Spring RTS Engine

Posted: **20 Jun 2005, 23:45**

A few thoughts, which hopefully pull a lot of this together (or maybe I'm just repeating what's already been said):

1. Some like "he who clicks fastest wins" type games, but for me, clicktasticness A. isn't particularly good fun and B. tends to encourage RSI
2. OTA has many features, such as patrolling, unit orders out of factories, massive build queues (which can be modified on the fly) etc. which set it apart from most other RTS games in that they move the gameplay away from "most clicktastic wins" towards battle tactics (pun intended) and strategy. IMHO this is why TA is such a good game, when compared to other (even current) strategy games.
3. Spring has (so far) done an excellent job of building on OTA's starting point by e.g. providing an execellent equivalent of factory "shift-click" build orders, for con-vehicles. So, if I want to build a line of 10 solars or 20 MTs or 30 DTs, I don't miss the fact that I don't have to click each individual one any more. Also, the repeat order command has a touch of brilliance - an excellent solution to an age old problem (I personally don't get a buzz out of have to go back and Shift-click another 10 times on my "flash factory" because it's stopped producing)!
4. Another great thing about OTA was that despite providing all this automation to use... you didn't have to use it. You could still single click and micromanage if you wanted to. The real skill being in focusing your "click-time" microing the strategically important things. The default behaviour is good, but by microing you can get more out of your units.
5.Again Spring has done a good job of building on OTAs starting point - none of the new things introduced are compulsory AND there's a new way to micro-manage individual units by driving them!
6.OTA's approach to extra automation was that you have to pay for it (thinking of popup-MPRCs, ATFs). Units with some automation built in, or that automated other units, had to be paid for in real metal and energy terms. This was not found to be a good solution in the eyes of the community, e.g. it is well recognised that OTA pop-up MRPCs are not as good as ordinary MRPCs because they just can't fire as far. XTA has fixed this by swapping the lvl1 and lvl2 round. UH fixed this by beefing up the range of the popups AND getting rid of the automation. One thing's for sure - it needed fixing. Fixing the ATF had to wait for a brand new engine...
7.... Spring again has an inspired solution. Automation is there by default - why on earth wouldn't your units target the radar blips? But to keep it from drastically affecting the gameplay, basic radar is innacurate and the ATF fixes up radar inaccuracies.

So, what we have to ask ourselves is, does the suggestion fit in with Spring? For it to work, it has to be able to be applied across all unit and target types. See, what I think people are really after is "suppress AA" or "destroy medium range ground defenses", which is high level. "keep attacking the thing I just told you to attack" is difficult to do right. What if you send some bulldogs in to take out the nasty HLTs before the flash rush in to ruin the base? Having killed 1 HLT does the bulldog completely ignore the mex and windfarm in front of it just to go and find another HLT? How far does it go? What if it's taking fire from LLTs or other units? What if it can't see any more HLTs and then after engaging a new target an HLT comes into LOS again? What about if you shift clicked attack orders "HLT then LLT" - is that this HLT and then all LLTs or all HLTs and then all LLTs or this HLT and LLT and then any HLT or LLT or...? think this is a recipe for your unit "not doing what you want" and user frustration. Still I'd be willing to give it a whirl, and because of the frustrations outlined, I don't think it's powerful enough to cause a swing in gameplay. It certainly fits in with the existing repetition: build a load of solars/build a load of flash/kill a load of HLTs.

But to get strategic level stuff - "get rid of AA" etc. I think it would be OK to try a new unit - Advanced Command Facility or some similar. If the current "group AI"s had to be accessed through something like this then you'd have to pay real money to use 'em and there'd be no way an individual could cheat by plugging in custom group AIs that helped in this way. You could have multiple facilities, for example a metal maker management facility, a formation management facility etc. and of course a strategic targeting facility, which would pick out what ever kinds of target you specify (e.g. AA/ground defenses/factories/metal production/energy production etc.) this could then apply to all units that it was coordinating. All that would be left to choose on the "select AI" box from a units point of view, would be the facility which would control it... and of course a metal maker wouldn't have the option of being controlled by a strategic targeting facility, nor would an annihilator be controllable by a metal maker facility LOL.

I think these "management" units could add a whole new dimension to the gameplay if properly handled. I would certainly vote for a "mine manager" which allowed you to specify what sorts of target you want it to take out!

