I don't want to make Empires: Warlord Edition, there will be no command vehicle. I am not sure the General will be present at all, given the importance of the RTS aspect. I want to avoid the General showing up and running amok while the AI units stand around and the team loses. What I could do is allow players of a certain rank the ability to commender an AI squad and give it orders. The General could over ride that but this would allow a player "in the field" to direct squads in the heat of the moment. Really though, I want the General to concentrate on commanding. He won't get bored like in Empires and with units under his direct control he can still get plenty of kills without slashing around in the field. Oh did I mention melee combat! Looking forward to cavalry charges and cuttin off arms.
So Battlefield, WC3, Monday Night Combat, and real-time tactics + resource management elements put together?
That's a matter of taste, ain't it? Altough on one hand you want to make the AI weak, on the other it's supposed to not get boring directing the AI against players, but how much fun will it be to watch your AI get slaughtered? Maybe that's just me but that's how I understand it.
Your assuming the players are going to tear through the AI squads like butter. I think that is going to depend on a number of factors. Most rifles will one hit kill in the head or torso. AI accuracy will be based on the type of squad; Bandits will suck, obviously, while Russian mercenaries will drop you like a rock. There is also the weapon to consider. A human player with a bolt action rifle charging a Maxium heavy MG should die, while a human with an SMG should easy take out charging infantry. All games are a matter of preference really, if someone doesn't like commanding, they don't have to.
you cant please everyone and you shouldnt try to either. if your game has commanders, your players should also want to be commanders, or empires ...
No, my plan is to make a game I like and other people will Probobly like it too. That's the hardest part, I can't wait to play this game, but I have to make it first.
id be happy if youd prove me wrong with your game, i miss the RTS aspect in every FPS since i first played empires - so any new game mixing those genres is very welcome.
Prove you wrong? You don't like my game? It's going to be heavily focused on RTS. The difference is, not everyone on the team will have to be focused on RTS as well. I wanted to get the Arisaka done this weekend, and I almost did, but I had lots of RL work to do at the house. Next I think I am going to start on an armored car or the little broom handle mauser...
i cant dislike what i dont know. as far ive only heard a few vague things from you ... i only wanted to voice my concers with an inherent division among players which emerges out of a split between RTS and FPS players. i think players should not be detained of game mechanics by splitting their choice between RTS and FPS, but they should deliberately chose not to use certain features as strategic option. (this aproach also allows for 1vs1 without changing the game in any way) as for example you could have cavalry, infantry, artillery and air and each player on a team only following one of those paths, so he will have higher tiered upgrades in a certain field rather then having a balanced army. or ofc the players could decide to go for more ballanced rolls to split their forces. thats good choice. what i think wont work out well is that RTS players fight FPS players. fighting "AI*" in FPS is stupid, even if it has a lot of different behaviour and responses. after a while you can exploit their inbuilt inaccuracy and stupidity (bc if it wasnt for this you couldnt win against it) there is only so many possible responses, null psychology involved. if you, on the other hand, make the AI keep up with an FPS player you have to buff their response time and accuracy and then it will appear as unfair to the FPS player ... thast imo - imo! - bad choice. ofc i have no saying in your game and please, i beg you, create the game youd like to play. i dont claim to know any better then you - maybe you create my favorite game with neglecting everything ive ever said - i only want to offer you my perception and concerns on the matter in case. and i think ive made some interesting points, even if the solution in the end is completely different from my proposals. feel free to do whatever you want with what i said, if you disagree simply neglect it. *which isnt even AI since intelligence also means adaption and you probably wont get evolving algorithms for your game ... edit: with resource and rax sharing (rax as spawnpoints, not as production building) you can also have one player playing a almost RTS only roll (just with the exception that you could switch to FPS but dont as strategic choice), while the rest stays in FPS mode for 95% of gametime. this would have the advantage for the one more RTSy player that he could research while keeping a constant flow of units (as he gets resources from the other 3 guys or takes over their "goldmines"). or it could be split differntly in any other combination. i think in general it would be best if everyone plays one roll (as in cavalry, infantry, artillery, air or whatever) but in both RTS and FPS modes, and i think this would be the most attractive version of a blend between the genres. but its options and preference of players, no set mechanic ... also its my opinion and i might be wrong too, cant say this enough. i often fear i come across like, "huh i know better stfu", trying to explain things in english
IT sounds like you are talking about a co-op RTS where the commanders can fight in FPS mode if they wish. A fine idea but not really what I am going for. In 10kB the General will have to overcome the weaknesses of the AI with positioning and numbers. Using AI squads to support your human players on offense, or to hold the line defensively which the AI is better at. I'm sure exploits will be found but that is what testing is for. In the end the number of AI units compared to human units will help to even things out. Another factor is the type of weapons being used. There are no assault rifles. SMGs have a high rate of fire but lower damage. If you want one shot kills you are limited to bolt action or a heavy machine gun. Weapons will range from muskets, to single shot breach loaders, to bolt action so rate of fire is going to be a real consideration. Even the best player can only kill so many on his own before being overwhelmed. I am not trying to convince you to like 10kB, just addressing some of the issues you raised. One of the reasons I was eager to go public was so that my ideas and concepts could be vetted by other people. In my head they might seem great but other people have different experiences that might give me reason to readjust my plans. The Arisaka needs some work on the fine details and getting the wood smoothing worked out but I think its good enough for me to move on for now. What do you think?
