Economic to military balance

[Crazy Cossack]

One factor we should not overlook in RTS design (and mods) is the economic to military balance of the game. The first objective is to build an economic base. The second objective is to convert a proportion of economic output into military assets (while continuing to grow the economic base). The third objective is to use the military assets to achieve victory.

The economic growth model of the game influences the entire game, especially its tactical vs. strategic balance. There are two basic economic growth models for an RTS game. These basic models are linear growth and exponential growth. FA and FAF have an exponential growth model. The game graphs clearly show this where the eventual winning player usually has a marked exponential growth path. The losing player usually demonstrates a flatter growth path; anywhere from less exponential to merely linear to inflected in the other direction (tapering off like a bit of a falling parabola). There are exceptions caused by ACU snipes.

Some other RTS games, like Cossacks 1 and Cossacks 3, show a more nearly linear economic growth path. Cossacks 1 and 3 demonstrate a slight exponential in the growth path but are nearly pushed back to straight line growth (linear) by certain design features. (More about these design features later.) What does a linear growth model do to an RTS game compared to an exponential growth model? Note, this discussion still assumes inexhaustible resources on the map as in FA / FAF, and in Cossack 1 and 3)

1. The exponential growth model.

A key feature of the exponential growth model game is as follows. Good early growth compounds rapidly just like compound interest in an investment. A development slip-up early on (a stall) thus causes compounded losses as the game develops. This can lead to an economic win for the other player even if both players execute all military tasks with equal skill. So, by "economic win" I mean a case where a player wins essentially by achieving better economic growth. A "military win" would be where economic growth was equal, at least until decisive military actions, including snipes. Of course, in real games between roughly equal opponents, a win will usually be an amalgam of these factors except as follows.

Successful early snipes (engies hit by labs, transports loaded with engies being shot down) can be very effective in pushing one player off the ideal or best-possible exponential growth path. Once this occurs, this player's fate is usually sealed. Against an equally competent opponent he can rarely get back into the game. Early economic losses compound negatively (relative to the other player) just as early economic gains compound positively.

2. The Linear Growth Model.

What happens in a linear growth model game? Early tactical reverses, which lead to a loss of economic expansion assets, are easier to recover from or at least are more survivable. Early tactical reverses still count, they still hurt the player who suffers them, but the loss does not compound negatively (relatively) over time. It just puts this player on a lower but still parallel development growth path. The gap created exists but it does not widen further without the leading player achieving more military (and expansion) successes. This moves the influence on game outcomes a bit along the spectrum from the economic to the military. It also moves the game a bit along the spectrum from micro and squad tactics to combined arms army strategy.

3. How to Achieve a Linear Growth Model?

There are many ways to do this. Cossacks 1 and 3 uses a surprising feature. First, note that costs for basic mobile economic and military units remain the same throughout the game. This means that peasants (like engies in FAF) and soldiers (like tanks etc. in FAF) cost the same throughout the game. However, barracks (equivalent to factories in FAF) inflate in cost. The first 17th C barrack (militarily equivalent to a T1 land factory in FAF) is cheap to account for low starting resources. However, each subsequent 17th C barracks inflates in cost by 300% (3 times). This will seem quite surprising to a FAF player. What this achieves is that the building of new 17th C barracks soon becomes prohibitively expensive. The growth in 17th C infantry numbers is thus kept close to linear. Cossacks 1 and 3 apply this mechanic to all buildings and structures. So even the growth of peasant numbers (builders equivalent to engies) is kept close the linear. Peasant come out of Town Halls (which also inflate in cost) which only make peasants. This would be like a FAF mod having a basic economic factory which made only engies and then a T1 military factory which made only T1 units.

When the 17th C barracks in C1/3 becomes prohibitively expensive, it then becomes more viable for the player to start creating stables to make cavalry. The stables also inflate in cost. Then it become more viable to make foundries to make artillery. The foundries also inflate in cost. At this point, it become more viable for the player to research advance to the 18th C. This then enables the creation of higher quality 18th C troops but again the 18th C barracks then inflate in cost.

This inflation mechanic achieves two things. Firstly, it pushes the game economic growth model towards the linear model with the effects I outlined above. Second, it ensures certain rough proportions (within quite wide limits which still allow for player decisions) of the different arms of the army (combined arms of infantry, cavalry and artillery) are produced.

4. Conclusion

I thinking of something roughly like this for my mod. So, yes it would be radically different from FAF. But as I said only roughly similar. Some of these ideas would require considerable modification for a FA / FAF mod.

I might just push the economic growth model to the linear on the production side without implementing factory inflation. I might simply limit the number of factories permissable at each level. Or I might implement structures inflation. This last would mean a point would be reached where building a T2 factory would be cheaper than building another T1.

Yes, this would make the game more linear, not only in economic growth, but also in military growth and composition. Some would hate this and I understand that. It's all a matter of taste in RTS games. However, I believe it would make the mod less about early tactics, less about micro, less about rock/paper/scissors, less about "tactical trumping" and more about strategic use of armies, airforces and navies. When I say "less" I do not mean zero. There will still be tactics, micro, rock/paper/scissors and tactical trumping.

Such a mod would become more of an army game and less of a squad game. Currently, in FAF when tech level goes up (especially when T2 is skipped and there is a rapid tech to T3) the game changes from an army game (armies of T1) back into a squad game (squads of T3). This is one form of "tactical trumping" (which is a difficult concept which I might try to define in a subsequent post on this thread).

A possible mechanic in the mod (if I can do it) might be that when the T2 HQ is built (after T1 factories become prohibitively expensive) then this enables T1 facts to make T2 units. However, if the mod is balanced correctly, more economic growth would be required before you could really support this new T2 unit production. But this is just an idea I am kicking around. My real block is my slow progress in learning LUA modding.

[biass]

What's the point of this thread exactly? Just say you're gonna copy the other game in your mod or better yet just go make the mod instead of sitting on a forum with one other dude while the wider community makes memes of everything you post

[Crazy Cossack]

Biass noted.

[nine2]

Biass why do you have so much motivation to take people down?

[Franck83]

Interesting thoughts Crazy Cossacks.

A linear model mod could increase the FAF mod diversity. There are some mods with a limited amount of units and no eco (like chess game). Bringing the cossacks model could be interesting and may interest some players.

[biass]

Biass why do you have so much motivation to take people down?

It's just my honest opinion really, i much prefer it to saying i like the idea and then turning around and calling him an art of war tardo in some discord server

If you want more, i do want to hear about whatever you deem "tactical trumping" because i either get US politics, or something apparently also written by you on the PA forums: https://forums.planetaryannihilation.co ... ame.44278/ when i google it.
The response isn't soo good over there either to be honest. A lot of words but not a lot of speaking, not that the articles(?) are linked.

Else, you don't really mention anything about RTS theory in general, but more about trying to churn a real life military operation into a video game, which is also the point of the mentioned link, i noticed the Supcom Community kinda lacks in RTS theory during a time when i trained a lot of people and found this resource to look at http://www.rakrent.com/rtsc/rtsc_basics.htm and if i: a snarky student web developer, can get past the cancerous 90s website design so can you.

I'm not going to stop you from making a mod, as it's probably the best way to show off your idea as opposed to a forum post, you should jump into that M&M discord and also peep this old thing: http://supcom.wikia.com/wiki/Unit_Creation which i used to learn how to mod units myself.