What would you put in a new RTS

[Swkoll]

I would give it a different set of initials from other RTS games. *gives a disappointing look to Chris Taylor*

[The Mak]

To be fair to Mr. Taylor and his crew, the title of his games do fit what the actual game is about.

Total Annihilation: we indeed annihilate everything
Supreme Commander: we are commanding an army of supreme size

StarCraft: are we making celestial stars? movie/pop stars? Christmas ornament?
WarCraft: we do make war, but do you really think Orcs and Human?

Back on topic:
Naval, Ground, and Air Transports
Ability to build and destroy bridges
Water platforms to build things on

M.A.X. (1996) a game that was just before TA (1997) had all of the above, but was turn-based. Although a RTS version came in M.A.X. 2, two years later (1998).

EDIT:
Building on the platform idea, units that you can put other units on and/or build on them. Similar to the StarCraft 2 Arcade game Warships.

[FireMessiah]

Water platforms to build things on

I absolutely love that idea!
sort of like building a dock, or extending the land mass.
is that possible to code in FAF?

LOL, I will make a RTS, f2p and will be like FA, but will never get close(I think but I will make everthing to make it be close to FA)

If you have gaming development skills, you should dedicate them to FAF.

P.S. PA is at Beta now, but they will add a lot of units, and will have something like a 81x81 map:
I don't think that will be beat FA, but can get close when the game release.

weve been hearing how things will be added, for months.
your already bored of PA, which is why your checking out FAF forums
just saying, PA will have a short term appeal. I doubt youll be playing it in 1 years time (if its even completed by then), and youll be back to FAF, the greatest RTS ever.

[Gerfand]

LOL, I will make a RTS, f2p and will be like FA, but will never get close(I think but I will make everthing to make it be close to FA)

If you have gaming development skills, you should dedicate them to FAF.

P.S. PA is at Beta now, but they will add a lot of units, and will have something like a 81x81 map:
I don't think that will be beat FA, but can get close when the game release.

weve been hearing how things will be added, for months.
your already bored of PA, which is why your checking out FAF forums
just saying, PA will have a short term appeal. I doubt youll be playing it in 1 years time (if its even completed by then), and youll be back to FAF, the greatest RTS ever.

I don't have Gaming dev skills... and if I make this RTS, of course I will make some Merchan of FAF(like the ones that Notch make)
and I will play both PA and FA... I not bored of PA, I don't even played this yet...

[Veta]

I would like to see a stronger reliance on the unit AI: different AI 'protocols' for different strategic behaviour: retreat under fire based on the enemy forces, perform flanking attacks, regroup, scatter; dodge, kite, prioritize certain targets, etc. with heavy potential for modification, for anyone to make their own battle patterns.

Naturally, direct orders from the player would overwrite these patterns (I don't like an RTS where you don't control your units absolutely)

I imagine that this would allow for larger upscaling of the battle still - total supreme commander? : )

Agree 100% here.

[rootbeer23]

if you could simply design order queues without units that would already cut down on the micromanagement:
for example spy plane routes that you can use later when you build more spy planes.
or save your build order for specific maps, more time to micromanage tanks.

[Szakalot]

if you could simply design order queues without units that would already cut down on the micromanagement:
for example spy plane routes that you can use later when you build more spy planes.
or save your build order for specific maps, more time to micromanage tanks.

Its a good point! One way that would prevent clustering of orders is making waypoint layers:
- everything works as before
- you can enter a special layer where only specific waypoints are highlighter (or created) <- these should be able to be saved as templates in the UI, so you can practice specific, coordinated type of moves (imagine preparing a drop layer, where you only have to select particular units and let them ferry; due to how you've organized the waypoints, you would have a coordinated attack)
- naturally the waypoints in the particular layer can be adjusted on the fly (with an option of overwriting the template).
- could also be nice to manage eco: only use one (or several) layer for engy movement, so that it doesn't interfere with your forces waypoints, which can get pesky when relying on a lot of patrol commands

[AdmiralZeech]

My vision for a new RTS would be to make it less like a video game and more like a simulation of a real war.

I'd design the game in 2 layers (just like SupCom and PA, but more so) - Simulation and UI.

The simulation layer would be more secure and hide information more strongly than SupCom's. It will probably be a seperate server program, with the UI being a client program.

So, the simulation layer will contain more physics (at least that's relevant to the game) and the properties of all the units, etc. I'd like more physics for things outside of projectiles too (or at least abstractions of such physics). So warhead vs. armour physics, weather, terrain/mud/sand/etc, vehicle handling, aircraft handling etc.

-----------

So then the job of the UI layer is to ask the simulation layer for information about the world, and then send commands to the units inside the simulation layer. The simulation layer is locked down for competitive play, but the UI layer is totally open for modding or even rewriting, without any restrictions.

Why is this seperation important? Because I'd like to see UI design as part of the strategy of the game. What is the most efficient and ergonomic design UI, that gives a commander the ultimate edge in combat? I want people to think of this like a real-life military problem - you have a war to fight (ie. the simulation layer, or real life, or whatever), and a tool to command and manage your armies (ie. the UI layer). You can't change the realities of the war, but you can develop any UI you want.

I'd also make it so that official competition UIs *must* be uploaded and shared with the community to be allowed. This makes the winner a bit less dependent on programming skills - if you can use someone else's UI more skillfully than them, then you deserve to win.

-----------

So yeah, it'd be really interesting to see how the top players/teams play such a game. Would they use a UI that gives them the most direct access to their units, and win by extreme APM skills? Or would they use a UI that automates almost everything, and win by careful strategy and managing their AI programs?

Would a single player controlling an army be the most effective? Or would a big team of players controlling an army together be stronger? Maybe the top player isn't a human at all, but just an AI bot?

etc etc.

I'd consider my game a big success if the UI technology modders come up with get adopted by real life organisations that need to manage lots of information. (militaries, emergency rescue, sports, etc.)

[nine2]

A lot of interesting ideas in this thread. A lot of them could be built today (without requiring nextgen hardware).