View topic - Win by objective, not kill everything idea



All times are UTC + 1 hour


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 19 Mar 2010, 20:00 
Blood & Steel Developer
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2004, 12:31
Location: Has not played *a in years.
I don't think its realistic to have the game start of with balanced game based system. I know it is a game but adding some objectives and unbalance to teams might make for a fun mod option.

For example, you can have a multiplayer game where 1 team has more infantry but no tanks, and the other has limited supplies. Maybe their numbers aren't the same but if there is a decently weighted scoring system you can win by not losing really bad, even if you never had much of a chance due to the circumstances.


Does this make any sense?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2010, 01:51 
MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 00:14
Location: #moddev - join it!
Feel free to make a mutator. :wink:


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2010, 02:07 
Blood & Steel Developer
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2004, 12:31
Location: Has not played *a in years.
I fucking knew it :lol:


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2010, 16:08 
Map Creator
User avatar

Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
Location: waiting in line for The Expendables 2
actually, I was thinking along similar lines, but not objectives

since destroying bases is probably the least polished and fun aspect of s44 gameplay, take a leaf from Dawn of Wars book-

When one team holds over 66% of the flags, a timer (5 minutes in DoW?) starts. If the team can maintain control of the flags for that long, they win. if they fall under 66% the timer restarts. this would create a much faster paced game, and to an extent reduce the number of games that draw out forever between even teams (due to the disembodied +20 resources and the high efficency of defending in s44)

obv you could adjust the % of flags required to be held, but I think this would probably be a superior alternative to the default kill everything gameplay.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2010, 17:52 
Blood & Steel Developer
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2004, 12:31
Location: Has not played *a in years.
i like that idea too. I was just getting at trying to make sides un even. such as russia having infantry spam or other unfair advantages. rarely do battle have even numbers or even situations as they do in games, and i wanted to make an aspect where there can be unbalance but the player fighting 'up hill' or with the disadvantage could still win, not by traditional annihilation but by cost effectiveness or objectives that are not impossible. such as maybe a retreat version where your forces pretty much have to pull back with out losing too many forces from the advancing more numerous army... etc... i mean look at d day for example or any invasion for that matter, poor odds against the invasion forces running into a prepared dug in defense but by capturing a few places they can punch a hole in or destroy the anti ship guns and get more reinforcements etc...


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2010, 19:10 
Conflict Terra Developer
User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010, 06:21
Location: Tucson
After reading these past few posts I'd like to share my opinions on some matters.

You seem to be aiming for a game which forces people to be more strategic, to step away from simplistic "make the strongest unit and GO!" mentality. While I agree that'd be more interesting, I disagree with your approach. I feel that giving players a pretty level playing-field, but with high effectiveness against particular units, promotes tactical decisions. If they're willing to make such decisions.

The memory that forms the core of this belief is a friend of mine buying Rome Total War and playing it against another friend online for the veeery first time. It should be said this other friend is overall a very good tactician in RTS and is pretty good at the Total War series. Well, my poor friend finally arrayed his army, and realized he had no idea what to do with an army more complex than some Zerglings and Hydralisks, so he just ordered the whole thing to charge. What could guarantee victory more than a whole army crushing headlong into the other one? I mean, Starcraft has these situations, right? Well, no. He lost. He lost bad. My point? He didn't use strategy, he used blunt force, in a game where you can't do that.

I guess I should also point out that I'm not very familiar with S44's mechanics or even how it really plays. So maybe it works in this way, and if it does, my invisible hat goes off to the S44 team.

My other opinion is that you gave some examples of D Day and whatnot, and how games overall are more "fair" than real life. Well, the fact of the matter is that life isn't fair. And life sucks. No, I'm not being depressing, but my point is that people die, people's lives crumble, bad stuff happens because of big decisions of others. Classic example is a friend of mine talking about how a "realistic as possible" FPS having a D Day level would be awesome, and I said "No it wouldn't. I bet D Day sucked for the poor people in it. I bet it wasn't fun at all.

With that said, I'm not really condemning your desire for a more realistic game. Realism is cool. Spring has a lot of "realistic" features overall, like physics and stuff, to make it different from other RTS engines, and that's awesome. But I think there's a threshold you have to cross, from "some realism with more 'gameplay' elements which is aimed at being fun", and "more realism with some/no gameplay elements which is fun only if you let it be fun."

