Some Thoughts on RTS in General

[kiki]

Recently, I was thinking about the rts genre, and why it is that it is the coolest game genre that has ever been conceived. I realized that RTS provides the user the ability to create a battlescene similar to the ones one would see IRL or in the movies. In a turn-based strategy game, you do not have this realtime incredible battle, and in an FPS, you dont have the incredible control over an entire army of diverse units. So really, RTS is all about creating a realistic battle situation. What I mean by this is that units are actively and simultaneously involved, and the real world environment applies to the game. We are simulating reality, through physics engines and graphics effects, and we are adding our own epicness to the world in which we live. However, in this quest for realism, we have a completely unrealistic interface. Units are portrayed on a real battlefield as real units, and on that battlefield we can select units and give orders. We can directly give a build order with a prebuild position picture. We even simulate EVERY GRAPHIC DETAIL OF THE REAL BATTLEFIELD. However, there is no other battlefield, there is only this interface, which is the most real representation of the battle that exists. So we play RTS to create a seemingly real environment, and control it with unrealistic power and ability.

Im still not sure where im going with this, ill finish later.

[pintle]

In realistic battle scenarios forces dont arrive and immediately start collecting resources in order to climb a tech tree to produce units which they could clearly mass produce back at home base/on the mothership/the homeworld.

:D

The reason i love RTS games is that they are a lot more free-form than other games. There is largely a single correct way to play reflex shooters/rpg games etc, and rts provides a comparitively immense oppurtunity to improvise and experiment, with no 1v1 game on the same map necessarily being the same.

That is of course assuming the game you play isnt balanced so that faction x has y rush build, and z eco build etc...

[KDR_11k]

Disagree. The RTS genre is used to create a challenge between two or more players that relies both on strategy and a quick finger.

[manored]

I think that the importance of the real time part is that it creates a element of action in the game, like, in turn based games the results of actions are (and have to be) certain so altough its cool to have loads of time to plan :) there is less action.

[Zpock]

I enjoy the "mad clicking" aspect very much, moreso then the "strategic planning" even. That's more like the icing, that at best sometimes someone pulls off a rare mindtrick or something. I'd compare it to a musician hitting strings on a guitar and someone mixing tapes.

[[Krogoth86]]

I also have to disagree on this...

What we play isn't near battle scenes in movies and nowhere near real-life. To proof the first just tape anything you see in an RTS and compare it to a movie. It's just "boring" as it isn't directed in any way and doesn't have a focus on specific characters / aspects but is just a boring on-top-view. Well the comparison to real life is something I totally don't understand - there is no single game that is anywhere near realistic and there never will be because it's a GAME. You'll never have a game where you have to spend 1000+ hours of investigation work as how to plan your strategy. You'll never have a game with your troops lying on the ground sobbing or retreating although they are not dead yet and you gave different orders. Games are for FUN and not for being realistic. Well that's the case unless you think you won't get seriously get hurt even when some tanks shoot you which also only have a weapon range of about 10 tank lengths (-> C&C)

"We" also don't simulate everything with tiny physics engines and so on. We don't simulate stoppage of guns, malfunctional weapons and accidentally killing a friendly unit...

When it comes down RTS games are just chess with some maths. It's pretty much pushing some black boxes around which have a health value, a weapon range and a damage-per-second value. When an enemy unit comes into range the health decreases according to simple math and in the end there is a winner. With that said RTS games even have less realism as other games as it has to be "Real-Time"...

With that said a RTS game is pretty much just a trimmed down turn-based strategy game in order to give you more action. Turn-Based games are far more what you call "realistic" as you have to plan much more (and also have enough time for that) plus you mostly have much more strategic depth by considering things like fuel, ammo, need of a support line and so on. You mostly also plan on grand-scale rather than having an artificial environment where you train your troops on the actual battlefield by getting money from somewhere with unappropiate ranges and so on ("unappropiate" mostly in a way of relationship between unit size and range for example)...

[smoth]

rts games exist so I can see troops smash against each other. Hooray for a bit of the old ultra violence.

[Zpock]

It's an abstraction, there's no reason an RTS game today could be made with more simulation (no supcom dosn't count, it's all marketing, it's got nothing on TA itself for example).

