What Would You Change About RTS?

[Turnro]

If there was anything you could add or change to an RTS game in general, what would it be?

 

[Deleted member 219079]

Maybe the duration of matches. You get to play more matches, more wins and losses, more action

 

[Daffa]

Infinity option of troops and skill/spell/magic sets -> Freedom of Tactic.

 

[chobibo]

Less management, more fighting.

 

[Gojira2000]

Hmm... I dunno I don't really play any RTS anymore besides WC1-3, Dune, Age of Empires, Starwars galactic battlegrounds, the Dune RTS games, and Dawn of War.

I guess more "defensive" options that can actually defend your base from most attacks.

 

[Turnro]

Maybe the duration of matches. You get to play more matches, more wins and losses, more action

In some way, I feel this has already been achieved through rushing and cheese strategies

Infinity option of troops and skill/spell/magic sets -> Freedom of Tactic.

How many spells do you think a unit should have? Personally, I fell that having all these units with an infinite number of spells would make the game confusing.

Also, I know Total Annihilation had quite a number of units to control, with new units released weekly. I guess it comes down to what you prefer most: more units or a balanced game?

...I guess more "defensive" options that can actually defend your base from most attacks.

Wouldn't that just encourage turtling and lengthy games?

Still, I like your suggestion

 

[chobibo]

Wouldn't that just encourage turtling and lengthy games?
Still, I like your suggestion

Like supcom 1 did.

 

[StoPCampinGn00b]

Less hero focus maybe? Heh JK. We need more real life tactics to be efficient in the game to win battles. When was the last time in melee you felt like you were a general in Warcraft rather than that random Hero?

Always love to see an RTS thread as you can always tell below me.

 

[Turnro]

Less hero focus maybe? Heh JK. We need more real life tactics to be efficient in the game to win battles. When was the last time in melee you felt like you were a general in Warcraft rather than that random Hero?

I always thought that the hero played the role as a general. Perhaps if the heroes were weaker they will feel more like general units?

Also, what real life tactic examples were you thinking of?

 

[rulerofiron99]

More complex resource efficiency management.

For example in Supreme Commander, if you build a Power Generator next to a Factory, the factory will use less power. Building power generators next to power storage increases power generation, but the risk of this high efficiency is if one gets hit by a bomber/artillery, they will all explode.

 

[Orcnet]

This is so gonna be my guide thread on making my altered melee good(Which is damned horrible right now).

 

[Turnro]

More complex resource efficiency management.

Does this include having multiple resource types? More than 2 in other words?

 

[rulerofiron99]

Does this include having multiple resource types? More than 2 in other words?

Yeah, that's something that can be great if done correctly. Stronghold is a great example of this.

I would love to see a decent remake of Stronghold where:
- Resources and buildings are largely kept the same
- Graphics updated to 3D
- Unit collision is added, along with formations and other micro-management tools

 

[Xonok]

Techtree should be something that you can wield effectively in a rock-paper-scissors like system.
In WC3 the upgrades are mostly just possible to calculate out when they are more useful than they cost.

Also, I've never seen a warcraft map or any RTS in general where you can use actual tactics, like formations, guerilla warfare or ambushes.

In general, I wish for more strategies. There should be at least half a dozen strategies that are effective, but each should have advantages and disadvantages.
There should never be one master strategy.

 

[chobibo]

I thought Total War was an RTS.

 

[Xonok]

I thought Total War was an RTS.

Never really paid attention to it, as I used to have a computer much too weak to run it.
It might be workable now though.

 

[GhostThruster]

ehhh i never liked stuff like formations, i prefer relying on microing units organically.

these days, too many casual players want to play easy games and thus many rts games make micro too easy or near redundant. i honestly hate large-scale rts games like total war, too boring, and i feel removed from the action.

 

[Xonok]

ehhh i never liked stuff like formations, i prefer relying on microing units organically.

these days, too many casual players want to play easy games and thus many rts games make micro too easy or near redundant. i honestly hate large-scale rts games like total war, too boring, and i feel removed from the action.