Those are my opinions and if you disagree that's fine. Just hoped I could help shed some light on this subject :-)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2010, 21:49 
Spring 1944 Developer
User avatar

Joined: 11 Oct 2005, 06:18
Location: Ukraine
I say play a few games of S44 (preferably online), you'll see there is quite a lot of 'strategy' involved. Head-on attack-move order results in a loss more often than not (it's quite depressing to see your 50 inf getting suppressed and shredded by 2-3 machinegun nests and you being unable even to retreat them. That can easily happen if you allow your inf to clump together and get into machinegun fire zone). 'Tech to strongest unit' doesn't always work, too - while Tiger II (strongest land unit available) is very tough, it can be killed by quite a few things, there is a counters system in the game.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2010, 22:15 
User avatar

Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 11:43
Controlling those zerglings and hydralisks isnt so simple either (unless your opponent sucks ofc)... But thats tactics anyway, not strategy. Strategy in RTS games is about managing resources and troops on a bigger scale, not about executing individual battles


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2010, 22:33 
Blood & Steel Developer
User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2004, 12:31
Location: Has not played *a in years.
im not trying to add more strategy dynamic. there s44 has plenty of it. im trying to make games that don't play like chess, and even playing field where 2 players start with equal chances and the following decision shape the outcome. im trying to make ti so the game can start with one side having a rather unfair advantage here or there but still be playable do to objectives and weights on cost effectiveness and use of the units. so player who do have more strategy may start out at a disadvantage and overcome their disadvantage, but may not achieve total annihilation victory, but should be still rewarded with victory due to their circumstance.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2010, 22:36 
Supreme Annihilation Maintainer
User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55
Maybe intead of making random uneven stuff you create a scenario?A
special map that tries to mimic some historical battle and give each player certain starting options.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2010, 23:02 
Map Creator
User avatar

Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
Location: waiting in line for The Expendables 2
SanadaUjiosan wrote:
After reading these past few posts I'd like to share my opinions on some matters.

You seem to be aiming for a game which forces people to be more strategic, to step away from simplistic "make the strongest unit and GO!" mentality. While I agree that'd be more interesting, I disagree with your approach. I feel that giving players a pretty level playing-field, but with high effectiveness against particular units, promotes tactical decisions. If they're willing to make such decisions.

The memory that forms the core of this belief is a friend of mine buying Rome Total War and playing it against another friend online for the veeery first time. It should be said this other friend is overall a very good tactician in RTS and is pretty good at the Total War series. Well, my poor friend finally arrayed his army, and realized he had no idea what to do with an army more complex than some Zerglings and Hydralisks, so he just ordered the whole thing to charge. What could guarantee victory more than a whole army crushing headlong into the other one? I mean, Starcraft has these situations, right? Well, no. He lost. He lost bad. My point? He didn't use strategy, he used blunt force, in a game where you can't do that.

I guess I should also point out that I'm not very familiar with S44's mechanics or even how it really plays. So maybe it works in this way, and if it does, my invisible hat goes off to the S44 team.

My other opinion is that you gave some examples of D Day and whatnot, and how games overall are more "fair" than real life. Well, the fact of the matter is that life isn't fair. And life sucks. No, I'm not being depressing, but my point is that people die, people's lives crumble, bad stuff happens because of big decisions of others. Classic example is a friend of mine talking about how a "realistic as possible" FPS having a D Day level would be awesome, and I said "No it wouldn't. I bet D Day sucked for the poor people in it. I bet it wasn't fun at all.

With that said, I'm not really condemning your desire for a more realistic game. Realism is cool. Spring has a lot of "realistic" features overall, like physics and stuff, to make it different from other RTS engines, and that's awesome. But I think there's a threshold you have to cross, from "some realism with more 'gameplay' elements which is aimed at being fun", and "more realism with some/no gameplay elements which is fun only if you let it be fun."

Those are my opinions and if you disagree that's fine. Just hoped I could help shed some light on this subject :-)


play the game first bro

so? my territory win idea, good right?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2010, 23:27 
MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 00:14
Location: #moddev - join it!
Should probably point out that S44 has numerous victory condition modoptions, but noone ever plays them (noone ever hosts them?)


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2010, 23:45 
Engines Of War Developer

Joined: 09 Jun 2005, 22:39
Location: Germany, the EU
I like the idea of Multiplayer scenario maps - I think that's the idea that might work out best.
On the Victory condition Modoptions, have you guys ever considered changing the default (defaults are powerful tools...)? Is there one of the variants that you as devs are fond of ?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Mar 2010, 02:15 
Conflict Terra Developer
User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010, 06:21
Location: Tucson
I should say my opinions were not intended to say anything about S44, as I have not played it enough. I was making generalized statements.

JohannesH wrote:
Controlling those zerglings and hydralisks isnt so simple either (unless your opponent sucks ofc)... But thats tactics anyway, not strategy. Strategy in RTS games is about managing resources and troops on a bigger scale, not about executing individual battles


I must have slipped while typing the post. I'm well aware of the difference between strategy and tactics (my strong suit is tactics), but there's still aaaaaaall those years before I realized the difference. Old habits die hard.