Just my tuppence - this turned out to be muuuuuuuuuch longer than I originally intended. I hope your ears have not fallen off =)

Munch

Posted: **21 Jun 2005, 00:01**

Well, I have to dissagree with the Advanced Command Facility thing. Group AI should just be for a few simple things, and you should not be able to make tha game play itself, evein if you had to pay in game to do it. Some people would just advance to bulding one of them realy quicly and then its still batel of the AI's.

I still think My idae is best. The unit makes no choices to do with target prioritising, It just does what its told and, if told nothing randomly shots stuff as it does now.
All my idea does is save some clicking (much like draging a line of defences...) by letting you say "kill all of the same type of unit as teh one i just click that are on screen in my line of sight.
It means that theres no AI "ohh, ill just take out that flack tower as hes told me to kill all defenders, and a Flack is just a better version of said defender" nabie pabie stuff. Just Units doing what ther told.

Storm, what do you think??

aGorm

Posted: **21 Jun 2005, 00:02**

metal maker management facility, a formation management facility
nah the metal maker AI is good. Although a improved mm AI accessable through a lvl 1 structure ~ the cost of a guardian which uses your mm until 10% of your energy is left. lets it recharge back up to 90% then turns em back on again would be very cool and not OP/ reducing the strategy/tactics (resource collecting could be loosely defined as part of strategy though)

Posted: **21 Jun 2005, 01:42**

if things like this have been posted...

I just let the AI do the work for me

Things like this threaten to disturb the very precarious balance that Spring takes between intuitive controls and brain-dead gameplay.

it isn't interesting to tell my brawlers that there is a fusion plant *here* and *here* and *here* and *here* and *here*.

Any time you can trade details for overview without losing strategic flexibility, you should

the entire fucking GAME has been thrown out the window. There is no hope left.

I'll go help Gnome creating a different game expanding from MiniSpring and laugh at the steadily decreasing activity of the game because of the constant self-degrading of it within...

dude im here for a game of spring ALWAYS up 4 one. we could just use IPs and older versions!

Examples that are sort of "sitting on the line" are the ghosted buildings and the autotargetting radar dots.

I think this shifts a little bit more focus onto strategy. You can now plan multi-part, multi-unit attacks and use each unit type effectively, rather than having to either use all of your units as a group and be inefficient,

Again, there's a clear difference between micromanagement reducing features and shit that makes the AI do everything instead of the player.

Kay
I personaly think that TA's mix of micromanagment and some tools to help you work fine, so we realy dont need all that much to plan a semi-orginized atack. Just make sure to use your head, slow the time down (if nessisary) and blast the enemy!

If anything DS was the most pure form of Cyber crack ever, and SH was the most frigtning and intense stratigy game... seince, well forever!

Take a seal team. They're given a mission to destroy enemy power plants. While they're given primary objectives, the mission also includes the corollary objective of any encountered plants

As said by mr.blair, "reform or die"

*glares at alantai* if you posted less there would be more AI creation going on (although i'd miss your wit!)

Told a groupe of transports to pick up teh nearst crawlying bomb and then search for teh enamy comander and then drop all crawing bombs on him...

, it should be so that you can auto que all of the units of that one type on screen in one click

All it will do afterwards is do what any normal unit does... IE kill the nearst hostile unit.

I still think My idae is best.

why shouldt i post this.

Code: Select all

YOU LOST TO THAT NOOOOOOOB????

yeah.. well... you know.. the bastard barely knows how to play..
he doesnt even know how to support a good infantry-artillery attack..
im serious...

CMON!! I CANT BELEIVE IT, THAT GUY DOESNT EVEN KNOW THE BUILD TREE!!

he got his hole side filled with mexes and energy.
not to mention storage, he had lots of it.
his base was a pork market... he growed so fast...

his defenses allways knew where my artillery was and aimed them first.
i also runned off of aa kbots in the same fashion, very quickly (i had lots), and a bunch of brawlers decimated the troops...

HM...

when he got to my base, he had a bunch of units, a mix, infantry, aa,  artillery, gunships, bombers...

he just massed the attack at me..

BUT YOU SAID HE CANT MANAGE A 2 ARMY, HOW DID HE DISSAMBLE YOUR BASE?

well... the artillery and lrm got plasma canons, barlwers and bombers disabled energy (and storage), some bunch of artillery spotted ripped the commander in the run, and the infantry cut trough defenses (almost disabled) and busted antinuke and rest of resources... all that in.. about.. 1 minute, then, soon after a nuke erased rest.

i think he was eating popcorn and sipping coke meanwhile.
damned 0-MicroMan-AI.

