Empires follows the typical RTS paradigm of running around, building bases, and slugging it out with beefy units. I find that this works for games that have just one player per team: the commander, but this dwarfs the role of infantry in the mid-late game. Oftentimes, I see games flesh out into a hopeless and irreversible situations where the guy with the bigger guns wins, usually regardless of application or inherent skill. With an FPS-RTS like Empires, I feel that RTS mechanics from Company of Heroes would be most appropriate in place of the current system. In Empires, infantry becomes a neglibible portion of the equation in lategame. In contrast, in Company of Heroes, infantry are consistently the backbone and blood of a team, with armor serving as support. Thoughts? Suggestions of any other RTSs?
Ye, I thought mostly of COH too, as due their resources system, that is pretty similiar to Empires: You gotta be offensive! But the skillpart does matter a lot early game. Get an apc into enemy lands, push at chokepoint etc, and you will see some huge advantage.
None of them, empires is not an RTS, it's an FPS. Empires should take after the best in FPS games, and remove as much RTS from the game as possible, because FPS players do not make good RTS units. Obviously it is not practical to have anything other than a commander in a game which has structures to place, because you need the single unifying intent to get that coherent, but refinery capturing, defence construction, when and where to attack, and even some of the progression along the tech tree, all of these can probably be turned over to the players and it will benefit the game. Make information available to the players, show them where the enemy is concentrated, alert them when the flank is being attacked, and they will deal with it themselves because it's in their own interest. If they don't, then they certainly won't do it just because some pillock in the CV tells them to. If empires is to be an RTS then it should be the absolute bare bones of an RTS, it should be like the original simcity in terms of complexity, drop structures, try not to drop them in earthquake hotspots, ensure you have everything wired to a power station, but don't presume to tell the little people what to do, maybe give them hints but don't rely on them to listen to you unless it's in their interests. A commander should piggyback his team, not lead them, the team should be shown where and what to do by the game, then the commander should help them do it, like in NS, the team knows where the hive is, the commander just gives them guns and drops the siege turrets. In empires the commander should drop base buildings and any other stuff you need to have a single person in charge of, but the actual attacking and strategy should be done by the players, force them to stick together by making them weak alone, encourage them to complete strategic objectives by rewarding them directly for it, and inform them so they know what they need to do, don't rely on the commander doing all of this for them, because the game is not about the skill of the commander, it's about the skill of the entire team, and as such the commander should, as much as possible, have only as much power as any other team member.
...Wasn't one of the tennets of Empires that "This is NOT Natural Selection"? I both agree and disagree with that. You're right, there will be times when the comm sucks, and the team has to be able to fend for itself, at least until a new comm is placed. But, at the same time, one of the draws of empires was that I didn't have to be an awesome FPS player (getting a pistol headshot from across the map consistently) to be useful. Granted, I've gotten better, but I play as engie mostly to support, and go aggro behind a rifleman. Back in TF1, I did the same thing... I don't fight well, but I like playing with others. If all I could do was occupy a space and provide cannon fodder round-after-round... I'd probably just play CS:S. The way I see strategy is as the over-arching plan. Individual players/squads will have tactics, but strategic planning should be left to the comm. I actually don't see much of this as it is. As it is, all I see the comm do when giving us targets is to highlight the enemy. It's an advantage, b/c I now no longer have to find the enemy, just shoot at the diamond... But I don't think I've ever gotten an order to flank or hide until the enemy passes over, or even strategic withdrawals... I think this too is just because most of the people that play this are FPS players that feel obligated to comm. So do we make the comm's job easier by giving them better tools to comm with, or do we take by the lowest common denominator and devalue that job even more? I think we should change the Comm interface, or at least have that option. Right now, I think it's cumbersome. If you zoom out to where you can see the entire battlefield, you don't have enough detail to see which units are what? Zoom In, and you only have a small view of the terrain. If we could simplify it to where it's a simple interface, or maybe an overlay on top of friendly units and visible enemy units. Better controls for more efficient commanding, not dilution of the role.
