A 'turn-based' game becomes a 'real-time' game when you loop the turns. You can even delay the loop some, say, give each play 5 minutes to think, then execute each set of orders and move pieces. Programatically, there's no difference.

I'm thinking of something like 'Lords of the Realm 2'. 'Macro' or 'strategic' level commands would be made on a slow scale -- armies would slowly move across the landscape. It should take several minutes for an army to make it to the next province. But when 2 armies meet, you would then switch to 'battle' mode or some such, in which you lead your forces in an actual battle.

I suggest we build the code for the macro level now allowing 'real-time' slow movement as an option (since that part of the code will be rather simple), using a stat-based combat system for now. But we plan 'phase 2' or whatever to add a 'real-time' combat option.

It wasn't turnbased (no continiually clicking the end turn button) and yet it moved slowly enough (plus it had adequate speed controls) that you didn't feel rushed.

I also like the fact that it would take 3 hours or so to construct that first Star Destroyer.

Probably the worst is multiplayer. If you are fighting on ten fronts you will be at a serious disadvantage. Also you would have to be able to control all of your armies from one zoom level, otherwise you would have to switch back and forth between battles.

It would also be too slow. Slow real time games are slower than turn based. Some people favor slow games but I like a typical battle (whether turn based or real time) to last five minutes or less. The faster each battle goes the more you can have.

Also the work involved would be too much. Getting the units balanced would be extremely hard, esepcially when you factor in that someone could be using a different set of units than his enemy. Real time games are probably the hardest to design and balance, that is why most of them are trash. Time spent getting a mediocre RTS could be spent perfecting other areas.

I'm talking about a scale more like 'Caesar3'.

1) Fighting on multiple fronts, in my opinion, *should* be a killer. That is one of the oldest no no's in the book. (Just ask Hitler!).

2) Actual combat would not be affected on the 'strategic' scale. There would be no 'control' issues, or 'time' issues. Battles would be quick and automatic, relying on stats and the unit mix you chose to send.

That aside, there are many other differences. RT games must be designed differently, because time is everything. Reaction time being part of that, which is why RT games are often called 'click fests' because those who excecute their strategies faster have an advantage. This I think is one of the main reasons strategic games are mostly TB, because each player has equal opportunity.

I'm a fan of RT games myself(I play them much more than I do TB), but I don't think it would work well in this case.

In principal I think the threading should be capable of both taking in keypresses and running the graphics, especially if they're not cutting edge. I think our problem is adding a much larger AI and game model load into the process also. We'll need to see.

My main point in this post isn't that however. Let me say right up front that I personally have no use for RTS games, at least as they're currently done. I believe that RTS games currently available are more Real-Time Tactics games. What I would propose (not for the first relese of Clash BTW) is a real RTS game where Strategic decisions must be made quickly against a resourceful opponent. Providing we can do well on the AI This would torque the usual RTS genre into a regieme where the person that can formulate good strategy quickly, rather than play the interface like a piano, would have the advantage. This seems like an intriguing concept to me. To pull it off you need good AI so that you can trust your orders to be executed well.

Current 'RTS' games are 'tactical' in scale. (but yes, they do have 'strategy', for any hard-core RTSers out there!).

But my favorite type of wargame is 'Strategic' in scale. And no one, to my knowledge, has done a 'real-time' game on a 'strategic' scale. This is a market niche we can probably exploit, esp most of the biggest selling wargames have been 'strategic' in scale.

Timing of attacks and synchronization of actions is in the plan. Also things like don't attack unless you think you have better than 2:1 odds. I Hope we'll be able to pull it off Here's a snippet from the web page outlining the overall goal.

quote:

---

In the military area, what is needed is a football-play-type diagram. For instance, "on this front attempt to break through here and here with this many armored divisions, go this far and then hook (shown by arrows indicating motion drawn by player on map) and surround and crush this resulting pocket of the enemy".

---

And a few snippets from the commenting of the Attack class (so far little of it is implemented)

quote:

---

Attack keeps track of the planned attack on a particular square or series of squares. It records units earmarked for the attack (attackers[])and allows for a variety of timing constraints and other conditions (for instance synchronization) for the attack.

---

The idea being you could fire-and-forget your entire attack until something happens. Alternatively the player could ask the AI (General Zorg or whoever) to formulate an attack on the hated Bladzians. If you like its suggestion you can just say "go ahead" or you could modify it on the football-play diagram.

It all hinges on doing a Superlative job with the AI. We are already on our way with the map AI, and I have a setup partly implemented that will allow the AI to simulate an attack based on its knowledge (guess) of enemy dispositions and strength. If the attack is stupid (based on current information) then the AI won't make it.

Wish us Luck, we're gonna need some of it

I read an article once why heavy automation would ruin an RTS. It would be possible to preplan an attack. It would be impossible to preplan a defense. Thus whoever set up his attack first would win, simply because while his attack was managing itself he could be doing other things. Meanwhile the defender would have to analyze the attack and counter manually. This would be too hard. If he managed to survive the attack would have gained a significant advantage because he had free time during the attack. In RTS games the main resource is concentration (mental cycles, clicks, key strokes, screen space, etc..), automation messes this up by making certain actions cheaper than they should be.

