Modern vs Older RTS Discuss

[Lion.Kanzen]

35 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

the amount of tasks you are responsible for is not in any way at the expense of strategy. It just means you have to decide where you will spend your effort.

yes, and? If its a hunt map, maybe a cav rush is good. Low wood? get slingers and mercs maybe. 

Though I would like to make scouting more impactful.

Ideas on increasing strategies:

• development of unique units
• unit specific technologies.
• New economic unit: Laborer
• try to embellish unit roles and counters (heavilty limited by citizen soldier framework)
  • maybe champs can be more involved with this?

In fact, we have to work on turtling.

It's a bit unfeasible.

Just a simple  rework with the limits of the towers since when introducing the capture mechanic the towers were never balanced properly.

[Atrik]

10 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

yes, and? If its a hunt map, maybe a cav rush is good. Low wood? get slingers and mercs maybe. 

Proving the point, this is build order, not strategy. Strategy would be using gathered information after scouting and then sketching how you will outplay your opponent(s). Rushing the first player nearest to you in a tg without other consideration is not strategy, it's tactic.

10 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Ideas on increasing strategies:

• Hide territory line updates in FOW, hide resource collection

I'm not against the idea since 'it make sens' but it will definitively nerf scouting by a lot. Since scouting is widely underused already I doubt this kind of modification will incentivize more scouting.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

8 hours ago, Atrik said:

Proving the point, this is build order, not strategy. Strategy would be using gathered information after scouting and then sketching how you will outplay your opponent(s). Rushing the first player nearest to you in a tg without other consideration is not strategy, it's tactic.

Ok, I guess you require here that strategy be based on scouting. I don't think being informed or enabled by scouting is required for something to be considered a strategy.

8 hours ago, Atrik said:

I'm not against the idea since 'it make sens' but it will definitively nerf scouting by a lot. Since scouting is widely underused already I doubt this kind of modification will incentivize more scouting.

scouting is underused at the moment, largely because its "one and done", once you have scouted the enemy territory, you can see resource depletion and you can see territory lines change indicating phase. Sure it "nerfs" the power of the initial scouting, but it makes continued scouting critical.

Another big reason is that there's not all that much to scout for. This is why I suggested some other ideas in the list. Expanding strategic options makes scouting better because guessing the enemy's approach becomes much harder.

Edited December 8 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Atrik]

17 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Ok, I guess you require here that strategy be based on scouting. I don't think being informed or enabled by scouting is required for something to be considered a strategy.

Strategy is using intel on your opponents and allies to establish a plan. Just like Alexander vs Darius and Marathon battle etc, the winners always relate to scouting because it is the way of gathering such intel; along with communication with allies.
A predefined way of preparing and fighting is a tactic, I think it's just accurate to call it that way.

17 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

scouting is underused at the moment, largely because its "one and done"

One could think this maybe. It's rarely the case, I think the very vast majority of players barely scout the border but just to know who is border, and then no scouting at all until 'they are ready'. So it's very likely to not know all players position until min 15.
This is because scouting is expensive if you do nothing out of it. If you hide resources depletion, you mechanically decrease even more how "worth" it is to scout. Anyhow, the only resource depletion that isn't hidden is currently hunt so idk why we're debating.

Edited December 8 by Atrik

[real_tabasco_sauce]

14 minutes ago, Atrik said:

31 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Ok, I guess you require here that strategy be based on scouting. I don't think being informed or enabled by scouting is required for something to be considered a strategy.

Strategy is using intel on your opponents and allies to establish a plan. Just like Alexander vs Darius and Marathon battle etc, the winners always relate to scouting because it is the way of gathering such intel; along with communication with allies.
A predefined way of preparing and fighting is a tactic, I think it's just accurate to call it that way.

meh, I don't think its that deep. A strategy is just a plan of action.

15 minutes ago, Atrik said:

This is because scouting is expensive if you do nothing out of it.