Well, simply ordering a thousand units to do something and then doing nothing yourself. That's boring to me too.
What I wish is for the game to give me the power to do stuff, without forcing me to do everything.
Micro is good, but only when it's not the only thing to focus on. There should always be multiple, equally hard, ways to achieve something.

 

[chobibo]

No point arguing about preferences, that's why there are a lot of games, pick one you like.

I also like large-scale battles, since small scale battles are too intensive for me and my reflexes aren't that quick to micromanage a small group. Playing games with a lot of micromanaging isn't as fun for me because of that, so I turned to games with less micromanaging required.

 

[Turnro]

In general, I wish for more strategies. There should be at least half a dozen strategies that are effective, but each should have advantages and disadvantages.
There should never be one master strategy.

I've seen Dawn of War 2 implement such strategies (such as hiding in a bush to ambush your enemies), but not to a great extent.

I guess there's a lot of different directions to take when creating an RTS game. Strategy is one of them, but there are other areas as well such as the depth of the tech-tree, races/factions included, power and variety of hero/unit spells, etc.

No point arguing about preferences, that's why there are a lot of games, pick one you like.

I also like large-scale battles, since small scale battles are too intensive for me and my reflexes aren't that quick to micromanage a small group. Playing games with a lot of micromanaging isn't as fun for me because of that, so I turned to games with less micromanaging required.

Yes, whether or not the game is large-scale or micro-intensive would depend on the target audience of the game.

Personally, I prefer micromanaging, but only because I've been playing games like it for a long time and have the experience to do it.

 

[Xonok]

I've seen Dawn of War 2 implement such strategies (such as hiding in a bush to ambush your enemies), but not to a great extent.

I guess there's a lot of different directions to take when creating an RTS game. Strategy is one of them, but there are other areas as well such as the depth of the tech-tree, races/factions included, power and variety of hero/unit spells, etc.



Yes, whether or not the game is large-scale or micro-intensive would depend on the target audience of the game.

Personally, I prefer micromanaging, but only because I've been playing games like it for a long time and have the experience to do it.

In my opinion, a game should allow both micro and macro, while keeping both reasonable.

One good game in that sense is Sins of a Solar Empire.
In there ships have abilities, which can ALL be put on autocast. However, the autocast is not perfect, as it doesn't understand the context of the battle.
The result is that on capital ships I micromanage abilities(usually), while on the 300 smaller ships I do not.

 

[Wazzz]

I think seeing an RTS where you can craft your own army and expect the playing environment to still be balanced could be fun.
It has been done before in titles like Impossible Creatures, Earth 2160 and Ancient Wars: Sparta, but the balance was questionable in at least two of those titles.

 

[HappyCockroach]

i agree with wazzz, it could be balanced and still be fun

 

[Adiktuz]

Less hero focus maybe? Heh JK. We need more real life tactics to be efficient in the game to win battles. When was the last time in melee you felt like you were a general in Warcraft rather than that random Hero?

though that is quite specific to wc3... the question was about RTS in general... I personally like RTS that doesn't have heroes...

 

[Turnro]

I think seeing an RTS where you can craft your own army and expect the playing environment to still be balanced could be fun.
It has been done before in titles like Impossible Creatures, Earth 2160 and Ancient Wars: Sparta, but the balance was questionable in at least two of those titles.

Not a bad idea. Do you mean craft as in just the skin of the units, or having the ability to choose the unit's stats, spells, etc?

 

[Wazzz]

Not a bad idea. Do you mean craft as in just the skin of the units, or having the ability to choose the unit's stats, spells, etc?

The latter primarily, aided by visual representations so people know what they're dealing with.

Sort of like equipping your units with equipment from a list of weapons, armour and various oddities ^^

 

[Xonok]

The latter primarily, aided by visual representations so people know what they're dealing with.

Sort of like equipping your units with equipment from a list of weapons, armour and various oddities ^^

Good idea. I think I could even make this in warcraft.

 

[Wazzz]

the main difficulty would be making it easy enough for users to manage, i think, which is where individual unit equipment would get entirely out of hand IMO

 

[Xonok]

the main difficulty would be making it easy enough for users to manage, i think, which is where individual unit equipment would get entirely out of hand IMO

Well, in that case another way is making templates ingame. Unit names could not be customized, but stats could.