Preplanning an attack against a well-entrenched opponent will almost always be disasterous, unless you watch the battle and make changes according to changing circumstances. All plans go to hell in the face of the enemy!

RTS's have completely left out most standard *required* wargame rules, almost all of which benefit the defender. A unit on the move should have half the attack value. Supply. Entrenchment. Fortifications, leadership, training, experience, etc, etc, all will make attacking a fixed position very difficult indeed.

Halving attack values would quite simply ruin RTS games. This would make the build up time before the first attacks enormous. In Starcraft for example attacking and defending are well balanced. You can lauch a successful attack at any time in the game, also any attack can be countered. To destroy this part of the game would ruin it. Also this rule would remove rushing. While rushing isn't particularly fun it is neccessay to maintain strategy in the game, otherwise it would just become a poweringfest devoid of strategy. If someone does a risky build (like expands very early with minimal defense) he should be killable. Likewise it should be easy to execute bad players early. Sometimes I get in a game with a total newbie so I just give him a few tips and move on, it would be boring to play himfor too long. Also in the late game when the map is out of money a defensive advantage could cause a stalemate.

Also the rule would be impossible to implement without territorial rules. If you look at Starcraft there is no territory, well the creep for zerg maybe. RTS games aren't war games, they are something very different. Oh and I did play a game where the atttacker was weaker. The game was no fun (but there were other reasons too, the 50% rule was the final straw)

If you want to read more about RTS theory I recommend reading this article by Zileas, a top SC player:

http://web.mit.edu/tcadwell/www/foundation.html

Glak, within the definition of RTS you're setting out, I think its clear Clash will never be RTS. Perhaps we need to think of another name for what we'd try to do since RTS is already taken. How about Time-Pressure Strategy (TPS)? Now I think it is very worthwhile to try and make a Clash variant into a TPS game after the TBS one is done. It would take very little additional resources, as F Smith says. If the idea is a miserable failure in playtesting we haven't lost much. If it shows promise, we will tweak as needed.

Altho, this is one of my favorite discussions. Glak, perhaps you're just use to 'what is', and can't imagine 'what will be'. RTS games (agreed, bad name!) *are* 'arcade' versions of tactical wargames -- just not very good ones. Starcraft is by far the best, and it leaves a lot of uncovered territory. Just wait -- they'll get there, and you'll love it. In the future, you'll be arguing against anyone changing that model, saying it's perfect!

You seem to think that a 'rush' is good and necessary. I'd say any scenario that can be won by speed alone is a poorly designed game -- I *love* the 50% rule. If you want a game that short, that's fine for you, more power to you. But I think we're trying to build a game here that lasts much longer than you're used to from current RTS's.

It does break down in 2v2 and 3v3 games though. 3v1 rushes in particular are hard to hold off. However if goes the other way in ffa games, rushers never have a chance in them. So in a way that makes protoss stronger because it seems as if they were made for ffa. I guess we can excuse blizzard though, in a game as amazingly complex as SC it is hard to get these things right.

Of course the game is lost upon most people, they play $$$HUNTERZZ$$$$, blood bath and other corrupt maps.

What a let down it would be to get crushed in the tribal days by a rush....

I agree that rushing balances gameplay, in that if someone pursues a strategy which is so long-ranged in nature that he neglects the present, he deserves to die. Also, players should be capable of quickly eliminating newbies.

Of course, the nature of a rush will be very different in this kind of game - in Civ a 'rushing' strategy can take several thousand years of game time to complete.

I think that the 50% rule is good in principle, but a little harsh. I think that a defender should take EXTRA damage if he isn't prepared for the attack in some way, to reflect initiative and surprise.

Some form of entrenchment should be possible and should yield a defensive advantage, but should come at increasing cost in terms of time and resources for larger units. Infantry can dig their own trenches quickly, but a regiment of tanks needs SERIOUS engineering support to set up a decent defensive position.

Multiple entrenchment levels could also be simulated - from sandbag bunkers to concrete layered interconnecting defensive networks akin to the Maginot Line....

Just some thoughts.

It rewards a fast mouse clicker over person that is inexperienced at quickly laying fixed defenses with a mouse. A rush is only possible because current RTS scenarios start players off nearly defenseless. In real-life, the habits learned in an RTS game would make for a lousy general. You never rush your entire army off into a blind attack, that would be suicide.

The actual game is the development of the techs, and the choices made there-in. A rush is an accidental option that only arises from poor scenario design. They can't start you out with a few lousy bunkers? Bizzare. It's like every game of AoE starts with everyone dropped on a tiny planet all alone at *exactly the same time*! AoK is suppose to fix this, with a 'Castles' start option, but that remains to be seen.

Think about it. How good would Basketball be if a team could win in the first quarter? Or what if it were easy to end a game of chess in 5 turns?