It seems from the several replies that S44 has just the kind of gameplay I hoped it would have. Good to hear. Sure would like to play it.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Mar 2010, 14:42 
Map Creator
User avatar

Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
Location: waiting in line for The Expendables 2
playing s44 well requires a great deal more thought (if slower reflexes) than playing *A

screw up and there are just so many ways everything can go horribly wrong


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Mar 2010, 16:24 
Supreme Annihilation Maintainer
User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55
1v0ry_k1ng wrote:
playing s44 well requires a great deal more thought (if slower reflexes) than playing *A

screw up and there are just so many ways everything can go horribly wrong


what exactly do you mean?


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Mar 2010, 03:24 
Map Creator
User avatar

Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
Location: waiting in line for The Expendables 2
There are a huge number of variables to consider in s44 combat.

tactically, units are small and massively effected by terrain, both for LoS and more importantly grenade range; attacking downhill is a massive advantage.

ranges are large in proportion of movespeed, and once combat begins units are pinned in position. poor initial positioning results in massive losses, requring constant adjustment of disposition.

combined arms are grossly important. mortars will massacre their cost, but are also vunreble to attack and invisible snipers.

urgh i cba to go on. tl;dr - BA combat is, on the surface, fairly simple, mostly focusing upon the relationship between t1 vehicles, which all have fairly similar properties.

s44 combat is a crossly complicated mess of variables, with different unit types in each teir having wildly different abilities and applications; the ammunition resource demands a balance between instant firepower- laying lots of damage fast for pinning and opening a breach- and conservation, so you can reload vital units, such as tanks.

there is just no way of comparing it to the simplicity of *A
*A competetive play has depth because people are very good at it, much like starcraft.
even unskilled s44 players are coping with a great deal more depth of gameplay (and not neceserrily coping very well).

the requirement for reflex is, however, much less; most units do not requre intimate micromanagement, so a lower APM is required.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Mar 2010, 05:30 
Spring 1944 Developer
User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2005, 19:44
Location: #s44
I agree that the more base oriented aspects of S44 tend to be the weaker ones - adding a modoption for a X percent of flag control-->gameover countdown timer would be pretty easy, and I'm happy to do it at some point.

Also, shucks IK, that's awfully nice of you to say.

As for scenarios: bob, I've actually made one, I'll show it to you at some point. mostly they're just very labor intensive to put together and make them play well, so we haven't really made many yet. ideally we'll get multiplayer balance into a pretty stable area (maybe in 3-4 years >_> <_<) and then start focusing on these other things.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Mar 2010, 06:24 
Supreme Annihilation Maintainer
User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:55
1v0ry_k1ng wrote:
There are a huge number of variables to consider in s44 combat.

tactically, units are small and massively effected by terrain, both for LoS and more importantly grenade range; attacking downhill is a massive advantage.

ranges are large in proportion of movespeed, and once combat begins units are pinned in position. poor initial positioning results in massive losses, requring constant adjustment of disposition.

combined arms are grossly important. mortars will massacre their cost, but are also vunreble to attack and invisible snipers.

urgh i cba to go on. tl;dr - BA combat is, on the surface, fairly simple, mostly focusing upon the relationship between t1 vehicles, which all have fairly similar properties.

s44 combat is a crossly complicated mess of variables, with different unit types in each teir having wildly different abilities and applications; the ammunition resource demands a balance between instant firepower- laying lots of damage fast for pinning and opening a breach- and conservation, so you can reload vital units, such as tanks.

there is just no way of comparing it to the simplicity of *A
*A competetive play has depth because people are very good at it, much like starcraft.
even unskilled s44 players are coping with a great deal more depth of gameplay (and not neceserrily coping very well).

the requirement for reflex is, however, much less; most units do not require intimate micromanagement, so a lower APM is required.


I respectfully disagree with the confidence with which you lay down your opinion.
For the sake of this discussion ill leave out other TA mods and write of BA only.
The unit variety in BA is staggering,a tech progression with several levels.Sea units,land units,hovers,air units turrets of all sorts,jamming radar,los,sonar...
A very complex economy that only seems simple in retrospect after you have understood it completely.
Saying it's mostly about t1 vehicles is not really a serious argument at all.
The fact 1v1 does not see a lot of this variety i just cause of a lack of proper maps that exploit the different advantages and disadvantages of certain units.
It is easy to create a 1v1 map,for example,that would make players tech up in most cases when playing a 1v1 but we do not have such maps hence T2 is only left for crowded team games which also exhibit part of the game's complexity...

Although my experience with S44 is not huge,I am sure it is also very deep but I sure don't feel easy about stating on of them is more "deep" than the other or that one requires more thought..
It's not your duty or role to be unbiased but your post did not seem like a simple fan reply...


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
PostPosted: 22 Mar 2010, 09:40 
User avatar

Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 11:43
You dont know how deep something is before you touch the bottom.


Top
 Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Site layout created by Roflcopter et al.