Well no, it's not NS, I never said it should be NS, what I was saying is that NS works, and therfore you should assess why it works and figure out what you need to put into empires to make sure it works as well. Saying 'we're not going to put this good stuff in because another game has already done it' is seriously going to limit how good empires can be. Strategy is all fine and dandy when you have dumb units which can't think, but you don't, you have players, so rather than demanding that they don't think at all about the plan and just obey, you should consider making sure that they all have the same plan and carry it out as a collection of individuals. You can do this by giving them clear goals and the information they need to decide on the best course of action, and you need to ensure there is a very obvious course of action. For example, you could make a massive motivation to destroy enemy bases, now this is going to be the same every game, destroy the base, but it will also be different because the bases are not always in the same place. Everyone will attack the base so you will have spontaneous strategy, but the game will still be different because the base won't be in the same place or have quite the same layout or structures. The FPS mechanics of empires are totally separate from the RTS ones, it's not because the game is RTS based that you can do something other than shoot people, it's because the game has a support role which needs to be filled, and you could have done that any way you like. Make refineries engineer placed rather than comm placed, give engineers the ability to set up field defences themselves, they can still support the team, they just don't need the comm to do half the work for them.
In CoH, the infantry units are mostly independent. They are somewhat competent. They take cover, and they exchange fire carefully. The commander has a lot more control than in Empires, but in a way, he is mostly a guide. Empires's commanding is oversimplified to the traditional RTS command style in which you assume the units will do what you say. I agree that this isn't what Empires should be. I also agree that the commander needs more tools to give information and attack orders (as useful as they are) need to be dashed.
Im not a fan of taking steps to get rid of the overall RTS feel of empires, but I agree that it could be a good move to add some more power to the infantry, I liked this idea ethics of loss that the carcasses of vehicles, for the short time they are still on the map, can be calculatored by engies for some res that gets contributed to the team. in that say your team is down, being bombarded by heavys, and research is questionable. You guys manage to take down some over ambitious tanks who attempt a base rush, recover enough res to throw out a couple extra tanks or something. Would give an extra plus to taking down vehicles in friendly territory, or even taking down an enemy res node outpost would be much more rewarding,, and would help some defeats be less devastating.
The idea is interesting as it could help overturn seemingly hopeless battles. That's another issue with Empires.
When it comes to the single resource and reaserch aspect I feel Empires could mimic Homeworld abit more. Tho from the commanders perspective Commandinfollows more like preschool showdown from WC3. Where you manage the base but the units are automated and uncontroled, so location of buildings matterd in balencing. Basicly empires differs from most rts in that you have a total unit limit that is constantly met. And you can only agument your units possibilitys how ever you do not controll them. Empires needs more game modes. I would love a mode where empires mimics WC3 DOTA. Where bases produce constant streams of simple minded npc's and the players change the tide of the battle. Imagine two opposed bases that send AI tanks (at a tech that the com has researched) continually at each other. Players are limited to Infantry. Res is gained through kills. I would have alot of fun.
I disagree in strongest possible terms. I think ScardyBob put it best in another thread: Empires is a cross between an RTS and an FPS, and what we should really focus on is ideas and suggestions that enhance that link -- things that make the comm's RTS strategies flow more smoothly into the game's FPS world. What the game really needs are more things to encourage players to behave -- and enjoy behaving -- like RTS units... something that makes the commander's intentions easy to convey and clearly visible to players, while rewarding them for following through.
I think having call-in units (already planned, I think) and commander buff (like Savage) will help to strengthen communication of the team and the role of commander. I like the direction CoH is taking the RTS genre (or not, since only Relic making RTS like that) since it's pretty tactical and intuitive. I especially think the cutting off sector part should add another interesting layer to Empires...but then again, that might make things too complicated and most Empires maps are not as open as CoH ones.
Link from a dev saying that or it isn't being planned.... Strengthening the commander is a fail strat. A commander is there to give his team the resources they need to win. The team is there to win. The game needs to be fun for up to 64 people, not fun for 2 people but shitty for the other 62~. The commander, thus far, is pretty well set in as what it should be. Research is the only part of the com that really needs to be changed, and possibly the effects of buildings upon other players. I agree that this is an FPS, not an RTS. Commander should not be the best class in the game, and most times it isn't. But it is necessary, and sometimes fun for a very small part of the player base. This, IMO, is perfect since commander is limited to 1 per team. Making it so that only 1 person per team would want to be com would make things much easier. no fighting over the com >_>.
