd RTS was unit upgrades from battles I remember playing a mech RTS years back that would allow you to salvage parts from fallen enemies and attach them directly to your units, C & C had something similar i think with units upgrading from combat.
It adds an extra element when you know you have to kill that squad of units instead of sending cannon fodder after them because otherwise they will be too strong and just roll over your entire army.

 

[RJ 17]

I'd advise against a unit creator...or at least be careful with it's implementation. Games I've played with unit creators make it pretty easy to create game-breaking, ridiculously overpowered units. Just remember: if you do put in some sort of unit creator, your game must be balanced with consideration to every possible created unit.