Which is why obscuring territory line updates in FOW is not the only thing I suggested.

[Atrik]

3 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

meh, I don't think its that deep. A strategy is just a plan of action.

If you simply execute a predefined plan, then there is little thinking involved, so I was simply agreeing with @Lion.Kanzen that executing a predefined sequence of action is tactics, not strategy. You absolutely can make strategies in this game, but it's not when you are executing a build order. In fact, you need to have good tactics and build order already to be able to make successful strategies.

[Lion.Kanzen]

This is how this post began with the topic of graphics.

At 0AD we don't have that problem of looking generic.

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

7 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

meh, I don't think its that deep. A strategy is just a plan of action.

Which is why obscuring territory line updates in FOW is not the only thing I suggested.

I think the strategies depend on the faction.

You will exploit the other faction's weaknesses to your own advantage, using your strengths.

Then come the classic war tactics like Rush which is very equivalent to a blitzkrieg.

Then there is turtling which has been undermined in this game.In today's war, turtling is like attrition war.

So we have the economic war or economic boom which would be the third strategy.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_doctrine

If we ever have a Grand Strategy style campaign, that campaign defines the mode of operation to win in a geopolitical operating scenario.

For now our game is only limited to battles.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_level_of_war

I'm going to take as a reference the criticism of RTS, the Wikipedia article.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_strategy

"A second criticism of the RTS genre is the importance of skill over strategy in real-time strategy games. The manual dexterity and ability to multitask and divide one's attention is often considered the most important aspect to succeeding at the RTS genre. According to Troy Dunniway, former Westwood developer who has also worked on Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars: "A player controls hundreds of units, dozens of buildings and many different events that are all happening simultaneously. There is only one player, and he can only pay attention to one thing at a time. Expert players can quickly flip between many different tasks, while casual gamers have more problems with this."

Real-time strategy games have been criticized for an overabundance of tactical considerations when compared to the amount of strategic gameplay found in such games. According to Chris Taylor, lead designer of Supreme Commander: "[My first attempt at visualizing RTSs in a fresh and interesting new way] was my realizing that although we call this genre 'Real-Time Strategy,' it should have been called 'Real-Time Tactics' with a dash of strategy thrown in."[54] (Taylor then posits his own game as having surpassed this mold by including additional elements of broader strategic scope.)

In general terms, military strategy refers to the use of a broad arsenal of weapons including diplomatic, informational, military, and economic resources, whereas military tactics is more concerned with short-term goals such as winning an individual battle.[48] In the context of strategy video games, however, the difference is often reduced to the more limited criteria of either a presence or absence of base building and unit production."

--------

I remember that Empire Earth II had these aspects more developed, as did Rise of Nations.

He had more advanced diplomacy and management.

-----

Again wikipedia says:

This criticism has ushered into a couple of hybrid designs that try to resolve the issues. The games of the Total War series have a combination of a (turn-based) strategy map with a (real-time) battle map, allowing the player to concentrate on one or the other. The games of the Hegemony series also combine a strategy map and a battle map (in full real-time) and the player can at any point in time seamlessly zoom in and out in between both.

 

Rushing vs. planning

 

A third common criticism is that real-time gameplay often degenerates into "rushes" where the players try to gain the advantage and subsequently defeat the opponent as quickly in the game as possible, preferably before the opposition is capable of successfully reacting. 

---------

How could we differentiate our game without losing its essence?

[Lion.Kanzen]

Again, the issue of graphics and polygons. It doesn't really touch on RTS, but it does touch on aesthetics.

Polygons are definitely in our favor.Our game has that aesthetic like the original Age of mythology and a bit of AoE III.

The RTS topic is only touched upon when talking about LAN, which is right, we need to forget about the lobby a bit and provide other simple ways to play multiplayer without needing the lobby or Hamachi.

Edited December 9 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

People are already bored of triple A.

People also want games with greater compatibility with their devices (PC).