Traditionally, RTS units are non de-constructible. What I mean is that the actual units themselves, in almost all RTS games I’ve played, live a short ‘0 / 1′ alive/dead existence, with a certain amount of damage points (shown as health-bars) to represent damage in a fairly abstract way. Most RTS games display diminishing health/damage of a given unit with some kind of cute preset animation. For example, in Total Annihilation the units billow an ever greater amount of smoke. Upon actual death they possess a variety of explosion animations to represent their demise, such as breaking apart or full blown explosions with flying debris!
In Supreme Commander we see pretty much the same system but with fancier deaths or damage animations. The experimental units in particular go out with a real bang. I’m going to propose a more modern and importantly, more fun system in terms of actual gameplay mechanics. It is also, I think, a more realistic way of doing things and fits in with my RTS concept.
De-constructible Units.
The case for de-constructible units is such;
- Contributes to gameplay and emergent dynamics of a warfare ’simulation’.
- Adds certain character and depth to individual units.
- Provides intuitive realism and deep tactical and strategic considerations.
The main problems are those of implementation of the concept in a way which is balanced and intuitive to the player. For example, if units are de-constructible, wouldn’t the different shape or form of units’ chassis or body parts play an unfair role in their defense? This is certainly a concern. One would simply build only the unit with the most appropriate physical design, a giant walking shell for example!
Before I propose some possible technical solutions I’d like to talk more about the advantages of such a system (of course at the end of the day gameplay comes down to personal preference and so forth.) The first point I made in favour was that it should contribute significantly to gameplay dynamics and warfare realism. Now, let us suppose we take our army battalion or fleet of ships into battle. In my system each unit could take actual damage. For those perhaps unfamiliar with my RTS concept you might want to look into the way I propose custom units are created in the first place (via re/attachable ‘modules’) and how they ‘grow’ and acquire veterancy over time.
Clearly we would set some limits here. The units are NOT actual real-life miniature simulations, down to every last minute detail. They are not scale models of larger real-life constructions, nor should they be. That would be no fun at all. Nor when I say the game should be a warfare ’simulation’ am I talking about simulation in the sense of, say, a flight simulator. So we use abstraction to represent realistic concepts in a way which is fun and realistic ‘enough’.
Energy-cell / ‘nucleus’ concept
The way to best visualise my system is for you to imagine, just for now, perfectly circular (or spherical!) units. At the core of the unit is its ‘nucleus’ or energy cell. Surrounding the small nucleus is the unit body which can take damage, it is physically malleable - could be cut clean through by lasers, or impacted by a rocket blast leaving a small crater-shaped ’scar’ etc etc. I suppose in technical design terms there would be a specific number of tiny pixels representing the units’ mass (think radius for now) which can be destroyed, regrown, added to etc.
The nucleus or what I call the energy cell is just that, it contains the ‘energy resources’ of the given unit. Think of them perhaps like battery operated robots. Once the energy is depleted the unit is ‘dead’ - in game it becomes a wreckage pile available for reclamation etc. When moving, building, firing weaponry or performing almost any task a unit consumes its core energy. If the outer mass of the unit is penetrated through to the energy cell, the energy will quickly leak out (or wildly ignite/explode?!!) and the unit is effectively ‘dead’. Now, the energy cell of units regenerates fairly quickly over time so units are largely automated but follow natural rules to do with energy use so on. If a unit has depleted its energy it will need to recharge by keeping still, or being repaired by other engineer units with spare energy etc. It would also be progressive in keeping with the style of this RTS concept so that perhaps less energy = slower movement or less firepower proportionately. Supreme Commander uses a similar if far more basic system for aircraft, for example, which must refuel by landing once in a while. They also slow down when forced to fly with low fuel. So this isn’t really such an alien concept, I am just extending it further.
During battle, this system might have interesting consequences. A sudden attack from the north, for example, might leave the northern face of ones fleet badly damaged and would be seen as a priority target for the next attack. Damaged units could be quickly recognized on the battlefield without annoying health bars hovering atop each of them. One could maneuver troops a certain way in order to pick off weaker areas in an enemy battalion. Naturally, a system such as this would need to provide a way to best structure units within a group so as to keep their most damaged side in the least vulnerable position. This is also the reason the unit structural physics must perform in a circular/spherical manner. It makes certain that each side is equally vulnerable to attack, no sticking-out edges (squares, triangles etc). This is not to say units themselves in this system would actually look like 2d circles or 3d spheres! One can imagine units that look just like traditional RTS units whilst the underlying physics operates very differently.
As well simulating troop supplies or ‘morale’ (troops get tired~energy cell depletion) - it is also a practical answer to automated repair and maintenance of units. Units (perhaps operating under the same group hierarchy) could maintain each other by ’sharing’ their individual energy cell supplies, or at least those with repair/engineering modules. Individual units would be able to repair themselves at a high energy cost but it should be slow and better achieved by returning to a nearby base, or to other units with engineering modules etc. Overall we can see a system which more accurately mirrors real troop management and command and emphasizes macromanagement, which is less intense and I think more fun than micro-intense RTS games today.
Stay tuned for part II
I love RTS
Me too, buddy. Me too. I’m trying to build a conceptual model for a next-gen RTS, that’s basically what this blog is about. Stick around and let me know what you think of the ideas from time to time.