av93 gameplay ideas

[av93]

I know that there's a lot here being said. Just as a summary or to talk about my vision, here is it. Newer ideas on others fields, but lets start with general vision and economy

 

1. Realism. The game should be gameplay based on history or historical plausible facts, not a simulator. Gameplay should be a superior objective.

2.Pace of the game: Would like to design a game around 20-30 minutes. 1-hour game should be achievable with some game modes, but it's not the main aim.

3.Economy: RTS are primary economical games: how you manage your resources and try to choke the enemy incomes. In the long run, a player with more resources control should win. So, in general there shouldn't be infinite supplies of resources or  those should be marginal (except food to no microing farms).
Shouldn't be very microintensive, to allow more focus on decisions and battling.

Resource wise, it should be very symmetrical. No need of provinces but some kind of starcraft resource placement divided by zones with resources spots. Eyecandy and art object should break the monotony of the space, but not the resources. I prefer fewer workers with fewer slots of workable resources. Trees could be grouped into Forests (a single entity)¹ with some kind of workable points when the unit plays the axe animation, although individual and don't workable trees could embellish the environment. Huntables it's the only problematic "spot" to redesign.
The overall feel should be something like, not only I have 10 workers on food, but I have 2/3 of the resources points being worked. Think something like Aoe meets Dawn of War 1.

Only very rare case units should cost more than 2 resources

I have 2 design layout ideas:

-Traditional aoeish: food, wood, stone, metal, with traditional scheme of uses.
    or
-  5 resource. Also with traditional scheme of uses, following DarcReaver proposal, a 5 resource could be added. Don't care about the name of the resource itself, but in my head could be a some kind of high decision and build order making.
For example, it could be "money": a resource only gathered by trade, or autogathered in the markets. It could have 3 uses: It could be a more than normal profitable resource for bartering, buying mercenaries (that would always cost this 5th resource) or researching special techs (I'm not talking about only unique techs).
Think like aoe3 envoys, that help you to build a strategy. That kind of feel could be achieved with the cost being always numbers multiples of 100, tied to some "level" feel.

- Traditional scheme of uses:     
*food (main resource for progression, units and techs)
*wood (buildings, techs and trash units)
*metal (techs and no trash units)
*stone (defensive buildings, defensive techs, maybe advanced building and militar buildings

Other

*Corrals feels redundant. For a infinite supply of food, you have farms. Corralling animals to generate resources or cost reductions feels a little out of place IMHO, and unnecessary micro. The models feels a little out of place for cavalry techs or allowance of cavalry production (too small for a stable). MAYBE it could replace farms for the first phase if farms can only be build on farmlands spots away from the starting location, but they should be autoproducing.

*Trading congas should be erased. Don't know if limiting trading units or with another idea. Market or Trading spot from aoeIII feels like giving a good strategic edge to the maps.

*Bartering shouldn't restore. It should decay with the buying at medium pace, making impossible to sustain the war with unlimited food.

*Metal and stone shouldn't be in CC range.

 

(1) Reducing forest to single entities allows to: fewer lag, better resource design management, ability to spawn auras related to the entity like ambushing. I would change them to don't obstruct the units.Also this would help pathfinding (I think that Delenda Est have done this before)

Will continue tomorrow

Edited March 16, 2017 by av93

[Lion.Kanzen]

That's why prefer over Total War kind of strategy.

Quote

3.Economy: RTS are primary economical games: how you manage your resources and try to choke the enemy incomes. In the long run, a player with more resources control should win. So, in general there shouldn't be infinite supplies of resources or  those should be marginal (except food to no microing farms).
Shouldn't be very microintensive, to allow more focus on decisions and battling.

 

---------

Are good ideas...

I tested DE and the game are doing better than I expected. I'm very proud of Justus work.

[sphyrth]

Map Design can affect gameplay. I'm imagining a moidified Arcropolis Bay.

Think of a Valley with Metal and Stone mines in it. And the hills that make up that valley are quite barren. Although the valley has your important resources, controlling the hills is a bigger priority even if there are no resources in them.

[Zeta1127]

Map design is indeed going to be extremely important. Farming is so extremely important right now, simply because many maps don't necessarily offer many foraging opportunities and herding isn't fully implemented yet.

[Lion.Kanzen]

About territory be must put idea the maps needs the mineral out of initial territory (Player).

this happens in AoE 1-3 blizzard uses minerals inside but SC haven't a such thing like warehouse the single dropsite is the Main structure.

the other thing is can build resources dropsite in neutral zone like DE.

[DarcReaver]

8 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

About territory be must put idea the maps needs the mineral out of initial territory (Player).

this happens in AoE 1-3 blizzard uses minerals inside but SC haven't a such thing like warehouse the single dropsite is the Main structure.

the other thing is can build resources dropsite in neutral zone like DE.

Actually not entirely true. For AoE you have a varying starting resource "stock" of berries, sheep, boars, gold, stone, and a nearby forest. Everything is in range of the player (or AoM has starting goldmine aswell). 

I think Civil Centers should be weaker and buildable from Age 1 to allow economic expansion early on for a reasonable price. To create the risk that the enemy can capture them.Storehouses can still be useful to reduce travel distance for gatherers for wood and because they're significantly cheaper.. 

Quote

1. Realism. The game should be gameplay based on history or historical plausible facts, not a simulator. Gameplay should be a superior objective.

2.Pace of the game: Would like to design a game around 20-30 minutes. 1-hour game should be achievable with some game modes, but it's not the main aim.

3.Economy: RTS are primary economical games: how you manage your resources and try to choke the enemy incomes. In the long run, a player with more resources control should win. So, in general there shouldn't be infinite supplies of resources or  those should be marginal (except food to no microing farms).
Shouldn't be very microintensive, to allow more focus on decisions and battling.

About the above: I agree. One thing is contradicting though -

If you want a pacing of 20-30 minutes, there shouldn't be much eco management going on, because eco distracts from fighting. Only option that I see might be to have distinct game phases like : 

Economic expansion -> fortify and troop massing -> siege/conquering the enemy.

Then less workers with higher gathering rates in general, fast building construction times, high unit training speed and hard counter rock-paper-scissor aswell as access to early siege weapons (or make capturing massively more efficient).

Edited March 16, 2017 by DarcReaver

[Grugnas]

18 hours ago, av93 said:

3.Economy: RTS are primary economical games: how you manage your resources and try to choke the enemy incomes. In the long run, a player with more resources control should win. So, in general there shouldn't be infinite supplies of resources or  those should be marginal (except food to no microing farms).

 

Shouldn't be very microintensive, to allow more focus on decisions and battling.

 

Resource wise, it should be very symmetrical. No need of provinces but some kind of starcraft resource placement divided by zones with resources spots.

I strongly agree with this.

Resources should be very symmetrical placed otherwise the difference between civs could be even deeper.

Gathering resources outside the territory control MAY have sense but, in my opinion, it is not possible for 2 reasons:

1) it would remove the Mauryan worker elephant advantage

2) I really can't see the difference between building a houses wall or just a storehouses wall in neutral territory (assuming that, in order to build storehouses in neutral territory, they can't be captured no more).

Edited March 16, 2017 by Grugnas

[av93]

4 hours ago, DarcReaver said:

If you want a pacing of 20-30 minutes, there shouldn't be much eco management going on, because eco distracts from fighting. Only option that I see might be to have distinct game phases like : 

 

When I was talking about resources managing, I was talking in a broader view: should I expand, should I build first workers, or soldiers... I was talking about decisions, about time, rather than gameplay. I'm for a low micro economy.

I will continue later