O_O

btw... agorm makes the most sense.
... an special attack marker... assigned to an special unit type.. sound like plan tracing... nice. ( i think it was suggested b4 ).

also, you can select all units of the same type in the screen.. ans such things... selection editor is VERY powerfull... i have a key(comb) to select 30% of the current selection... (another for 60%, another for air transport..

).

btw.. what does metal maker ai do?

also, the current units ai, already has some target priority.
like aa units (i.e. samson) .. target air units first. (from experience).

Also, a game purelly strategical sounds very cool, something in the lines that have been proposed here, defining strategies and tactics like a macro...
But that should be a mod.
Its definetly not fair against human players, and RTS as we know it and love it.
e: im not saying, in any way that i like clicking like a hamster on crack, BUT, in some games i can hear my mouse making noices it shouldn't

(like giving and order and deselecting a unit in ms).(or my wheel's spring complaining..)
while less clicks i need to do something, the better, (and my mouse lasts longuer). that is without making the game automatic....

Posted: **21 Jun 2005, 01:49**

just look at the comments from chris taylors rts in pcgamer, he mentions automatic management by resource effort by commander, that says to me, the ai takes over and handles resource control. Another quote stratgey is what you do before the battle and tactics during, mad clicking isnt strategy.

Another thing ild like is setting construction units on partrol they build extractors on deposits they come across.

Posted: **21 Jun 2005, 02:00**

Munch, thats the greatest non bullshit i heard all day.

Serosly, we should give this a try! Just like we maybe dint like the units attacking radar blips. Now we love it, AND it dosent effect gameplay since inacurette.

Now if we instead of the targeting facilty (that servers close to NO purpose in spring) And make it instead ''unlock'' the abilty for all units to attack a surtien kind of unit whit on and off button (or smilar).

AND it wont effect gameplay much, since the units will be sometimes kinda stupid ( *robot/zombie voice* MUST KILL ALL HLT(even if they are at the OTHER side of the base:/)) and it's in the end game.

So the unit attacks all things of the same type, and then what? Should it attack smilar types or not? if i tell 30 brawlers to attack antinuke, would they attack the mobile antinuke after that? Since IF, i can just send a pepper/hawk sqwad first, then attack the nearst anti nuke and they will probaly attack and take out the rest of the antinukes to. But is that bad or good?

Even if we all love micro mangement, if placed in endgame and toned down a bit this future could be lotsa fun. Just like radar targeting.

Posted: **21 Jun 2005, 02:34**

Without surrendering too much, I think it would be neat for a group of selected units to continue to attack a randomly selected target together after destroying their intial target.

Of course would be some type of script which could be turned off and on, as during certain times of play it is good to have a screen of fighters that attack on an individual basis.

Posted: **21 Jun 2005, 04:29**

One interesting thing I notice is that many of the people who like this idea play mostly XTA, while many of the people who dislike it prefer OTA. This somewhat makes sense, since OTA is focused around small maps where the addition will remove much of what the gameplay focuses around (micromanagement) while this blosters larger maps (which have a greater focus on macromanagement), which is where XTA excells.

Due to this, here are a few possible answers:

1) Add a new building that grants special targetting to all units. Since OTA will not add the new unit to the asernal, XTA (and other mods) are the only ones affected.

2) Add in special-targetting as a new feature, but in order to use it a player must "program" (type special words) in-game. This is pretty stupid, but does work.

3) Add the feature, but only to the XTA level 1 gunships. This will not affect OTA, but makes a faily obscure unit rather powerful in XTA.

Just my 2 cents.

Posted: **21 Jun 2005, 04:48**

Serosly, we should give this a try! Just like we maybe dint like the units attacking radar blips. Now we love it, AND it dosent effect gameplay since inacurette.

A number of people still don't like this option. And it does affect gameplay, because it means anyone with radar coverage has an immediate bonus, giving power to defenders and away from attackers. It also makes aircraft significantly weaker.

--------

Dakar, your suggestion is a good one, related to the specific topic. But the discussion which is developing is more general in nature and regarding the direction of Spring as a whole. Perhaps a moderator should split the thread into a new topic: "Spring: The divide between micromanagement and automated control"?

----------

This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but to the majority of the people taking part in this discussion:

Please clean up your writing. While you can get away with sounding like an 11 year old in simple posts and quick suggestions, this an in-depth (and important) discussion, and it requires people to be entirely understandible. I will pull a few examples at random, with no personal offense intended:

dude im here for a game of spring ALWAYS up 4 one. we could just use IPs and older versions!