[only read first post] base it on lords of the realm or shogun. they have simple RTS systems because it is a minor part of the game, as it is with empires.
Well, if Empires should take after CoH, the vehicles would need a few very weak spots since in CoH you might be lucky enough to take out a tank with a single bazooka round. And perhaps small arms should also be able to damage vehicles at some spots. Like the walker in bf2142.
Weak spots? Often players use very little armour in the rear.. Use armour detection and you'll kill tanks easily .
That is a nonsensical comparison; the game should be fun for both comms and players. Nobody comes to Empires to just play a mindless FPS; there are dozens of mindless FPSes out there. Players come to Empires because they want a comm, and they want to play in a team commanded by a comm, with an organized battle-plan set from above. That is what empires is about. Leaving the comm weak and ineffectual -- limiting the comm's impact on the game -- makes the game less fun for both the comm and their players. If you want to play a game where you just drive around in a tank anywhere you want hooting and yelling as you fire randomly, play one of the other dozens of tank/infantry combat games out there; Empires' defining feature is its commanders. The comms should be absolutely central to everything that happens on the battlefield in Empires, or as much as is possible. As a player, I enjoy Empires most when I know that my commander has a plan, when that plan is being directly and clearly broadcast to the team and the team is working together to carry it out. When players are just driving around shooting whatever they want and ignoring their commanders -- or when the commanders are only thinking about buildings and research and ignoring everything else -- Empires fails. Those are the most boring and pathetic parts of Empires to me. Those parts should be burned out, any aspects that support or encourage them broken and removed, the remains bleached and poisoned and beaten into a misshapen pulp so they can never show their ugly face again. The players that openly confess to enjoy those things should be mocked until they go away. The game should be designed so that it cannot be played effectively with a comm who only cares about research and building. Comms who attempt it should be confronted with instant and absolute failure, sufficient to either make them shape up or abandon the comm's seat and never return; players who try to play like that should find themselves useless, worthless deadweight on their team until they shape up and learn to play. Optimally it would reach the point where if a comm only worried about building and research, they would rapidly be greeted by a collective "WTF?" from their team, followed by a rapid vote to kick the commander. We should add features that make it easy for the comm to give overall direction to their team (team-visible beacons, better map markup, whatever, there's lots of ways to do it), and reward players for following those directions. The overall structure of the game should be set up with the assumption that the comm is giving such high-level directions, and designed so that teams have trouble operating without it; it should be encouraged in every way it can be. The comm's plans and intentions should, of course, happen through their team, who will have to manage and adapt on the ground based on changing situations that can happen faster than the comm can react. But overall control of the team and the direction of battle should always be completely in the hands of the comm, and we should do as much as possible to encourage this, while discouraging players who try to play Empires without listening to their comms, or comms who try to play without giving their teams overall direction. This overall direction from the comm is what I find fun about Empires, when it works (although all too often, it doesn't.) If you don't find the comms fun -- well, why are you playing Empires?
I come to empires because it's like battlefield 2 with the responsiveness of the source engine's controls. I don't come to be told what to do by some idiot who thinks he knows how to command, nor do I see why I should do that when it isn't neccesary. Besides, your argument there doesn't make sense, if you make the game unplayable without an overbearing commander, you won't produce more of them, you'll just make the game unplayable most of the time. You aren't going to get what you call 'good' commanders all the time, you can get them if you maybe play a clan match, and I see no reason why the comm should be restricted from giving orders and telling the team what to do, but why exactly do you think it's neccesary to force it all the time if not everybody wants it and not everyone can do it? Remove the absolute need for a commander and we'll see how many people really want one, if they want one, they'll do what the commander says without a reward, if they don't, they'll get on with playing the game. I think perhaps you're just afraid that most people don't want a commander to tell them what to do, and so in order for you to be able to either keep your position as commander who tells everyone what to do, or player who is good because he listens to the commander, you want the game changed so that only your type of player is accomodated. I always put even armor all over, I don't see the point of not armoring the rear because if I need my rear armor I turn the tank round, and it also means I can run away if needs be.