Rushing does balance the game, that is undeniable. Say for example two protoss players went against each other. For the sake of argument each player can only choose from three simple strategies: zealot rush, mass dragoons, or carrier rush. Assuming that the mass goon guy and the carrier guy build a little defense (maybe the goon guy gets six zealots and the carrier guy gets four goons) the outcome will be as follows: zealot rush beats carriers (he foolishly didn't build defense early enough), the carrier guy beats the goon guy (he held off the attack long enough to get carriers), and the goon guy beats the rusher.

Also the game is set up so that (in general) each tech level counter the one below it. Thus it is to your advantage to always stay one tech level ahead of your opponent. However if you tech too fast you will get a bad match up and he will overwhelm you.

Similarly the economic model works that way. If you always stay ahead in expansions you will have the advantage. However if you expand too fast you will be spread thin and vulnerable to an attack until you get a return on your investment.

I think JimC has it right, rushing will exist but it will look different. If one civ focuses heavily on economic development it should be attackable by a civ that focuses on military power. Why? Because once the economic civ gets a return on its investment then it is guaranteed victory. Thus there will be no reason to ever do anything but invest in economic development. So you see none of this has anything to do with clicking, maybe in poorly designed games it does. I heard that a lot of the earlier RTS games along with TA (but no one respects TA, I mean only TAers play TA) were rushing games. However I never played them so I won't comment.

Defensive advantages are not needed in general because while the attacker is moving towards the battle field the defender is making more troops. I think in SC it generally takes about a minute to get to the other guy. Marines take 20 seconds to make. So if someone goes barracks on 8 and the other guy goes barracks on 10 the defender will have two more marines than the attacker. He will also have another scv or two. So he will win the battle and come away with an economy 10-20% better. Over time that 10-20% translates into a faster expansion, which doubles scv production, etc..

Also I didn't understand your comment on bunkers. Start with a few bunkers? In general you only need one bunker at any base, any more and you are sacrificing too much mobility in favor of static defense that can easily be torn apart by siege weapony.

Would you like a MP turn system that gave all players 10 minutes ( or 12 hours or every day at midnight; it can be customizabe ) to issue orders -- then it automatically executed them?

Glak:

Imagine a game in which realistic combat rules are used. Defenders can dig in easily for no cost and gain a huge combat advantage immediately -- perhaps each player is even started as a well-defended kingdom. And there are multitudes of players out there, both human and computer (500?), all fighting over thousands of 'production' centers of various types, each with different benefits to a civ, each providing valuable goods and supplies.

Imagine a game in which there is no way to win with a 'rush'. There would not even be such a thing as a 'rush'. It doesn't exist outside of the peculiar rules sets that are StarCraft/AoE/TA/etc. You could 'rush' to be the first to conquer that neighboring neutral tribe and take over the silver mines, but then what?

I think CoC would work well as an RTS, but I think the relation to StarCraft and other current RTS games isn't there, so using examples from them is irrelevent. For example, you can win a FFA game in SC with a rush. CoC seems a much different style game, by including 'wargame' rules like those that F Smith mentioned, a rush would only give you little defense and a lot of units far away with low supplies and moral. This isn't to say that a rush wouldn't be effective for some purposes, it just means that the different modelling in CoC gives the strategy new meaning and new things to consider.

As far as RTS games go, I'm a TA fan myself... never did like SC. I don't suppose anyone else likes TA?

Agreed, as a RTS, CoC would be closer to Caesar 2 or 3 than Starcraft. And you hit it on the head -- a 'rush', as it is called, should have certain dangerous consequences, not least of which is leaving your home undefended before you are fully aware of any possible threats . . .

In TA the resource model is rather simple. You have metal and energy. Metal is used to build and is gathered simply by placing extractor structures on top. Energy is also used to build, but also to power your units weapons, and is gathered by solar / tidal / fusion plants. It works on a constant supply, so you have to balance what you're doing to the current supply, or as many newbies find out, your building grinds to a halt and your units are defenceless. I believe there's a demo over at www.cavedog.com

What's the time scale in TA? Is it purely tactical?

I feel the 'strategy' of a wargame like TA or SC is in the choice and use of military units against other strong forces/defenses.

/*I feel the 'strategy' of a wargame like TA or SC is in the choice and use of military units against other strong forces/defenses.*/
Especially in TA... the game has around 125 units (175 with expansions), so your unit mix is very important.

/* A 'rush' seeks to end the game by killing undefended towns before any military of any significance is built. This is only possible if a scenario starts everyone off undefended. Does TA follow the same 'scenario' conventions? */
Not really. One unique thing about TA is the advent of the Commander unit. You start with it every time, and it's your fastest building unit, as well has having the most powerful gun in the game, the D-Gun (one hit kill). The gun fires in a line, killing anything in its path for a short distance. By careful positioning you can use your commander to turn enemy rushes to rubble. One problem that has occured though is Commander rushing, which is a kamakazie manuver (loss of the commander means loss of game), as well as other tricks using an enemy commander as a bomb (lifting him up and self-destructing the transport), but an experienced player has no problem defending these just by placing a few defences.

In AoE we created a series of multiplayer maps in which each player started out with a hero -- it had much the same effect. If you lost the hero, you lost. But it could stop a rush, big-time.