Not only is this poorly written, it has no context or relation to the topic.

3D OTA's fine by me!!! i like ghosted buildings but i'd dislike (players) giving their units missions (although it would be usefull for AI) Ghosted buildings ENCOURAGE tactics (microing force firing at the shapes :D)
My favourite games have both TACTICS and STRATEGY (MICRO and MACRO) TACTICS are how you tell a semiprofrom a pro, if 0 micro was involved *shudder* build orders would win matches. UGH i like both DO NOT TRY TO DO THIS AS ITS A WASTE OF YOUR TIME! besides it would take frecking ages and i'd prefer this game/client to be improved and a AI to be created!

Unreadable. Usually if I see something like this, I'll skip over it, irrelevant of any opinion that is worth hearing.

However... At teh mo, Id have to click each and every unit i wanted somthing to attack one at a time to make them do it... So if say I wanted to kill all teh radar towers in sight id have to manyly use shift to make my units move on to the next one. Thsi would take up valuble time thatI could be useing to tell a different unit/groupe to attack somthing else.

While this is on the way to becoming readible, it is just so fraught with errors that it is difficult to follow the line of argument.

btw... agorm makes the most sense.
... an special attack marker... assigned to an special unit type.. sound like plan tracing... nice. ( i think it was suggested b4 ).

also, you can select all units of the same type in the screen.. ans such things... selection editor is VERY powerfull... i have a key(comb) to select 30% of the current selection... (another for 60%, another for air transport.. ).

What is it that you are trying to say here? I mean, the post doesn't have too many spelling errors, but it just has no logical flow. Using "..." does not mean that everyone has followed on from your arguments, only that you have. It's akin to "yada yada yada".

The posts I pointed out are not the only culprits, they are just a random selection from the topic review window.

Please people, this is a fundamental issue regarding Spring's development. If you want to take part in this discussion, take a leaf from 10053r's book, and write a well constructed argument.
Not only is it easier for people to follow what you say, but your opinions are taken much more seriously.

-------------

Now to answer some of the points raised:

Originally posted by 10053er
I should just be able to say kill this object, and then have the default behaviour be that the units will seek out similar objects over non-similar ones for their next targets. How does that destroy gameplay?

As munch raised, this has the potential of going down the Microsoft word path of "yes, that occasionally does what I want, but not always. If I want to do something different, I can't." But it also takes the step of "if I don't use this, I am at a disadvantage".

For that matter, how have ghosted buildings destroyed gameplay? They haven't, and I haven't heard you yelling to get them yanked back out again since their introduction.

I think that the ghosted buildings are borderline. While I can see the logic in their inclusion, I also think there is something as "too much information". If you automatically remember where everything is, then the game becomes much more easy. Reducing the ease of a game is also a microsoft path; it dictates to the lowest common denominator, which sells more copies, but dilutes the game and "dumbs it down". Whether or not the ghosted buildings do this is arguable, and I haven't made up my mind yet. Autotargetted radar blips certainly do this, though.

Let's step back a bit... What makes TA different from other games? It has a vision. If you read the supreme commander article, you can see that Chris Taylor shares this vision. The vision is this.

Epic gameplay. Huge armies crashing wave upon wave of troops into each other. Strategic, not tactical decision making, which means that you only drill down to the most basic elements of the battle when it is strategically valuable to the entire operation theater. In most cases, you say things like, "make this kind of unit. Send them here. Use this production strategy. Scout there. Combine this unit and this unit in a novel fasion."

This is your interpretation of his vision. While epic battles are certainly an element of OTA, I would say that the greatest element of TA is gameplay control. In TA, I am able to control my units to different degrees. I am able to control a huge base (with helpers to make it easier for me, but not remove the control), as well as manage a defense and far flung assaults. Within those assaults, I am able to micromanage my units to get that extra ounce of power out of them. It is that micromanagement that divides the good players from the bad players.
For example, sure, I am allowed to drag out a row of MT's within a second. But did you realise that when a missile tower dies, its death explosion harms the tower's next to it? It's therefore more efficient to allow a small gap between missile towers to prevent this. This slight gap also allows you to cover more territory quicker, and allow spaces for your units to advance through.
This isn't an issue in Spring, because I am allowed to place my towers individually. But it is an example of how a proposed "aid" could well be just as much of an inhibitor as a helper.

Some people like clicking like weasels on crack. We suggest they play starcraft, or even better, warcraft 2.