A sophisticated system for damage could be done where you relatively easily trace the projectiles, see where they hit, do armor penetration and ricochet calculations based on the angle and armor of the hit area. Then check if the engine was hit, maybe even wich part, etc. Computer power isn't the limit at all here, it's more about programmer skill and time in this area.

However the end result and the big picture would be that units die just the same as with HitPoints. Statistically over a large group of things it could be exactly the same as with the simpler system. And you would have shot yourself in the foot concerning balancing the system out into meaningful gameplay.

[manored]

your troops lying on the ground sobbing or retreating although they are not dead yet and you gave different orders.

Actual there are some games that simulate that. Ever played close combat? :)

Zpock is right. Little details such as part damage are fun, but have no impact in large scale combat unleash you could give very specific order to units, like "aim for the feet". But even then the units would just be taking more damage :)

[Saktoth]

Personally i play RTS because i enjoy competitive strategy, and most TBS games lack depth, balance, or are too abstracted.

Laser Squad Nemesis, for example, is a turn-based game with the action executed in realtime. A lot of the game relies more on exploiting the idiosyncrasies of the turn system.

In realistic battle scenarios forces dont arrive and immediately start collecting resources in order to climb a tech tree to produce units which they could clearly mass produce back at home base/on the mothership/the homeworld.

This is the strength of the TA storyline - in most RTS's this is totally abstracted and makes no sense but here the fiction and world is based around that way of fighting.

Presumably though, it takes massive amounts of energy to travel faster than light and it is thus not practical to send an entire army.

The reason i love RTS games is that they are a lot more free-form than other games. There is largely a single correct way to play reflex shooters/rpg games etc, and rts provides a comparitively immense oppurtunity to improvise and experiment, with no 1v1 game on the same map necessarily being the same.

Id disagree here. A lot of RTS's (Less so spring ones) follow strict buildorders and R/P/S counter systems, far more than any genre other than, perhaps, the RPG.

[Zpock]

The much toted Galciv2, a recent TBS game, has the most utterly retarded R/P/S combat in almost it's purest form. Here's a forum post that I found interesting on this game:

http://forums.stardock.com/?forumid=162&aid=108385

Outlining the major problems with this game, pretty much pinpointing how I feel about a lot of recent games that are marketed as "intelligent". While at the same time they strip out everything that makes a game interesting.

"We simplified our tech tree so that idiots can understand and enjoy it."

"There are differences between weapons! Missiles do more damage, but take up more hull space!" -wow genius

[Google_Frog]

I don't see how you could think the aim of rts is to create realistic battles, I think the aim of rts is to have strategic battles where you must outwit your opponent.

[KDR_11k]

Ahahahaha, the GalCiv thread is retarded. One guy talks about how he wants more changes in game dynamics in the game while the others argue about starting positions.

[CarRepairer]

"We" also don't simulate everything with tiny physics engines and so on. We don't simulate stoppage of guns, malfunctional weapons and accidentally killing a friendly unit...

What mods are you playing?

[manored]

"We" also don't simulate everything with tiny physics engines and so on. We don't simulate stoppage of guns, malfunctional weapons and accidentally killing a friendly unit...

What mods are you playing?

It only counts if it was meant to happen ocasionally :)

[kiki]

Let me clarify a bit. I am talking about a subset of RTS that is 3D and photorealistic, such as TA, C&C, Spring, and Supcom. Why play this kind of game, when you can play a strategy game like chess, or dwarf fortress, or Aeg of Empyres, or Globulation. The reason is the more realistic (not realistic entirely, but closer to realism) multifaceted warfare that includes sea battles, air attacks, and carefully created formations.


OMG i forgot warzone 2100 yes that too. BTW in warzone, you dont start with a commander, but rather a partial base, or just some general construction trucks. So its quite different from ta in that option. I dont know much about C&C except i hate the screenshots and the unit replies.

[Google_Frog]

Realism creates more complex gameplay but that doesn't mean a game has to be realistic to be complex.

[Aether_0001]

I like spring because it combines both RTS and FPS(well, a bit if you consider the FPS mode, but i think it could be implemented a little more and less hacky) types of games, which make me very happy. =)

[kiki]

fps needs to be improved to provide more of a tactical advantage.

[manored]

I think that there is not way fps mode can be usefull in a rts game. I mean units already aim perfectly, so the other thing to gain would be evasive movement. But since units aim perfectly, evasive movement has very little use, and while using a single unit in fps mode you could be microing a large group in rts mode...