I disagree with this entirely, and find it rather offensive that you align proponents of micromanagement with such tripe as starcraft or Warcraft (

). The difference between those games and TA is that in Warcraft and SC, there isn't any thought behind the clicking. It isn't about where you click, its about how fast you click. The gameplay is so weak that people have worked out what you need to do. Decision is irrelevant, its about how quickly you can cast a spell, etc. etc.
In TA, micromanagement is synonymous with tactics.
If I click faster, it isn't going to get me any special rewards. It is if I click smarter that is what gets me the greater results. If I am attacking, and I wish to overwhelm my enemy, I can throw units into the fray, and hope that they will be victorious based on weight of numbers, and pre-programmed engagement rules (this seems to be what you are advocating). Or I can micromanageme my units, and make sure that my missile units sit at the edge of their range so as to avoid taking damage. I can make sure that my light units (flashes/gators etc) instead of charging as a clump and presenting a whole body, will rather split up in the midst of combat and present multiple targets at multiple vectors for the defense to fire at.
If I am on a specific mission, I will keep an eye out for the object of my mission, and order my units accordingly.
This is tactics, and it is represented in TA by micromanagement. What you suggests removes the players hand in the tactics of the game. Which leads me to my next point:

For those of us who share this grand vision, however, I don't want to be bothered with details.

What you are advocating leads more and more towards games like civilisation. Do you remember the combat in that? It was very stripped back strategy, but the grand overview was there. Sure, Spring would have more explosions, but fundamentally, there would be little difference. You would select a mass of units, and tell them to attack. The results of those attacks would be based on preprogrammed rules which you set out before the engagement, and are independant of your control.

If units do everything for you (the "details"), you are no longer playing a game, you're watching a movie.

And just for the record, MiniSpring institutes changes far greater than epic map creation.

Posted: **21 Jun 2005, 05:26**

micromanagement should not seperate the good from the bad, the focus of TA is supposed to be strategy, and the next game from chris taylor is supposed to take that aspect much further.

Micromanagement is not intelligent play its fiddly favouring speed of clicks over intelligence of strategy. This is where warcraft 3 and starcraft excel where good players defeat entire sides with a single boss unit.

the less micro the more time you have to play the game, its strategy not tactics that should ensure win.

Posted: **21 Jun 2005, 05:50**

i disagree about the xta players vs ota players.. (im xta player myself)
that is a bit closed minded.

the most relevant ideas have been proposed.
implementing too much ai as an aid to the player is delicated matter.

i have a vision.. the line that will separate spring and Supcommie will be the "easyness" of its gameplay... Supcom will loose seriousnes... in favor of easynes... there we will be able to denote the difference in aproches, so bad for chriss... lol end of visions.

i also foresee adv. supcomm

sc, wc3, KKnD, wc2, c&c, hw,gc,hwcata, hw2,gc2, VC, DR, DR2, WRC, DoW, myth, myth2, DK, DK2, are great games, flamming about them should be forbidden and paifully punished.
lol
(flame shield on).
understandible!

Posted: **21 Jun 2005, 06:53**

what is this easyness you speak of? a game is only as easy as your opponent.

Posted: **21 Jun 2005, 07:30**

HellToupee, if you disagree with me, please find faults in anything I've said, or perhaps offer some of your own arguments rather than "You're wrong, I'm right, micromanagement is stupid."

Micromanagement = tactics. Tactics are essential to any succesful RTS, and eliminating tactics in order to "make it easier for people to get the strategy" is just dumbing down the game for people who cannot grapple with advanced strategies and tactics.

Posted: **21 Jun 2005, 09:01**

Tactics are ok but they have nothing to do with strategy, less time micromanaging is more time implementing strats its as simple as that. It is not dumbing down the game at all it is changing the focus of the game. It dosnt make the game any easyer(you still have to beat the other guy), else if it was as simple as that i would be the ut2k4 champion of the world.

Hell warcraft 3 and starcrafters already think TA is dumbed down and for n00bs only.

Posted: **21 Jun 2005, 10:57**

Not sure if its worth replying...
You haven't really added anything to your argument or conflicted mine with anything other than saying that I am wrong and you are right again.

Plus

Tactics are ok but they have nothing to do with strategy

Saying something as completely illogical as that undermines your stance even more.

Hell warcraft 3 and starcrafters already think TA is dumbed down and for n00bs only

I don't care what they think. They can think whatever they like. I am comfortable in the knowledge that they are wrong. If they should think otherwise, they could bring it up with me, and I would be happy to point out why they are wrong.

Posted: **21 Jun 2005, 11:05**

I like autotargetting. its a incentive to build radar and as knowledge IS power :D

Posted: **21 Jun 2005, 11:40**

And too much knowledge is not a good sun tzu tactic when you're unable to deceive. Too much emphasis is placed on radar and the balance should be restored. Just remember power corrupts therefore knowledge corrupts.

I think the AI problem isn├óÔé¼Ôäót as bad as some of you make out although it has potential to do so.

Units such as base commanders should be implementable and optional, as such they would be costly and because of their purpose, not as good as a human player. When dealing with human standard AI the only project that would make sense to involve such effort is a skirmish AI. Aside from the fact that an AI with those sorts of abilities is hard to code. I suggest you all read GroupAI.cpp if you haven├óÔé¼Ôäót already to see what the AI can actually do, and take note that the only AI dev has been done by me napalm and SJ, although others have done pseudocode and theory.

I suggest that GroupAI require a certificate or identification given out by the SY's or some review panel, to verify that they don├óÔé¼Ôäót play the game for you in every aspect ro give grossly unfair advantages.

Aside from that Chris Taylor said something in that article about RTS games being resource wars and not actual wars. It is possible for 20 fidos to destroy 60 fidos through strategy alone, it matters not how much you produce if you use them correctly, and such correct use is hard to code.

Storm+ aGorm, your posts are filled with worry, yes what you say is possible, but highly unlikely to reach that stage outside of skirmish development. They are almost paramount to scare mongering.

less time micromanaging is more time implementing strats its as simple as that

That isn't strategy that├óÔé¼Ôäós micromanagement, that├óÔé¼Ôäós nannying your units. Strategy is macro scaled, units are micro scaled and so is micromanagement. What strategy concerns itself with is macro management, and macro management can take just as many clicks of the mouse if done correctly and doesn├óÔé¼Ôäót deal with specific tactics. It is the way fo play for big epic maps, and it is the way that Chris Taylor si trying to reach by ending resource wars which encourage micromanagement and tactical play and not strategic play.

If you play someone who has an unfair advantage through an AI dll, then not only would it be foolish to play them again, but it would be foolish for them to use them. For one nobody would play with em if I started using AI's as storm and aGorm described, I would be blacklisted as a cheater and confined to skirmish games. And it would be obvious that it was an AI too.
And with that GroupAI should have a category descriptor telling what type of AI it is whether it be tactical, resource, or all controlling unfair uber AI.

Posted: **21 Jun 2005, 13:01**

just another targetting request, can we have a button to stop something from targetting air.
I use the NaGa and HyDrA heavy cannons (being as how they're such great units and all), I tend to put them into high trajectory mode to fire over things and drop shells. (I'm playing random enemies here, a custom one). In come the rapiers taking pot shots at my base, they're now the closest things to the cannnons, which try to fire at them, miss (the rapiers are normally dead by the time the shells fall) but the heavy cannon shells then pepper my base . The only solution currently is to grab them as the rapiers come in and hope to get them into hold fire mode before they fire. So can we have a button to stop the cannon targetting air units? (it would be off by default)

-Gurkha

Posted: **21 Jun 2005, 14:07**

Or rather, something in the engine that says, if the weapon misses the enemy, will it hit a friendly unit and if so pretend you dont have los tot he enemy.

Posted: **21 Jun 2005, 15:04**

And too much knowledge is not a good sun tzu tactic when you're unable to deceive. Too much emphasis is placed on radar and the balance should be restored. Just remember power corrupts therefore knowledge corrupts.

Thats why there are jammers! Jam the area, and suddenly u can sneak into the enemy base almost unoticed. No radar jammer =weakness. I lost big armys to reapiers since i dint have jammers whit me. Jammers are important.

For radar covrage in general, it should be kept as it is. Sure aircrafts are weaker, but not to weak! And if many plp think they ARE to weak, just lower the damage for flak cannons or something.

Finaly, targeting selection. My meaning is that the Target facilty will be like an upgarde at the end game, making all units more effienct! Tanks wont fire at planes, and will try to attack one target that they are told to. So if i set tank 1-4 to attack the defences while tank 5-8 attacks the fusion plants. 1-4 killed all nearby defences, and then just goes into random killing mode.

QWESTION! is this even posibole? I mean, to just build a building and then ai for units gets better? Could it work on stats to?

Spring RTS Engine

Target Selection

Clicktastic fantastic?